Living on HuffingtonPost.com

Connie Bennett: Speak Out Against Ill-Advised Coke-Doctors Partnership

2009-11-06T16:03:21Z

Recently, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)--in a move away from pharmaceutical funding--accepted a "strong six-figure" grant for a new "consumer alliance partnership" with the Coca-Cola Company, the world's largest beverage company, to create content about beverages and sweeteners for its award-winning consumer website, www.FamilyDoctor.org.

The academy--which represented 94,614 family physicians, residents and medical students nationwide as of Dec. 2008--should be ashamed of itself for accepting a six-figure sum from a soda company that sells empty-calorie, sweet drinks--usually with fructose--which numerous peer-reviewed medical studies link to obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, strokes and even premature death.

In my opinion, it's a conflict of interest for the AAFP--whose vision is "to achieve optimal health for everyone"--to allow Coke to "educate" visitors to its website in how nutrient-lacking, obesity-generating beverages can fit into a "healthy" lifestyle.

Furthermore, it's hard to fathom how www.FamilyDoctor.org can offer "credible information on beverages and enable consumers to make informed decisions," as a Coca-Cola spokesperson maintains on the website.

For a doctors' group to take a high six-figure sum from Coke is like accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Big Tobacco to create physician-approved website content that claims smoking cigarettes can be part of a healthy lifestyle.

The AAFP website will likely push Coke's agenda to encourage consumption of sugar-filled beverages, as well as low-calorie or sugar-free drinks containing aspartame, saccharin, sucralose and acesulfame potassium. Research also raises questions about the safety of beverages with artificial sweeteners, with some studies even link to weight gain.

Just as I was posting this, Dr. Douglas Henley, executive vice president and CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians, returned my call to contend, "We don't believe this consumer alliance impugns our integrity."

Dr. Henley insisted that Coke's high six-figure grant will "enhance the content," that "Coke has nothing to do with writing the material" and that the AAFP has set up a "firewall" to prevent any conflict of interest. "...The development of content is evidence-based and not influenced by the funder [Coke]," he insisted.

What's more, Dr. Henley said that when the revamped, more "robust" website is unveiled in January, you'll even see peer-reviewed literature that links sweetened soda to obesity.

"It's a credit to Coca-Cola" that they were still willing to provide funds knowing that the website may contain "content that's not good for some of their products." Suffice it to say that I was stunned by these naive remarks, because how can you bite the hand that feeds you?

The new Coke partnership -- which was announced in early October and challenged here by the nutrition expert Marion Nestle -- was, in part, driven by a desire to decrease "reliance on pharmaceutical funding," AAFP president-elect Lori Heim, M.D. A.A.F.P. of Vass, N.C. explained in a "Weighty Matters" podcast with Dr. Yoni Freedhoff. Dr. Heim asserted that the medical society would have "full editorial control," that the website wouldn't "endorse" any products and that AAFP may refuse other partnerships.

"We have standards," she claimed, noting that companies must demonstrate "a proven record of responsibility." Implying that Coke fit the bill, Dr. Heim contended that www.familydoctor.org would continue to be a "respected site," with "credible scientific material."

Essentially, the doctors' organization is jumping out of bed with Big Pharma to get intimate with Big Soda. It's like swapping one toxic relationship for another and getting cozy with a selfish partner, who's more concerned about the bottom line than Americans' waistlines.

Meanwhile, in mid-October, a group of 22 "distressed and disappointed" physicians, nutritionists and researchers, headed up by the Center for the Science in Public Interest's Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., condemned the Coke-AAFP partnership and urged the medical society "to regain its credibility by rejecting the deal with Coca-Cola." If it declines to do that, the health experts called on the AAFP to support a warning label on caloric sweetened beverages and a federal tax on soft drinks to fund health promotion or health insurance programs.

The open letter of opposition was signed by such esteemed scientists and physicians as Henry Blackburn of the University of Minnesota, George A. Bray of the Louisiana State University, Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute, Joan Gussow of Columbia University, Lisa R. Young of New York University, and Carlos A. Camargo, Jr., Meir Stampfer, Walter Willett, and Grace Wyshak of the Harvard School of Public Health.

"It's a disturbing trend throughout medicine... when medical organizations and researchers accept support from a [company] with a vested financial interest... in a product [such as Coke], drug or device," Dr. Blackburn, a University of Minnesota public health specialist and epidemiology professor, said in a phone interview. This means, he added, that "it's unlikely" that the academy will speak out against soda."

By signing with Coke, the academy's voice "has almost surely been muzzled," Dr. Walter Willett told AP medical reporter Lindsay Tanner.

Since the AAFP has shown no sign of recanting the deal, on Oct. 28, more than 20 "appalled and ashamed" doctors at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez, California, headed by its director William Walker, M.D., protested the AAFP-Coke alliance in a ceremony that was podcast and videotaped. With "great sorrow," Dr. Walker resigned and ripped up his AAFP membership card, which he's been carrying for 25 years.

In his statement, Dr. Walker cited a study by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, which found that 41% of children aged 2 to 11 and 62% of youths aged 12 to 17 drink one or more sugar-sweetened beverages per day," which is the same as "consuming an amazing 39 pounds of sugar each year in sugar-sweetened beverages alone."

To be sure, Coke officials and other opponents may argue that soft drinks aren't solely responsible for our obesity epidemic. They'll also insist that people don't exercise enough and they overeat other unhealthy foods. While that may be true, medical professionals and health experts tell patients and clients that eliminating empty-calorie, sugary drinks (or "liquid sugar," as the CSPI's Dr. Jacobson puts it) is the single fastest, easiest way to lose weight. In addition, research reveals that cutting out or curtailing soda consumption can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

Since, to date, the American Academy of Family Physicians hasn't reneged on its Coke partnership, we urge:

(1) that health advocates, scientists and nutritionists, as well as AAFP members, call on the medical group to return the Coke money and dissolve its relationship with the soda giant;
(2) that AAFP members immediately resign and stay at arm's length until the organization isn't intimate with Coke anymore;
(3) that the AAFP leadership apologize to its members and all Americans for this misguided move to partner with Coke;
(4) that consumers boycott the AAFP www.FamilyDoctor.org website and search elsewhere for credible information; and
(5) that the AAFP urge visitors to its website to limit or eliminate consumption of soft drinks--both sugar-sweetened and sugar-free--to prevent obesity and maintain good health.

We invite all health advocates and AAFP members around the country to join with us as we promote optimal health for all Americans. We also encourage supporters to enter the discussion at the new Facebook group, "End the AAFP and Coca-Cola Collaboration," which was formed by Lenny Lesser, MD, a family-medicine trained, nutrition researcher at UCLA, and to speak out on the two Facebook pages -- either this AAFP Facebook page or this one.

Susan Smalley, Ph.D.: Creating Gender Equality In The 21st Century

2009-11-06T15:35:37Z

I grew up in the 60s in Midwest America. It was a time of change in the U.S. when a new sweep at gender equality crossed our nation. I was a child before the women's movement and a woman in its aftermath. Women gained many newfound freedoms; but what if I had been born in another era or another country where gender equality is far from a basic human right.

Nichlas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn's recent book "Half the Sky" is a call of awakening for all men and women to take action and right the wrongs existing in the world today because of gender inequality.

As they so clearly point out, this is not a women's rights issue; it is an issue of human rights.

The facts are startling and too hard to forget.

A conservative estimate is that 3 million women and girls are slaves (some put the number higher than 10 million).

It is estimated that 2 million girls disappear a year due to gender discrimination (deaths due to things like withholding vaccinations, not seeking medical care, etc. because the child is a girl).

More girls have been killed in the last fifty years because they were girls than all men were killed in battle in the 20th century.

Burning a girl or woman (with kerosene or acid) due to disobedience occurs once every two hours.

It's hard to 'wrap my head' around these numbers while going to the grocery, working at the university and doing my day to day routines knowing that just because someone is female she is being raped, burned, or killed -- within cultures that see it as acceptable.

But awakenings can happen -- it did for people in America in the 60s and it can for people world-wide. In my own short lifetime, I've seen cultural beliefs change radically. Strongly held beliefs of 'better than/less than' because of color or gender have virtually been eradicated (like polio) in less than three generations.

Cultural change happens when people speak out. Kristof and WuDunn's book helps by telling the stories of those affected by gender inequality. In the aftermath of reading their book, I saw a television special on 'sexual slavery' in America (it is not only happening beyond our borders), and I read the play 'Ruined' by Pulitzer Prize winning author Lynn Nottage re-telling the horrors for women and girls in the Congo. Talking, writing, and sharing the stories of those affected by gender inequality is a way for an awakening to spread.

The stories remind me of the fallacy of the statement "Ignorance is Bliss". As we wake up to the pain and suffering related to the ignorance of gender inequality, we may notice how easy it is to be 'ignorant' and pretend it is happening somewhere 'over there'. That kind of bliss pales in comparison to the bliss arising in the power of knowledge.

It is that kind of power that can change the world.

I think of girls and women who can't imagine a different kind of world, like many women here in the U.S. before the women's movement. The status quo is 'just the way it is'. Those that do think otherwise in countries of extreme gender inequality do not have a means of being heard. But we can listen, and our voices can make their way across oceans, country boundaries, and illiteracy.

A single voice becomes a crescendo when it arises in unison with others. And voices in unison can create a world where gender inequality no longer exists.

For information, see Kristof and WuDunn: Half the Sky (2009) or visit Equality Now

Maria Rodale: How to Get Your Kids to Read

2009-11-06T15:09:43Z

It occurs to me that I might have found the secret formula for getting kids to read. While the media and teachers complain that kids don't read anymore, I can't get my kids to stop. Even Lucia, who is too young to read, is a voracious reader. I jokingly yell at Eve (age 12), "How many times do I have to tell you to STOP reading!" She would read while walking and eating if we would let her. And not only is Maya (age 27) a published romance novelist, but she's about to get her master's degree in literary history, and has read the works of Proust...all of them.

So what's the secret?

1. Be a reading role model. Thanks to mirror neurons in the human brain, our kids will mimic whatever we do. So if we spend a lot of time reading, they will spend a lot of time reading. It doesn't matter whether it's People magazine, romance novels, or literary fiction--the act of reading in front of our kids makes them want to read. So if you want your kids to read, read in front of them. Read newspapers, magazines, books, and cereal boxes.

2. Buy books like candy. When we go food shopping, we always end up in the book and magazine aisle (in fact, that is our "home base" if anyone gets lost). It's our "reward" for completing our chore. Everyone gets to buy a book or a magazine, and I don't judge too harshly what anyone picks. For the little one, it keeps her occupied during the checkout process. If Eve can't find a good book since she has read all of them already, I let her buy those teen celebrity magazines--after all, we are in the magazine business, and I want to encourage future magazine readers! But a fresh, new book is just as exciting as a candy bar, is much better for you, and lasts a hell of a lot longer.

3. Indulge their pleasures. My husband isn't a big reader--unless it comes to sports stuff. It's not my cup of tea, but if that's what gets him reading, then I'm all for it. Eve has read the whole Twilight series--I think about nine times. That's OK with me. Lucia likes Thomas the Tank Engine, even though she's a girl. But she also loves the Disney Princesses. The great thing about books is that there is something for everyone, and for every pleasure. Anytime people use book preferences to pass moral judgment, I get angry...the whole idea that certain books are good and others are bad--or that people should only read "literary" books--is what gives reading a bad name all together.

4. Read aloud. Lou has always read to Eve before bed--they've done Narnia and The Hobbit--and he has ultimate patience reading to Lucia, over and over. My favorite read-aloud story is from a time when Eve came down with pneumonia. One of my favorite books growing up was the Little House on the Prairie series. I was devastated that Maya never wanted to read them, and Eve was showing no desire to read them either. So, while she was captive in bed, I read Eve the first book out loud. Not only was it fun for me--I had forgotten how funny and interesting the story was--but Eve was hooked, too. By the time she went back to school, she had read the whole series. Recently, on a long car trip, I read aloud some of the diary of Alexander von Humboldt's journey to South America in the early 1800s. It was utterly remarkable how modern his voice sounded, and how fascinating his insights were. I knew no one else would ever read it on their own, but by reading it aloud to a captive audience, I got to share a little bit of my pleasure with them.

5. Make them come alive. We have been to Louisa May Alcott's house in Concord, Massachusetts, twice, and have swum in Walden Pond. Next summer we are visiting the Laura Ingalls Wilder homestead museum in Iowa. I've dragged my whole family to Lady Murasaki's 1,000-year-old home on a backstreet in Kyoto, Japan, to see the Tale of Genji world she created in the first novel ever written. Maya and I and a dear friend of mine went on a trip to England and visited some of our favorite sites from Regency romance novels. If there is a movie or documentary about a writer, or a favorite book, we watch it, and probably much to the annoyance of my family, I talk about it. (I tried to force my kids to watch the Botany of Desire documentary on PBS, but only Lucia stayed awake for the whole thing). We visit historical sites that we have read about (for Lou, that involves sports stadiums--thankfully, he has other friends he takes with him). Reading makes the world come alive in your head in a whole new way. Anytime that can be reinforced with real-life experience, it's a great thing.

6. Have reading parties in bed. Speaking of great things...I love to read in bed. I get cranky when my kids want to stay up and all I want to do is go to bed and read. So I came up with the idea of having reading parties in bed. They LOVE it. We all get in our pajamas and brush our teeth and then meet in my big bed to read until we can't keep our eyes open anymore. Then, it's a much easier process to get them from my bed into theirs without a fuss. We don't do it every night, so it keeps it special, but we do it at least once a week, and I have never, ever, heard either of them say they didn't want to come to a reading party in my bed...but sorry, only my girls are invited!

For more from Maria Rodale, go to www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com.

Dana Ullman: The Amazing Story Of Charles Darwin And His Homeopathic Doctor

2009-11-06T14:04:47Z

SUMMARY:

In early 1849, Charles Darwin was so ill that he was unable to work one of every three days, and after having various serious symptoms for two to twelve years, he wrote to a friend that he was dying. He sought treatment from Dr. James Manby Gully, a medical doctor who used water cure (hydrotherapy) and homeopathic medicines. Despite being highly skeptical of these treatments, he experienced a dramatic improvement in his health. He grew to appreciate water cure, but he remained skeptical of homeopathy, even though his own later experiments on insectivore plants using what can be described as homeopathic doses of ammonia salts surprised and shocked him with their significant biological effect. It is impossible to know if Charles Darwin would have survived long enough to have written his seminal book in 1859, published 10 years after Dr. Gully’s treatment. We may all have to thank the water cure and homeopathic treatment provided by Dr. Gully for Darwin’s survival.

NOTE: The article published here is a summary of a more detailed article that was just published in a medical journal published by Oxford University Press, called eCAM (which stands for “Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine"). To see this entire article, go to: http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/nep168?ijkey=nGCDiG4UTVh6zBx&keytype=ref. Readers will find that the majority of the evidence here is drawn directly from Charles Darwin’s own personal letters.

This year, 2009, is an auspicious year for appreciators of Charles Darwin. It is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin (1809–1882), and November 24, 2009, is the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work, On the Origin of Species (1859).

Although much has been written about Charles Darwin, few people today know that, according to Darwin’s own letters, it is uncertain that he would have lived long enough to have written this seminal scientific work in 1859 if he had not received treatment 10 years earlier from Dr. Gully.

After graduating from Cambridge in 1831, he began what became a five-year journey on the HMS Beagle surveying the coast of South America. On board the ship, Darwin suffered from seasickness, and in October 1833, he caught a fever in Argentina. In July 1834, while returning from the Andes down to the coast of Chile, he fell so ill that he spent a month in bed.

The Serious Illness and Near Death of Charles Darwin

From 1837 on, Darwin was frequently incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, heart palpitations, and trembling. Orthodox physicians of Darwin’s day had no idea what his problem was, and all of their treatments simply made him worse.[1]

In 1847, Darwin’s illness worsened. He again experienced frequent episodes of vomiting and weakness, but he now was also experiencing fainting spells and seeing spots in front of his eyes. In March, 1849, he was so sick that he thought he was dying. Darwin wrote to his good friend, J.D. Hooker, an English botanist, that he was “unable to do anything one day out of three and am altogether too dispirited to write to you or to do anything but what I was compelled. I thought I was rapidly going the way of all flesh."[2]

It is indeed impossible to say that Charles Darwin would have been healthy enough to live another 10 years, let alone to work as diligently on the body of work that his seminal book required for its publication in 1859 unless some type of effective treatment significantly improved his health. Lucky for all of humanity, Charles Darwin sought out a different type of medical care and experienced a profound improvement in his health.

Dr. James Manby Gully: Homeopath and Hydrotherapist

The captain of the HMS Beagle, Capt. Sullivan, initially told Darwin about a different type of medical treatment provided by Dr. James Manby Gully (1808–1883), and this recommendation was taken more seriously when one of his cousins, William Darwin Fox, told Darwin that two friends had benefited greatly from Gully’s care. Dr. Gully, a medical graduate of the University of Edinburgh, was strongly critical of the use of drugs of that era. Gully was particularly critical of polypharmacy,[3] the common and unscientific practice of using multiple drugs concurrently for a patient, a practice that continues today. Gully’s medical practice did not simply provide water cure and dietary advice; he also prescribed homeopathic medicines and recommended medical clairvoyant readings. In 1846, he had authored a popular book entitled Water Cure in Chronic Disease[4] that Darwin was known to have read.

Darwin decided to go to see Dr. Gully with his wife, Emma, and their seven children.[5] Dr. Gully and his health spa were situated in Malvern (just southwest of Birmingham), around 150 miles from the Darwins’ home.

Virtually every biography of Charles Darwin refers to his health problems and acknowledges that the one physician who provided an effective treatment for him was Dr. Gully. However, most of these biographies make reference to Dr. Gully as a “hydrotherapist,” and few mention that he was a homeopathic physician.

After being at Dr. Gully’s spa for just nine days, Darwin lamented that Gully had prescribed homeopathic medicine to him: “I grieve to say that Dr. Gully gives me homeopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.” Darwin continued: “I like Dr. Gully much—he is certainly an able man”[6] The fact that Darwin saw Gully as being “able” was still not enough to convince him that homeopathic medicines were effective.

In 1848, Dr. Gully became a formal member of the British Society of Homeopathy,[7] and he maintained his membership through at least 1871.[8] In subsequent editions of his book, his favorable experiences with homeopathy led him to become a strong advocate for the power of homeopathic medicines in treating people with chronic diseases.

Gully’s observation that the use of concurrent treatment of water cure and homeopathic medicine seems to echo the experiences of naturopathic physicians who have been known to use these treatments together along with nutritional advice since the 19th century.

And even though Darwin was extremely skeptical, just two days later (March 30, 1849) Darwin acknowledged, “I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated.”[9] After eight days a skin eruption broke out all over Darwin’s legs, and he was actually pleased to experience this problem because he had previously observed that his physical and mental health improved noticeably after having skin eruptions.[10] He went a month without vomiting, a very rare experience for him, and even gained some weight. One day he surprised himself by being able to walk seven miles. He wrote to a friend, “I am turning into a mere walking & eating machine.”[11]

After just a month of treatment, Charles had to admit that Gully’s treatments were not quackery after all. After sixteen weeks, he felt like a new man, and by June he was able to go home to resume his important work. Darwin actually wrote that he was “of almost perfect health.”[12]

Despite Darwin’s greatly improved health, he never publicly attributed any benefits directly to homeopathy. However, one must also realize that even though homeopathy achieved impressive popularity among British royalty, numerous literary greats, and many of the rich and powerful at that time, there was incredible animosity to it from orthodox physicians and scientists. Because Darwin was just beginning to propose his own new ideas about evolution, it would have been professional suicide to broadcast his positive experiences with homeopathy. Having to defend homeopathy would have damaged his credibility among his colleagues who were extremely antagonistic to this emerging medical specialty.

Darwin occasionally experienced relapses of digestive and skin symptoms over the years, so he returned to Dr. Gully’s clinic for more treatments, staying two to eight weeks. Although Darwin complained during his first visit that he experienced “complete stagnation of the mind,” he didn’t have similar problems during later visits to Gully’s clinic and spa. In fact, he asserted that his mind was alert and that his scientific writing was progressing well.[13]

He lived thirty-three more years, and it is surprising and confusing that the story of Darwin’s successful experiences with hydrotherapy and homeopathy has not become an integral part of the history of science and medicine today. After significant improvement in his persistent nausea and vomiting, frequent fainting spells, spots before his eyes, incapacitating stomach pains, severe fatigue, widespread boils, nerve-wrecking tremors and heart palpitations, he was considerably more able to do his seminal scientific work.

Some other people of significant notoriety who benefited from Dr. Gully’s care include Charles Dickens (novelist and writer), Alfred, Lord Tennyson (poet), Florence Nightingale (famed nurse), George Eliot (British novelist), Thomas Carlyle (Scottish essayist, satirist, and historian), John Ruskin (art critic and social critic), Edward Bulwer-Lytton (British novelist, playwright, and politician), Thomas Babington Macaulay (first Baron Macaulay, poet and politician), and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce.[14] Further, three prime ministers sought Dr. Gully’s care, including William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli, and George Hamilton-Gordon, as well as Queen Victoria herself. Hamilton-Gordon described Dr. Gully as “the most gifted physician of the age.”[15]

Dr. Gully was not the only homeopathic physician to provide clinical care to cultural elite of the 19th century. In fact, many of the leading politicians, clergy, literary greats, musical geniuses, royalty and wealthy classes were known patients and even advocates of homeopathy.[16]

Although there is no evidence that Darwin knew that so many other well known “cultural heroes” sought the care of Dr. Gully, Darwin was pleased to hear when other people he knew received treatment from Gully. When his second cousin, William Darwin Fox, the man who introduced Darwin to entomology and to Dr. Gully, had seen the doctor, Darwin expected him to have benefited from water cure and to be much stronger.[17] When one considers that Darwin had previously received much medical care without positive results, Darwin’s letter to Fox on December 7, 1855, confirmed a different experience with Dr. Gully: “Dr. Gully did me much good” (his emphasis).

Darwin’s Continued Water Cure and Homeopathic Treatment

There is a long history of antagonism to homeopathic medicine from conventional physicians and their organizations. There is also a history of antagonism to water cure,[18] though while homeopathy has persisted internationally as a minority school of thought and practice,[19],[20],[21] water cure as a medical treatment for chronic ailments has become marginalized or is hardly utilized today except by a minority of naturopathic physicians.

Darwin and many of his biographers seemed to have highlighted “water cure” as Gully’s effective treatment because they simply could not believe that homeopathic medicines could provide any benefit. However, one must wonder if hydrotherapy alone could have provided these significant health benefits, especially in the first week of treatment that Darwin experienced. What is additionally intriguing about this story of Darwin is that it confirms an ultimately essential observation of truly effective healing methods: that they can and will be effective whether or not the person believes they will work.

Hardened skeptics insist that homeopathic treatment could not have helped Darwin (or anyone) and suggest that hydrotherapy must have been the method of therapeutic benefit. And yet, few orthodox physicians of that day or today would even consider using hydrotherapy for people with complex disease processes.

When Dr. Gully retired from his full-time practice in Malvern in the late 1850s, he chose Dr. James Smith Ayerst (1824–1884) as his replacement. Not surprisingly, Ayerst was also a homeopathic physician. He served as assistant surgeon in the Royal Navy, was physician to Great Malvern, Worcestershire, ran a hydropathic establishment at Old Well House, Malvern Wells in conjunction with that of Dr. Gully, and later, practiced homeopathy and hygienics in Torquay, Devon.[22]

Darwin’s wife Emma wrote to W. Darwin Fox: “We like Dr. Ayerst, tho’ he has not the influence of Dr. Gully. Dr. G. it is hopeless to try to see tho’ I must say he has been to see Ch. [Charles] twice & he quite approves of his treatment.”[23] Darwin visited other hydrotherapy spas as well. In 1857 and 1859 he visited Moor Park, run by Edward Wickstead Lane, MD, a physician and hydrotherapist (not a homeopath). And perhaps not by happenstance, Darwin’s famed book On the Origin of Species was at the printing press, while he was at Ilkley Wells, a spa operated by Edmund Smith, MD, another homeopathic physician.[24]

On March 5, 1863, Darwin wrote a letter to J. D. Hooker (a botanist), noting: “A good severe fit of Eczema would do me good, and I have a touch this morning & consequently feel a little alive.”[25] On this same day, he wrote his cousin W. Darwin Fox: “I am having an attack of Eczema on my face, which does me as much good as Gout does others.”[26]

What is interesting here is that Darwin was either taught or learned from his own experience a common observation in homeopathy: that symptoms on the skin or in the extremities (the symptoms of gout manifest in the big toe) are important externalizations of the disease process that should not be suppressed through conventional drugs. Because homeopaths and other advocates of natural medicine recognize the “wisdom of the body,” symptoms, even acute and painful ones, are ways that the body is working to push out and externalize internal pathology.

Darwin’s Survival of the Shrewdest

Despite Darwin’s personal experiences and significant successes as a homeopathic patient, he never publicly acknowledged the benefits he received. And despite his own experiments on plants using homeopathic doses (these amazing experiments are discussed in detail in my article published in Oxford University Press’ journal, eCAM), he never used the word “homeopathic” in his public writings. Although these actions may seem surprising, Darwin’s decision to avoid reference to homeopathy was a shrewd part of his own survival strategy, and as true expert on evolution, Darwin knew the importance of survival of his terrestrial body and of his ideas.

Ultimately, even though Charles Darwin had a long-time skepticism of homeopathic medicine, his life and health seems to have been impacted by it, and he engaged in experimentation that verified the power of extremely small doses on plants. Further, he was found to express appreciation for the contributions to science that select homeopathic physicians were known to provide.

2009 is the year in which we honor Charles Darwin’s 200th anniversary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal book. When commemorating the many vital contributions that Charles Darwin made to science, we should not ignore the therapeutic contributions that allowed Darwin to live beyond his own life expectations and that played an important role in improving his physical and mental health.

[For a more detailed review of Darwin’s experiences with homeopathy and homeopathic doctors, see the above referenced article that was published in a medical journal. For people who are interested in other personal experiences with homeopathic medicines by other famous and internationally renowned physicians and scientists, see my most recent book, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. This book includes the experiences with homeopathic medicines by Sir William Osler (the “father of modern medicine”), Emil Adolph von Behring (the “father of immunology”), Harold Randall Griffith, MD (the “father of modern anesthesia”), Charles Frederick Menninger, MD (founder of the Menninger Clinic), C. Everett Koop, MD (former U.S. Surgeon General), Brian Josephson, PhD (Cambridge professor and Nobel Laureate), amongst many others. This book also describes similar experiences by 11 U.S. Presidents and numerous other world leaders, six popes and numerous leading spiritual leaders, as well as world-class literary greats, corporate leaders, women’s rights leaders, monarchs, sports superstars, musical geniuses, and television and film stars. Although skeptics of homeopathy tend to minimize personal experiences from patients, the patients in THIS book are from many of the most respected cultural heroes of the past 200 years. If people want to know what these amazing people did in their life to help them achieve the highest level of human performance, then perhaps their experiences with and understandings of homeopathy may shed light in part on how they did so.]

REFERENCES:

[1] Recently, some scientists have speculated that Darwin suffered from systemic lactose intolerance (Campbell, AK, and Matthews, SB. Darwin’s illness revealed, Postgraduate Medicine Journal, 2005, 81:248–251.), but this remains speculation and may at best represent only one aspect of a more complex disease syndrome.

[2] Darwin correspondence project. Letter 1236 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., 28 Mar 1849. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1236.html

[3] Gully, James Manby. Water Cure in Chronic Disease. London: John Churchill, 1846, 46.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Keynes, R. Darwin: His Daughter and Human Evolution. New York: Riverhead, 2002.

[6] Darwin correspondence project. Letter 1234 — Darwin, C. R. to Darwin, S. E., [19 Mar 1849] http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1234.html

[7] Atkin, G. The British and Foreign Homœopathic Medical Directory and Record. London: Aylott, 1853, 45.

[8] Homoeopathic Directory of Great Britain and Ireland and Annual

Abstract of the Homoeopathic Literature. London: Harry Turner, 1871, 55. http://books.google.com/books/pdf/homeopathic_medical_directory_of_great_b.pdf?id=H94NAAAAQAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U2vjPFZP4LlTreQpE2HDSkra0mnXw&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0

[9] Burkhardt, F., ed. Charles Darwin’s Letters: A Selection (1825–1859). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 107.

[10] Homeopaths have consistently observed a similar phenomenon, called “Hering’s Law of Cure,” whereby patients experience an “externalization” of an internal illness. Externalizations are an important part of the healing process. Sadly, however, some patients who seek conventional medical care receive treatment to suppress these skin symptoms, pushing them back into the body and worsening the person’s overall health.

[11] Quammen, D. The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution. New York: WW Norton, 2006, 112.

[12] Burkhardt, 1996, 108.

[13] Quammen, 113.

[14] Desmond, A., Moore, J. Darwin. New York: Warner, 1992, 363.

[15] Ruddick, J. Death at the priory: sex, love and murder in Victorian England. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2001, 2.

[16] Ullman, D, 2007.

[17] Burkhardt, F., Smith, S. (eds.). The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, vol VI, 346.

[18] Bradley J, and Depree M. A shadow of orthodoxy? an epistemology of British hydropathy, 1840–1858, Medical History, 2003, 47:173–194.

[19] Bellavite P, Conforti A, Piasere V, and Ortolani R. Immunology and homeopathy. 1. historical background. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., December 2005; 2: 441 - 452.

[20] Bellavite P, Conforti A, Piasere V, and Ortolani R. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. clinical studies—part 1. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., September 2006; 3: 293-301.

[21] Bellavite P, Conforti A, Piasere V, and Ortolani R. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. clinical studies—part 2. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., December 2006; 3: 397-409.

[22] Darwin’s Correspondence Project. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/namedefs/namedef-200.html

[23] Burkhardt, 1985, XI, 643.

[24] Burkhardt, 1985, XI, 361.

[25] Burkhardt, 1985, XI, 200.

[26] Burkhardt, 1985, XI, 255.

<img src="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/109882/original.jpg" align="right" border="0">

Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of <a href="http://www.homeopathic.com">www.homeopathic.com</a>. He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Everybodys-homeopathic-medicines-Stephen-Cummings/dp/0874778433/ref=pd_sim_b_1">Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines</a></em>. His most recent book is, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Homeopathic-Revolution-Famous-Cultural-Homeopathy/dp/1556436718/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254899596&sr=8-1-spell">The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy</a></em>. Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.

Jay Michaelson: An Introduction To Kabbalah, Part 4: Kabbalah As A Spiritual Practice

2009-11-06T14:04:40Z

Kabbalah is a centuries-old body of literature, but for those who study it today -- whether in its classical form or contemporary ones -- it is not simply read, like a novel or a blog. Rather, like yoga or meditation, there's a perception that Kabbalah is meant to do something: calm you down, open your mind, give you the secrets of the universe, whatever. This is the fundamental aspect of spiritual practice -- that it does something, and transforms the self in an important way.

While this exact notion of practice is somewhat foreign to Kabbalah, if we were to view Kabbalah as a spiritual practice, how would it work? We've explored over the past three weeks what Kabbalah is, how it conceives the basic question of our existence, and how it answers that question in three distinct ways. But before moving on, it makes sense to ask: what's the point? What does Kabbalah do for us as human beings?

Let's start with a basic premise that, ordinarily, each of us is only perceiving a small sliver of our environment at any moment. Scientifically, and intuitively, we know this to be true. If our minds did not filter out perceptions deemed to be extraneous, we would be flooded with useless sensory input and unable to do anything. We would be like infants. Thus, our minds develop to screen out what is irrelevant, and organize perceptual information in ways which, experience has taught us, work.

And yet, as we all know, sometimes we screen out the important stuff -- love, wonder, joy -- and let through the garbage. We're obsessed with mental junk food (click that link -- I dare you!), and we are evolutionarily wired to get stressed over things which we know are ultimately not important but which, in the moment, seem to threaten the self. Without these instincts of stress and self-preservation, our ancestors would've been eaten by wolves. Today, they give us road rage. Such is the conundrum of being human.

Many forms of spiritual practice serve as a counterbalance to these necessary but suffering-causing instincts. Meditation, for example, allows one to observe the mind more clearly; to relax; to become better attuned to feelings, thoughts, and bodily sensations so that one isn't quite as reactive. Yoga untangles the body and aligns the soul. Traditional religion reminds us of important values, and (when it works) demands that we live up to them.

And Kabbalah? Recall that the word Kabbalah means "receiving." Though historically this word refers to Kabbalah being a "received" tradition, we might also say that Kabbalah enables the "receiving" of more and more of reality, with more and more depth and sensitivity. Let's see how this works, in each of its three streams.

1. Theosophical Kabbalah

Theosophical Kabbalah helps practitioners "receive" more and more of reality by closely attuning them to the depth and breadth of it -- in particular, the symbolic and energetic structures of that reality, in text and in life. Beginning with the ten "sefirot," which we'll explore next week, theosophical Kabbalah describes countless physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual symbols, correspondences, and relationships.

As one learns these symbols, one deepens one's vocabulary of experience, and becomes more and more attuned to the minute fluctuations of it. What today might be called "energetic shifts" are, in Kabbalistic parlance, minute transformations in the structure of experience itself. Even the most ordinary of moments gives birth to endless networks of associations, levels of understanding, and hidden structures. If you really immerse yourself in theosophical Kabbalah, learning the Zohar, coming to know its symbols, you will discover for yourself that the chains of associations begin to flow very easily. You can "jam" with the Zohar the way a jazz musician jams on a motif in a composition. You can feel the interplay of energies (and I use this term very loosely) in your lived experience. And you gradually begin to open up, deepen, and receive.

It works -- but the it does take a lot of learning and effort to test it out for yourself. Theosophical Kabbalah is not like basic meditation, which anyone can pick up with just a few days of practice. It exists within an elaborate context of symbols, language, and religious structures, which is one reason it is often reserved for advanced students. Many spiritual seekers today are convinced that any spiritual path can be learned quickly, in one's spare time, and in English. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. You can learn Kabbalistic symbols, acquaint yourself with its core truths, and deepen your appreciation for life through some of its ideas. But make no mistake: the deeper work takes a lot of time.

2. Prophetic Kabbalah

Prophetic Kabbalah (sometimes called "ecstatic Kabbalah") has a more familiar, and accessible, path to "receiving": meditation. The precise techniques of Abulafia and his students do depend on the Hebrew language, but I've found that they can be transposed into English fairly easily. What those techniques do is loosen the grip of thought, just like insight meditation. Their method, though, is very different: they scramble the mind, a bit like Zen, and unchain the subconscious, a bit like some forms of psychoanalysis. With free association, letter permutation, and many other techniques, the practices of prophetic Kabbalah scramble up the thinking mind, enabling more direct perception of reality.

Just from this short description, you can see how different the methods of prophetic Kabbalah are from those of theosophical Kabbalah. Prophetic, or ecstatic, practice does not fine-tune the senses to the minute fluctuations of the sefirot; it shakes up the mind until it can see reality directly. Now, prophetic Kabbalah does still work with the language and topics of Kabbalah -- sefirot, letters of the alphabet, Divine names, and so on. However, it uses those resources to engender a mystical experience.

It, too, works, though it, too, takes a lot of practice. You can taste the fruits of ecstatic Kabbalah fairly quickly if you devote even a single night to it -- but you do need to devote the whole night, permuting letters and allowing the mind to free itself up. Critically (as described in the prophetic Kabbalah section), the point is not to get high; it's to receive insights. You will, if you do the practices, get high -- by which I mean, you will attain an altered mind-state that will hopefully be fascinating and delightful for you. (It may also be frightening, if you have fears or insecurities that arise too strongly.) But to just drift along in the altered mindstate, blissing out, is to miss the point. There are fruits to this practice, "messages" that seem to come from outside, or from deep inside -- which are really the same place. It will be obvious to you how Abulafia would understand these messages as prophecy from God. Whether you see them that way, or see them only as your deepest self speaking to you -- well, that depends on your theology. But don't ignore them; they're part of what you're there to receive.

3. Practical Kabbalah

Finally, practical Kabbalah also has its path to "receiving." Returning to the basic assumption at the top of this page -- there is more than what we usually perceive -- practical Kabbalah aims to attune us to specific "frequencies" (again, a term used loosely and metaphorically) that we ordinarily tune out. What is magic, really, but a tapping into energies and potencies we normally ignore? It's easy to say, from a position of doubt, that these potencies are nonsense, that we don't believe in magic. But without direct experience, how do you really know? Because there are charlatans on television? Because there's been no "scientific" study of it? Well, how could scientific studies work, when the intentions of the participants (there should not be any observers) are what determine the outcome?

I'm not saying you should believe in magic. In fact, I'm saying the opposite, that you shouldn't believe in anything. But that includes your own preconceptions. Believe nothing. Experience everything.

On the path of practical Kabbalah, practitioners attempt to discover, and use, aspects of the world which we don't yet understand. Some of it, undoubtedly, is psychosomatism. And some of it is probably hogwash. But, in my experience, some of it is real -- not necessarily explicable, but practically indubitable. What one learns, when one's preconceptions about the world are shaken in this way, is that there is more to receive than we ever imagined. There are layers of reality, energies of reality, that are out there, but of which we are not ordinarily aware. So practical Kabbalah, too, enables us to receive more.

These ways of receiving are experiential, and, as a result, my review of them accentuates some aspects of the Kabbalah at the expense of others. There are some who would say that Kabbalah is entirely a textual phenomenon, and that to talk of experience at all is a mistake. But the Kabbalists themselves describe experiences -- not always in the classic "mystical testimony" form, but in various ways in different sources. And I think that if we do not involve the experiential element in our own learning, we are reading recipes instead of tasting the meal. Is that really a deep knowledge of truth?

See you next week.

Read The Full Series: An Introduction To Kabbalah

Part 1: What Is Kabbalah?

Part 2: God Does Not Exist, God Is Existence Itself

Part 3: 3 Answers To The Ultimate Question

Robert Slayton: Parking Abuse and the Disabled

2009-11-06T05:28:32Z

If you're disabled, and you can't find a parking spot, it may not be because the number of crips in your area has increased. Instead, there is plenty of evidence that placard fraud, the illegal use of handicapped parking permits, is on a steep upward slope.

There are two forms of this kind of abuse. The first, and much more common form, involves obtaining a legitimate placard, when there is no disability. According to a recent article in the New York Times, in California, with roughly 25 million drivers, there are 2.5 million permits; this is triple the number from fifteen years ago. While most of those requests are legal and based on real health issues, it seems unlikely that the number of folks with sci or other conditions has actually ballooned to that extent. The website handicappedfraud.org carries the following story: "My Grandfather has a blue placard issued from his Doctor. My Grandfather suffers from Macular Degeneration, is 80% blind, has dementia, and is barely mobile with the use of a walker. While driving my Grandfather to the hospital, we approached the bank of handicapped parking spaces. Thankfully, I could see there was a single space left. As I approached, a snazzy red Corvette zipped into the handicapped parking space, and the woman rummaged in her glove box - pulling out a placard and hanging it on her rearview mirror. She jumped out of the car, doing a quick glance around and went quickly into the Hospital."

How is this possible? It turns out that it is fairly easy to get a placard, with medical necessity being only a small part of the determining factor. First of all, just about everyone in a clinic can sign the forms. I thought only doctors could perform this certification, but signatures from nurse practitioners and midwives are allowed, and even the John Hancock from a chiropractor has worked. There is also the problem that occurs when a practitioner signs on when the condition is only temporary. Someone has a turned ankle, for example, obtains disability status, and then uses that for five years, long after the injury has healed.

After that, we get into the area of illegal fraud. It turns out that there is a thriving market in false placards, like transit papers in Casablanca. In the last year in San Francisco, for example, with 55,000 placards extant, 2,000 folks were arrested for fraudulent use of one sort or another, including counterfeiting of the blue plastic devices we hang on our rear view mirrors. Meanwhile, in Sacramento, it seems that the state capitol is often awash in cars with disabled permits, with no protest by ADAPT in sight. When Donald Shoup, a UCLA parking maven asked a local cop his estimate of how many placards were false, the law enforcement officer handily replied, "All of them." In all fairness, the city has established a task force to crack down on this kind of abuse.

So what can the legitimate, and angry, disabled citizen do? The easiest solution is one I practice all the time. My car has a ramp, and needs extra space when it's extended so I can get my wheelchair out. If there's no blue zone available, I straddle two spaces so I can reserve room to get in and out. I try and park further back, where there's open areas (and so it's less likely that some fool tries to block me in), but if I have to lock up several spots, that's the price the mall pays for my business. And for not having enough accessible parking.

After that we can start getting rough. The website mentioned above has a process for reporting violators. I have bookmarked it, and plan to use it. California has lost so much revenue--people using placards instead of paying the meter--they just enacted a law with fines of up to $1,000 for repeat offenders of this kind of fraud. Personally, I would increase the penalty to permanent loss of one's driver's license. That might have an impact.

And then there's personal confrontation. Allen Rucker, in his brilliant book, The Best Seat in the House, tells the delicious story of someone who cut him off for a handicapped spot, despite the absence of any disability, then verbally attacked Rucker when he tried to explain the offense. The author called the authorities and enjoyed the sight of the idiot being cuffed and hauled off.

We can't all be that lucky, but it seems past time for society to deal with this issue. If nothing else, widespread publicity should make it clear to every American that this kind of practice is rotten to the core.

Dr. Irene S. Levine: Resisting the Urge to Gossip

2009-11-06T03:53:21Z

It's easy to get caught up in gossip. A friend or colleague starts talking about someone you both know. She lays out some juicy information you haven't heard before, almost baiting you to chime in. Whether it's true or not, you reflexively up the ante by spilling a rumor you recently heard about that person, too. Later, you wonder why you responded that way or even regret that you got sucked into the conversation.

To some extent, it's human nature to talk about mutual acquaintances and most chitchat is innocuous. When two friends pass along information about other people within the context of a confidential, trusting relationship, it gives them a chance to vent and, perhaps, even to avoid and work out problems.

However, pleasant chitchat morphs into nasty gossip when it's characterized by critical comments that are unnecessary and, perhaps, untrue -- uttered or whispered behind someone's back for no good reason. Spreading rumors and making innuendos can be hurtful and destructive, reflecting poorly not only on the target but also on the purveyor. Yet, because the temptation is strong, especially in the workplace, people are commonly placed in the uncomfortable position of listening to or engaging in gossip, feeling awkward but not knowing what to do.

A study by sociologists Tim Hallett, Donna Eder, and Brent Harger of Indiana University, published in the October issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, hints at some ways to redirect negative gossip. While it wasn't the researchers' intent at the onset of their study, they wound up videotaping 25 incidences of gossip that cropped up in their recordings of 13 teacher-led formal staff meetings, which were each about 40 minutes long.

The meetings took place over two years during a difficult managerial transition at the school, offering a unique laboratory to examine "gossip" systematically. The researchers found that negative gossip can be "subtly derailed" in three ways: by changing the subject, by targeting someone else, and by pre-empting criticism with positive comments.

When people are jockeying for positions and power, being able to broker "inside" information can offer an employee a valuable edge. However, the use of gossip comes with a price. If a woman or a group becomes the target of unflattering or untrue gossip, or gets a reputation for trafficking in gossip, it can derail careers and poison the work environment.

Thus, managers need to find ways to promote informal communication while minimizing destructive gossip and knife-in-the-back criticism that impairs relationships, lowers morale, and decreases productivity. These outcomes can be averted if appropriate avenues are provided so employees can informally discuss work and relationship problems with their supervisors and amongst colleagues.

So back to friendship: Next time you find yourself in a group of gossips, you don't have to passively accept it. You can use some of the simple techniques described above to seize control of the conversation and curb potentially hurtful gossip. Have any other ideas of your own?

Have a question about female friendships? Send it to The Friendship Doctor.

Irene S. Levine, PhD is a freelance journalist and author. She holds an appointment as a professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine. Her new book about female friendships, Best Friends Forever: Surviving a Breakup with Your Best Friend, was recently published by Overlook Press. She also blogs about female friendships at The Friendship Blog and at href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-friendship-doctor">PsychologyToday.com.

Donna Fish: How Obnoxious Are the Voices in Your Head?

2009-11-06T00:29:39Z

I think we could safely say that when any woman steps into a dressing room to try on clothing, her inner dialogue is not exactly complimentary. Am I just speaking for myself, or do we tend to get fairly self-critical, and focus on the negative, vs. the positive, when left to the mercy of that mirror and brutal lighting.

Last week, I was on a panel discussion for an art show entitled: ‘Power and Burden of Beauty’ by Rachel Hovnanian. Part of this installation involves a dressing room that you enter. Inside the dressing room is a collection of white bathing suits with different sizes attached to them, and a fun house mirror. A running tape is filled with comments like: “My thighs are so fat”, and “I shouldn’t have eaten that”; the usual comments, right, that if not voiced out loud, can be such rote, that all the women I have seen emerging from this space, have the same wry smile on their faces.

Not that I am at all immune either, but I often think of that statement by Erica Jong: “You’re not fat, you’re just living in the wrong country.”

Every country though, in the world has their own brand of beauty and it is no less punishing than here in North America. Think of the bound feet in China, the elongated necks in Africa, outstretched lips, there is never a shortage in the ways a culture finds a body part to focus on.

With the fashion industry and the media playing such a major role here, we are subjected to an idealization of thin; size 0. (Although I am sure there is size inflation; a current size 0 is without a doubt the old 4, even 6. When I go to Montreal to try on clothing, I am a full 3 sizes larger than in the U.S.) So while we may be horrified by other cultures and what women do to be beautiful, we perhaps lose a little perspective of the ways we torture ourselves. The array of options are increasing; from obsessional diet and exercise, to the knife, injectables, lipo; it goes on and on.

What’s a girl to do? Particularly given that the images that we see are not changing significantly tomorrow. How do we at least raise the level of awareness, to understand our context, and the impact on us?

Rachel Hovnanian does this quite successfully in her show. She helps us to recognize our negative ‘self talk’, and she has begun a dialogue

Let’s ‘out’ this body hatred and body shame that seems to be such a significant tape loop in women’s minds.

Visit this exhibit: It is at the Jason McCoy satellite space from Oct. 30-Nov. 7^th, 520 West 20^th St., and continues Nov. 10-Dec. 22^nd, 41 E.57^th St. at the Jason McCoy Gallery.

Fawn Germer: So We're Still Bitches? Eight Ways Women Leaders Can Win in the Perception Game

2009-11-05T23:48:32Z

She was 40, successful and had just been canned because her boss told her she had "an edge."

“Why do I scare the hell out of people?” she asked me. “People either love me or hate me. I am told I need to tone it down, not to push so hard. I’ve been called a ‘bitch.’ What do I need to do?”

I wondered: “Why the hell are you asking me that? That’s my problem.”

That conversation happened eight years ago in front of seven senior executives who’d coaxed me into hopping into rental cars and heading for a Mexican border town after I’d done the keynote for their women’s leadership conference. They assumed that I had all the answers. Not that time.

That woman had bared a raw truth that, after a few more drinks, every one of the other executives shared. They, too, felt like misfits. Outsiders. They had achieved so much success, power and authority, but they’d always gotten nailed when they exerted a little force. People sniped behind their backs, “Do you know what she’s done this time?” As managers, they were hired to shake things up, make things better, or improve the bottom line, but when they made changes, they were met with a resounding chorus of, “That bitch!”

That conversation led me to interview everyone from Hillary Clinton to Arianna Huffington to Susan Sarandon for my book, Mustang Sallies which I am not mentioning here as a transparent attempt to boost sales. I bring it up because it was published five years ago and women are still feeling the same pain.

Things have gotten better because more women are in power and fewer men are surprised to see them there. In fact, there are legions of good men who are championing this generation of women executives so they will be more effective and successful. I don’t hear the word “bitch” as often as I used to. I see women going faster and farther. But, have we resolved the issues that kept that woman feeling watched and judged? No.

There are still things women leaders can and cannot do because we are still operating in a restricted zone of operation. We are not to say things with the same tone as men. If we’re too nice, we are seen as too weak. If we’re too strong, we’re controlling. If we’re too direct, we’ve got an edge. If we defend ourselves, we’re hysterical.

It goes on and on. Two nights ago, I dined with senior executive women working for three of America’s largest corporations. We basically had the same exact conversation I’d had with those women who’d gone to Mexico with me. These successful women still feel they are maneuvering through that tiny zone of operation. One woman told me about receiving an e-mail that had accidentally been copied to her by a vender who called her “crazy” and complained that she was being overbearing trying to get them to deliver what they were contracted to deliver.

That made me sad. I’d seen an e-mail like that written about me about a dozen years ago. And then there was the office Christmas party where a drunken employee in the buffet line blurted, “I hear you are a real bitch.” I was crushed. I thought to myself, “I am not a bitch. I am a big marshmallow with real feelings that hurt. I’m just trying to do a good job. Don’t you get that?”

I didn’t understand that strong, bold women give off an energy that threatens insecure people. We have to watch every word so we aren’t misinterpreted. So, if you’re wondering what to do to be more effective, try these steps:

If you are angry about something, try to wait a day to say or write anything. Cool down as much as you can.
Always re-read every bit of your correspondence out loud, and do it in the shrillest, bitchiest tone of voice possible – because that may well be the way it is interpreted.
Do not immediately defend yourself if you are told you have messed up. You have every right to make your point, but do it with a plan and don’t do it when you are emotional.
Avoid crying. We are hormonal beings and it will happen. But, try to avoid it. When you feel it coming, go to the bathroom, go get a drink of water or do something else to stop or hide the tears.
Understand that your job is not to win every battle, but rather, to survive to fight another day.
Ask others what they think you are communicating and make sure it’s a match.
If others are gossiping about you, do not be afraid to confront it and say, “I would much rather we talk directly and keep our communication open.”
Build a strong, powerful support group around you to validate you when others are tearing you down.

Dan Agin: Book Review: Viruses, Plagues, and History

2009-11-05T22:41:23Z

Nature is that lovely lady who gave us the polio virus...and the influenza virus...and the rabies virus...and the HIV virus...and so on. She's a lovely lady with death and cruelty in her eyes, and it seems she's totally committed to making all of us miserable.

In 1892, a twenty-eight year old Russian botanist named Dimitri Iosifovich Iwanowsky (1864-1920) reported in the journal of the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences the existence of a mysterious infectious agent. He had no idea what it was, except that it was certainly invisible and passed through filters that ordinarily stopped bacteria. Was it merely a tiny bacterium? All he knew was that the agent was apparently the cause of a tobacco plant disease (tobacco mosaic disease), which made the discovery of practical importance. Tobacco, after all, brought to Europe five hundred years before, was so much a part of European culture that in any major city anywhere one could find a cluttered little tobacco shop on nearly every street corner. The Russian journal that accepted Iwanowsky's paper published in the French language, no doubt to assure notice in the academic corridors of Paris, and notice was immediately obtained. Iwanowsky, only four years out of the University of St. Petersburg, had made his mark. He also made a serious mistake by not doing further experiments to test the idea that the infectious agent was merely an extremely small bacterium--but he certainly broke new ground for others to march on.

And march they did. In 1898, the Dutch botanist Martinus Beijerinck (1851-1931), son of a tobacco dealer, discarded the idea of a bacterium as the cause of tobacco mosaic disease, proposed a "living fluid" infection, and called the agent a "virus".

No progress was made for a generation--until 20th century technology arrived. In 1935, the American biochemist Wendell Stanley (1904-1971) isolated the infectious agent of tobacco mosaic virus in crystalline form and proposed that Beijerinck's "virus" was "a molecule". Stanley's work was supported in 1936 by the Swedish chemists Inga-Britta Eriksson-Quensel (?-?) and Theodor Svedberg (1884-1971), who proposed on the basis of studies using electrophoresis and the ultra-centrifuge that the causative agent of tobacco mosaic disease was indeed not a bacterium but an agent of molecular dimensions.

A living molecule? The idea was a great puzzle in the 1930s. We now know that a virus actually consists of a small number of macromolecules, but even so, we're apparently at the interface between the physical sciences and the life sciences. Is it alive or not alive? A virus is a small assembly of macromolecules, an RNA or DNA genome plus proteins, that can replicate itself if it can get inside a compatible living cell and use the genetic machinery of that cell. A common pathological outcome is that the host cell dies after it's used for the successful replication of many virus particles. Another apparent usual outcome is that the genome of the host cell may be damaged in the replication process and turn the cell into a cancer cell.

Viruses are not our friends, and we're really only at the beginning of our understanding of what they do and how they do it. One thing is certain: if the public understood more about viruses, there might be less political and social commotion about vaccinations against viruses. This is one area where educating the public about science is in the direct public interest and not merely an enlightened abstraction. If the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) would put up billboards about viruses around the country, they might do our national security some serious good.

Readable books about viruses by experts are not plentiful enough, and the point of this essay is to recommend a recent arrival by the American virologist Michael Oldstone. In 17 chapters, the author gives the non-specialist reader a complete account of viruses and virus-caused plagues such as smallpox, yellow fever, measles, polio, hemorrhagic fever, Lassa fever, ebola, hantavirus, SARS, West Nile Virus, mad cow disease, and influenza. His final words are special:

"In the end, the splendor of human history is not in wars won, dynasties formed, or financial empires built, but in improvement of the human condition. The obliteration of diseases that impinge on our health is a regal yardstick of civilization's success, and those who accomplish that task will be among the true navigators of a brave new world."

Read this book (available now)--it's a treat.

[Michael B. Oldstone: Viruses, Plagues, and History: Past, Present, and Future. Oxford University Press, 2010.]

A Life In Limbo: Unidentified, Uninsured Immigrant Lingers In Hospital That Can't Keep Him

2009-11-05T22:41:20Z

By the time Juan Ramirez was discovered on Aug. 27, 2008, the damage had already been done. Ramirez, 42, an immigrant living without a known address or family in Little Village, was lying unconscious between two parked cars in an alley on west 31st street, his skull cracked open, the circumstances of the injury unknown.

Dr. Jon LaPook: Integrating an Ounce of Prevention

2009-11-05T22:31:27Z

As health care reform heads into the next phase, Congress will miss the boat if it ends up perpetuating a system that reacts to illness rather than preventing it. Chronic diseases such as obesity, hypertension, and diabetes wreck our quality of life and cost a fortune. For obesity alone, according to The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the annual medical price tag in the United States is $147 billion.

In recent years there has been debate about whether preventive services would actually lower health costs.

Would savings to programs like Medicare be blunted because healthier patients tend to live longer -- and therefore ultimately pile up more medical costs -- than patients who die sooner of their chronic diseases? But an article in this month's American Journal of Public Health by Dana Goldman Ph.D. and his colleagues suggests that preventive medicine saves money along with lives. In fact, the authors calculated that a middle-aged person successfully treated for obesity, hypertension, and diabetes would gain about six years of life and, despite living longer, could save as much as $55,000 in lifetime medical spending.

Preventive medicine must become an integral part of health care reform. Counseling and other lifestyle interventions are effective in the treatment of diabetes, hypertension, and smoking. And in recent years, a new and intriguing concept has emerged in the prevention and treatment of chronic illness: the health coach.

I learned about health coaching during a trip to Duke Integrative Medicine, which has pioneered its use. Dr. Tracy Gaudet, Executive Director of Duke Integrative Medicine, explained, "There is currently no one in the health care system who has the job or the expertise to actually help people make the lifestyle and behavior changes that they want to make. It is hard to change ingrained behaviors. The Integrative Health Coach is trained to help people clarify their personal health goals and achieve them." I saw an example when I interviewed health coach Linda Duda and her patient, Nasera Hassan, a woman with type II diabetes who was having trouble sticking to her doctor's prescribed regimen of exercise, diet, and medication. Hassan told me, "I think when you're so busy with life in general you forget to take medication. You forget to make your appointments for exercise. You don't really think about how you're eating or what you're eating."

With the blessing of her physician, Hassan agreed to try a health coach. She and Duda spoke by phone once a week for six months. Hassan credits Duda with dramatically improving her attitude and helping her navigate towards a healthier lifestyle.

Research supports the role of interventions that improve patient motivation. A ten-month study at Duke found that an integrative medicine approach that includes health coaching can reduce the 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease.

As Gaudet explains, "Incredible amounts of money are spent on largely preventable illnesses rooted in lifestyle choices. Our current health care system is not designed to address this issue. Integrative Health Coaches can work in conjunction with doctor's offices or health systems, or they can be community-based in churches, synagogues, and barber shops."

We need many other innovative ideas like health coaching if we are going to make any dent in chronic health diseases. Health care reform will miss a golden opportunity if all it does is sign more people up for our current system -- one that fails to nurture wellness. We know that preventive medicine saves lives and money; it must be at the very core of a reformed health care system.

To view a video about my day at Duke Integrative Medicine, which included acupuncture, Reiki, and mindfulness-based stress reduction as well as interviews with members of the Duke team and the patient-health coach pair mentioned above, click below:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

For the website of Duke Integrative Medicine, click here.

For the website of The National Center for Complementary and Alternative
Medicine, click here.

For the website of The American Board of Preventive Medicine, click here.

For the website of The American College of Preventive Medicine, click here.

Michael Kimmel: From "That's So Gay" to "No Homo": A Small Sign of Progress

2009-11-05T22:22:17Z

Ask any teenager in America what is the most common put down in middle school or high school? The answer: "That's so gay." It's said about anything and everything -- their clothes, their books, the music or TV shows they like, the sports figures they admire. "That's so gay" has become a free-floating put-down meaning bad, dumb, stupid, wrong. It's the generic bad thing.

"That's so gay" is what my friend and sociologist colleague CJ Pascoe calls "the fag discourse" in her marvelous ethnography, Dude, You're a Fag. Calling someone gay or a fag is how our peers police our behavior. They're the "gender police," always waiting for us to screw up so they can give us a ticket for crossing the well-drawn boundaries of manhood. As young men, we become relentless cowboys, riding the fences, checking the boundary line between masculinity and femininity -- which is equated with effeminacy, homosexuality, failed masculinity -- making sure that nothing slips over. The possibilities of being unmasked are everywhere. Even the most seemingly insignificant misstep can pose a threat or activate that haunting terror that we will be found out.

Our efforts to maintain a manly front cover everything we do. What we wear. How we talk. How we walk. What we eat (like the recent flap over "manwiches" -- those artery-clogging massive burgers, dripping with extras). The cars we drive. Every mannerism, every movement contains a coded gender language.

So it strikes me as a moment of great cultural progress on the gender front to report to you that a new expression is now vying with "that's so gay" as the expression du jour in suburbia. That expression is "no homo."

"No homo" is usually applied after the fact -- after one guy hugs another, compliments his clothes or something he says, or even immediately following the actual expression of an actual emotion (except, of course, anger). Have a look.

I should point out that the phrase is already a couple of years old in the hip hop community. But in America, cultural impulses generally move from the margins to the center, so the expressions, affective styles, clothing types and musical tastes that are evident among urban minorities -- and to a lesser extent among urban gay men -- are the cultural styles that suburban white kids will be embracing in five years. And I should also point out that for gay men, "no homo" is still a pretty insultingly homophobic association of homosexuality with failed masculinity.

Okay, it's a small move, but a move nonetheless. Why?

"No homo" is always said after the fact, an acknowledgment, by the person doing the action, that the action in question may possibly be perceived as unmanly, even homoerotic. Saying that something or other is "so gay," by contrast, is often said as a preventive measure to make sure one does not cross the boundary in the first place. Calling something "gay" requires that you retreat from that netherworld between masculine and not-masculine; "no homo" enables you to remain on the other side of the divide. Calling something "gay" forces a step back from the precipice; "no homo" gives you a parachute as you jump, a statement of plausible deniability.

"That's so gay" is far less self-mocking, far less ironic, far less "nudge-nudge, wink-wink, I know that what I did was so gay, so now I'll declare it not gay and see if I can get away with it." That is, "no homo" is an expression that actually gives one permission to do "gay" things, give a little ironic disclaimer, and not have to change your behavior one bit.

In that sense "No homo" reflects the significant decline in homophobia among straight men in the United States today. (Homophobia still remains higher in the U.S. than in any other G8 country, and homophobia is higher among men than among women.) It's an acknowledgment that no one can possibly steer clear of all the traits and behaviors that have been ruled out of bounds for "real men." It's an acknowledgment that real men want and need a larger repertoire of emotional expression, let alone like to dress nice -- and notice when others do. In that sense, it's a teeny tiny baby step away from the relentless gender police. To be sure, it attempts to restore with a wink what has been taken away with a smile. But once you let it out, it might not so easily fit back in. The next time, who knows, he might just express his feelings, hug his friend, or say something caring -- and not say anything after it to qualify or disown it. Can the disbanding of the gender police into an illegitimate ad hoc vigilante squad be far behind?

Dinesh D'Souza: Life After Death: The View From The Edge

2009-11-05T21:10:12Z

The best empirical evidence for life after death comes from people who have had "near death experiences" (NDEs). These are people who have gone to the edge and come back with a report. Certainly they haven't crossed over; in that sense, death remains, as Shakespeare put it, the undiscovered country. But so-called NDEs give us the best chance to make at least an initial map of that unknown territory.

NDEs were first publicized in 1975 by physician Raymond Moody in Life After Life. Moody described 150 cases of people very near death, or pronounced clinically dead, who reported experiences of moving through dark tunnels, seeing themselves from outside their bodies, encountering the spirits of dead relatives and friends, seeing celestial beings, being dazzled by a bright light, reviewing their whole life in an instant, and then reaching an impassable barrier before being returned to their earthly bodies.

Recognizing that his reports would sound fantastic to many, Moody cited numerous examples from history to show that NDEs were not uncommon. Plato reports one in the last pages of his Republic. The eighth-century monk Bede gives a similar account in his history of the English people. The Tibetan Book of the Dead instructs dying people to prepare to give an account of their lives as they go through the darkness into the radiant light of pure reality. Even the atheist philosopher A.J. Ayer wrote of a near death experience in which he found himself in a realm where "the laws of nature had ceased to function" and where he was "confronted by a red light, exceedingly bright."

Gallup surveys and studies around the world have subsequently shown that such experiences occur frequently. The stunning implication is that consciousness can survive the termination of bodily functions -- that death may not be "final exit."

Recognizing the implications of NDEs, atheists have labored hard to refute them. One explanation, favored by Carl Sagan in Broca's Brain, is that at the end of life we, in a sense, return to the womb and once again experience the original birth process. An ingenious idea: it would account for several features of NDEs, such as the tunnel, the sensation of floating, the movement from darkness to light.

But Sagan's hypothesis has been largely discredited by the work of philosopher Carl Becker, who draws on research in the field of infant perception to show that newborns cannot see anything as they emerge from the womb. Even if they could, newborns don't have developed mental faculties and cannot be expected to have recollections of the birth process. In any case, the birth canal is not like a tunnel through which a child gracefully floats; it is a tight, compressed passage from which a newborn emerges, typically head first and sometimes chafed or bruised.

A second explanation is that NDEs reflect distorted brain states. Psychologist Ron Siegel suggests they are dreamlike experiences of a kind that people have when they take hallucinogenic or mind-altering drugs. Those who take recreational drugs do experience a range of perceptions from wild colors to soaring sensations to drowsiness to decreased vision. During this time however, most of them know they are on drugs. Also they don't have anything like the coherence of the near death experience. Finally people who have NDEs aren't typically on recreational drugs -- many aren't even on anesthetics, narcotics or painkillers.

Neuroscientist Michael Persinger claims he can simulate the NDE by placing a helmet on subjects and electrically stimulating parts of their brains. Persinger's helmet is a hit-or-miss device; atheist Richard Dawkins tried it, and it had no effect on him. Others have a spiritual feeling but not the particular features of the NDE. The bigger problem is that this is an artificially induced state. If I tell you that I am being blinded by the sun, you cannot prove this is a mental illusion by showing me that you can also blind me with a flashlight. NDEs not only occur with no external inducement; they also happen to people whose hearts and in some cases brains have stopped functioning altogether.

Perhaps the most plausible explanation for NDEs is given by psychologist Susan Blackmore, who seeks to account for them through her "dying brain hypothesis." Blackmore suggests that when the brain breaks down, its mechanisms of pattern recognition continue to generate images. In other words, the brain attempts to reconstruct a memory model of reality that seems perfectly real, even though it does not reflect anything outside the brain itself.

The strength of Blackmore's theory is that it explains important features of the NDE. The tunnel is the result of constriction in the visual pathways. The lights are a kind of special effect generated by a brain cortex that is deprived of oxygen. A breakdown in body image and the brain's model of reality can account for the feeling of being outside one's body. The life review is a consequence of the brain's memory systems trying to organize themselves as they fail and falter. The same memory systems conjure up images of deceased relatives and friends. Finally, the impression of timelessness is fostered by a self that is disintegrating and relinquishing all experiential notions of time and place.

The only problem is that Blackmore offers no empirical evidence that dying brains actually generate all these experiences. It seems obvious that they don't, because if they did, then virtually everyone who is dying would have an NDE! Moreover, as those who have watched a loved one die can easily testify, dying brains tend to produce faded recollections, incoherence and disorientation. These symptoms are radically different from the perceptual clarity and bliss of the typical NDE.

If NDEs are the result of a dying brain, then a breakdown of mental faculties has already taken place, but in fact most people who report NDEs are now living normal lives. So how have their brains reversed the dissolution and gotten all their normal perceptual faculties back? This reversal defies medical explanation and Blackmore provides none.

The bottom line is that near death experiences have so far withstood all efforts at refutation. The critics continue to speculate -- it may be this and it may be that -- but on balance NDEs suggest that consciousness can and sometimes does survive the cessation of heart and even brain functions. True, NDEs don't tell us much about what the afterlife is really like. Nor do they indicate how long this postmortem awareness continues: "survival" is not the same thing as "immortality." Near death experiences do seem to show, however, that death is not always the end; there may be something more.

Dinesh D'Souza's new book Life After Death: The Evidence is published by Regnery.

Baby Cry Translator App Knows Why Baby's Crying, How To Fix It

2009-11-05T20:29:27Z

The Cry Translator iPhone app will tell you why your baby is crying -- and how to fix it -- in ten seconds flat, the sellers claim.

Wired explains,

The Cry Translator listens to a whining child and analyzes the pitch, volume, tone and inflection of his nerve-jangling noise. Ten seconds later, it provides you with one of five "translations": hungry, sleepy, stressed, annoyed or bored.

The seller, Biloop Technologic, says that tests have shown the app to be accurate 96% of the time.

The app is reportedly the result of six years of research by a team in Spain, who claim that crying has no bounds, and no borders:

There are five distinct cries that have common frequency patterns, regardless of culture or language.

The app, which costs $29.99, is on sale for $9.99 through November 11, 2009.

What do you think? Love it or leave it? Would you wait ten seconds before calming your child -- and trust an app over instinct to decide why your baby is upset?

Follow HuffPostTech On Facebook And Twitter!