Public Health--15 Irrefutable Certainties (Part 2 of 3)

Is anything really "irrefutable," especially in the ever-changing, controversy-fraught area of "health?"  The preponderance of the evidence seems to lean toward "No!"  There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, we don't all see things the same way, even when confronted by the same so-called "evidence."  Take the very hotly-contested subject of vaccines, for example.  In her blog entry "10 Irrefutable Pro-Vax Arguments" Meredith C. Carroll seems to be convinced that she is providing facts which are so strongly-based as to be beyond reasonable debate.  Are the points that she makes, though, as "irrefutable" as she suggests?

Several of the comments that follow the posting don't seem to think so--in fact, more than one person insists that most (if not all) of her points are very much up for debate.  Alluding to a meta-analysis, for example, that included 1.2 million children is only one of several attestations that brings up more questions than provides answers/assurance. 

Were the studies in this meta-analysis paid for and conducted by people financially benefiting from vaccines?  Were unvaccinated "controls" (which is usually not the case for vaccine studies) used? If not, then the conclusions reached from these studies were probably heavily biased or technically flawed.

Another reason why things presented are "irrefutable" sometimes aren't is the fact that people often lie or misrepresent facts because of a particular agenda.  Carbonated drink manufacturers, for example, publicly insist that the phosphoric acid, aspartame, caffeine, caramel coloring, etc., in soft drinks are perfectly safe for human consumption not because they truly believe so but because, if they admitted the truth, such an admission would hurt them financially. 

To them, insisting that soda pop is perfectly harmless is an "irrefutable" fact; to critics, however, the assertions that soda pop rots teeth, impairs brain function, weakens bones, etc., are equally "irrefutable" facts. 

Finally, many people assert that something is "irrefutable" simply because their facts are out-dated, misinterpreted or based on the opinion of experts or studies with incomplete or incorrect assumptions.   

For anyone to use the word "irrefutable" correctly, therefore, a definition needs to be given before anything is said.  For the record, "irrefutable" in this article means that most experts (not just the author), as well as the majority of the scientific evidence out there, appears to support what is being proposed.

Related Reading  Public Health--15 Irrefutable Certainties (Part 1 of 3)

With that in mind, here are 5 more things that we can say are strongly supported by science and common sense:

6.  We all need to eat a balanced diet.  Again, some people may think that this point is too self-evident to delve into but both history and common practice has proven otherwise.  This is especially illustrated by the now- infamous Food Pyramid from the USDA. 

When it first came out, many people thought that this was a great idea and, in essence, it was.  What if we could simplify what we need to eat on a daily basis--what was more important, succinctly summarize it within a drawing or a graph?  The gist of the idea fell apart, though, when it became clear that some of the advice imparted by the pyramid was either inaccurate or blatantly biased.

The "bias," it turns out, was probably insisted-upon by the powerful (now Factory-Farm-controlled) meat and dairy industries.  Telling people, for example, that they needed to consume large amounts of red meat, dairy products and carb-rich foods (rice, pasta, breads, etc.) was, we know today, simply bad nutritional advice. 

Dairy products, for one thing, have been linked to cardiovascular and other diseases, including ovarian and prostate cancer; meats (specially "red" meats) are equally guilty, as are the refined (including, among other dangerous processes, "bleaching") grains used for many of the nutrition and fiber-compromised breads, pastas and rice products in question.

The constantly-changing government-provided models of what is a "balanced diet" proves that this subject is not as self-evident or obvious as some people suggest.  In fact, it has taken efforts by many groups not tied to Big Food (and, therefore, driven by motives other than "profit") to finally convince the public that a "balanced diet" should lean heavily toward:

• plant-based foods,
• some seafood (maybe 2 to 3 times a week),
• organic (rather than genetically modified or grown with the help of highly-toxic pesticides/herbicides) products,
• reduced amounts of or total elimination of "processed" and "fast" foods,
• foods that contain all the needed minerals/vitamins we need for healthy bodies,
• and the right combination (in correct proportion, according to individual need--in other words, none of this "one size fits all" nutritional nonsense) of carbs, fat, protein, and micro-nutrients 

7.  We all need fresh, fairly-unpolluted and the right-combination-of-gases breathing air.  Unfortunately, this fact is more complicated than meets the eye; it is also something that, for the strangest reasons imaginable, too many people take for granted.  For the record, clean, fresh breathable air is not limitless and, yes, in spite of the size of our planet, the air on this planet can eventually become compromised . . . to the point, in fact, of threatening all oxygen-dependent (which applies to most species on this planet) creatures on earth.

That we can greatly compromise the quality of our air can already be seen in some parts of the world--most notably, in highly industrialized, densely-populated regions and nations.  Smog, for example, can literally be seen in areas with ever-worsening air pollution problems.  If it were a matter of small sources of pollution, Mother Nature might by herselft be able to manage it but, unfortunately, we may be producing more air pollutants than Mother Nature can filter out through natural processes. 

Take the ever-increasing number of air-polluting automobiles.  These transportation devices may have removed terrible burdens from us but this convenience has come at a very heavy price.  Add to them, though, the also-growing human and animal population of the world. Living creatures spew out in great amounts carbon dioxide (which we exude every time we breathe), methane gas, and the many fumes we unleash into the atmosphere from fires we set/allow (for cooking, keeping warm, etc.), smoking we do for pleasure, and other chemicals we produce on a daily basis through our places of work (factories, etc.).

Notwithstanding all this pollution, we still need to breathe the right combination of clean air.  That means that air that doesn't include approximately 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen is not suitably healthy; from between 1% to 3% is a combination of other gases.  There is no question that this last figure (the "wild card" gases) has been increasing, mostly because of dangerous pollutants.  To what extent is our health affected by the ever-increasing amount of wild-card gases?  While we may not know the answer to this, we can say that the medical problems associated with or made worse by polluted air (asthma, COPD, etc.) will continue to worsen both in incidence and prevalence. 

Knowing this, all of us would do well to move out of busy, over-populated cities--if we can.  We should also, when possible, give up smoking, avoid jobs that compromise our respiratory system (mining, nail sculpting, asbestos removal, etc.), make sure that the air in our homes is relatively clean (maybe with the help of air-cleaning machines), and promptly get treatment for any breathing problems.

On a global scale, we can support organizations that work to preserve the environment, help to pass laws friendly to the earth, join grass-roots programs/initiatives to teach everyone how to lessen the effects of our carbon footprints, and help promote ecological awareness campaigns.

8.  We need on-going access to sunlight and Mother Nature.  We already know, for example, that people who don't get any access to sunlight run into several kinds of medical issues, including skin ailments.  Sunlight is necessary, among other reasons, in order to help us absorb adequate amounts of vitamin D, which, in turn, helps us absorb calcium. 

It isn't just a matter of getting sufficient access to sunlight.  The suggestion has been made that we as a species also suffer from "nature starvation."  We have children, in fact, who are growing up in urban environments which don't provide many of the benefits we used to derive from natural environments (forests, rivers, wild-growing plants, trees, insects, immunity-strengthening microorganisms, etc.).  What exactly this means for us as a species no one really knows but we can certainly intelligently theorize as to the potential consequences.

Why don't people in space (with no direct access to sunlight or nature) do very well anatomically or physiologically?  The muscles begin to atrophy (in spite of exercising); macular degeneration sets in (in theory, probably making all astronauts blind, if they remain out in space).  Actually, the body deteriorates while out in space.  Even if we cannot say exactly why, blaming it all on a lack of direct sunlight and nature is, at this time, as good an explanation as any.

This means that denying prisoners access to these things is indeed "cruel and unusual punishment," even if some sadists (usually holding a government office) refuse to admit that this is so--from a scientific perspective, they are dead wrong.  For you, it means making sure that you and your family commune with Mother Nature as much and as often as you can.

9.  Too much stress in our lives can derail healthy living.  For the record, eating a healthy, well-balanced diet, breathing fresh-clean air, and exercising regularly will not negate or remove the damage done by excessive exposure to stress.  The word "excessive" is important since completely escaping stress is simply, in most cases, unrealistic.  You will experience stress in life--that is a given. 

What you can do, however, is work to minimize it; otherwise, you must learn means by which to manage it so that it causes the least amount of harm.

Although modern living has brought many benefits and advantages, it has also unleashed upon us many opportunities for stressful influences:

• Working to pay bills (usually in jobs with multi-faceted, demanding responsibilities),
• Eating foods that motivate "fight-or-flight" responses,
• Constantly contending with people who test us in every conceivable way,
• And being exposed to environmental processes/mechanisms that test us physically and mentally; etc. 

The good news is that we can manage such stress with special exercises (yoga, Tai Chi, etc.), non-Western medical procedures (acupuncture, etc.), special herbs (Chamomile, Barley tea, Valerian root, etc.), or the assistance of mental health professionals.  What we shouldn't do is just ignore stress or fail to realize that unmanaged stress can lead to a truckload of physical and mental ailments.

10.  Everyone at every age needs regular exercise--even persons with debilitating chronic diseases. Barbara Middleton, a middle-aged woman whose father was recuperating from cancer treatment, was startled to find out that her father was assigned a physical therapist. 

"But he's too weak to move around--he doesn't have the energy to do any exercises," she pleaded.

"Mrs. Middleton," the physical therapist explained, "simple exercises may actually help increase his energy levels. Without exercise, his muscles will weaken faster.  Also, just cause he's sick doesn't mean his heart doesn't need to be strengthened--only exercise can do that, other than proper nutrition . . . "

The key word was "simple."  Barbara's father wasn't expected to run a marathon or lift heavy weights but, in fact, simple arm and leg exercises eventually helped him to get out of bed; they also helped him better tolerate the effects of radiation and chemotherapy. 

As for the average healthy adult, exercise is not optional, contrary to what some people think.  Also, moving around performing daily activities is not synonymous with "exercising."  Exercise, for it to be effective, must involve repetitive motion, be performed for a certain amount of time, include stretching and intentional improvements, and involve the use of certain muscles, according to what areas of the body are being targeted. 

The fact is that we have too many people in developed countries who live mostly sedentary lives.  These people develop certain diseases expressly because of their inactive lifestyles.  Exercising doesn't mean you'll never get sick but it can prolong life, make it less likely you will prematurely succumb to certain ailments (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc.), and make it more likely that you will survive trauma, when it occurs.

Conclusion for Part 2 

For some reason, people forget that holding on to good health is not a matter of random chance.  Yes, people who exercise and eat right do get sick but, in general, they spend less time being sick (since they heal faster) and respond better to treatment.  People who succumb to a myocardial infarction (heart attack), for example, are more likely to survive the experience the cleaner their arteries are, the stronger their lungs have remained and the more the heart has been exercised on a regular basis. 

While there is still much that we have yet to learn about the human body, some things we know for sure.  By knowing what these health "certainties" are, we can design and follow lifestyles that can help us stay ahead of the game.  In essence, we can live longer, healthier lives--not by having "good luck"--but by making the right choices.

Copyright, 2015.  Fred Fletcher.  All rights reserved.

References & Resources

See embedded links.