holistically inspired.

I gave this a go yesterday as my hair & scalp gets so dry this time of year due to weather & hormones. I liked the results but I may try it with jojoba oil next time as it took three shampoos to get the olive oil out. Anyway, hair is silky & feels healthy again:

to 1/4 cup of organic virgin olive oil -OR- sweet almond oil -OR- jojoba oil
add:
10 drops of lavender EO -OR- rosemary EO -OR- basic EO (essentail oil)

Massage well into damp (not wet) hair. For longer hair, you may need to add more oil. Cover with shower cap or plastic bag, then wrap head in a hot, wet towel. Keep on for 30min., rinse with shampoo twice (or in my case, 3 times). The results are worth it, though.

Cheap & easy alternative to the hot oil treatments you find at the pharmacy!

No Comments | In: inspired living - article archive | | #

by author Gail Johnson
From “Alive” Magazine

On a rare morning when she had time for a break, Jenny took a big sip of her coffee and sighed. The expensive Barbie doll she had bought for her daughter Emma had been sitting unused in the closet ever since she unwrapped it.

“Emma really wanted that doll,” Jenny complained, “but she’s only played with it half a dozen times.”

Jenny’s sister delicately replied, “When has she had the time? You have almost every moment of her life scheduled for her.” Jenny paused. It was true. She had enrolled her young daughter in baseball, basketball, an after-school club, and ballet lessons.

Best of Intentions

Like so many parents, Jenny wanted her daughter to be well-rounded, to get a feel for the arts and for sports, to have as many diverse experiences as possible. She wanted Emma to have all the opportunities that she missed out on herself as a child. Besides, she thought, it was better for Emma to be out and about than to be tempted to sit in front of the TV.

But Jenny also didn’t realize that filling in every available block of Emma’s time could be doing more harm than good. In her quest to provide Emma with the perfect childhood, Jenny was glossing over one of its most basic and crucial facets: play.

The world has changed dramatically since the good old days, when kids spent more time in playgrounds than huddled up indoors with video games. Yet while the pace of kids’ lives has quickened to keep up with adult-driven, modern-day demands, more and more people–parents and professionals alike–are worried that free, unstructured play is being neglected, to our children’s detriment.

A Universal Right

Gillian McNamee, director of teacher education at Chicago’s Erikson Institute, a graduate school in child development, describes playing as one of the four pillars of a child’s health, alongside eating, sleeping, and toileting. The United Nations High Commission for Human Rights has declared play to be a right of every child. Stuart Brown, a former psychiatrist who founded the California-based National Institute for Play, which aims to bring the knowledge and benefits of play into public life, says that when it comes to learning and memory, play is as fundamental as sleep and dreams.

To put things in perspective, North Americans are blessed to be even contemplating the place of fun and games in society. So many other nations offer proof that it’s not a hurried lifestyle that gets in the way of play but far more sinister factors, such as war, violence, child labour, prostitution, and poverty.

But back on home turf, kids in Canada and the United States are often not getting the full benefits of free play, because it’s frequently considered not as important–or at least not as vital–as more worthy pursuits, such as academics. With North American children scoring lower grades in subjects such as science than pupils in other countries, many schools have shortened free-play periods or recess to make more time for reading and math. And with fierce competition facing hopeful university students, many parents feel that their young kids should be picking up pencils instead of sticks, building their resumés instead of tree forts.

Importance of Play

The fact that play is so often brushed aside is ironic given that such authoritative bodies as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recognize its importance. “Play is essential to development because it contributes to the cognitive, physical, social, and emotional well-being of children and youth,” the organization states in a 2007 clinical report called “The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and Maintaining Strong Parent-Child Bonds.”

The AAP explains that free play enables kids to learn to work in groups, resolve conflicts, use their creativity, become leaders, and create a world they can master, conquering their fears while practising adult roles. Through play, less verbal kids have the opportunity to express themselves in alternative ways. Play also boosts kids’ physical activity levels, an urgent need given today’s staggering rates of childhood obesity. Read alive’s interview with Silken Laumann on page 106 to discover how her Active Kids Movement is combatting this problem.

Current research into play is zeroing in on its role in neurological growth and development. A study by neuroscientist Sergio Pellis found a link between play deprivation and neurological weaknesses. Rats raised in a play-deprived environment had a more immature pattern of neuronal connections in the medial prefrontal cortex than rodents that were able to frolic.

Scientific findings aside, the AAP makes one straightforward point: “Perhaps above all, play is a simple joy that is a cherished part of childhood.”

Sensory Overload

So why do so many parents feel the need to fill their kids’ calendars? One explanation is the pressure they face to expose their children to multiple activities. Flip through any parenting magazine, and there are ads for classes in swimming, tumbling, dancing, gymnastics, music, and painting, many geared to babies as young as six months.

Then there are educational toys, DVDs, and computer games that promise to tap into certain parts of kids’ brains, ensuring optimal development. With so many “intelligent” products out there, the message to parents is that they had better get their kids stimulated early on if their children are going to develop unique skills, talents, and interests. First-time parents are especially prone to comparing their progeny’s progress to that of others and tend to worry their kids aren’t picking things up as quickly as they should.

The AAP describes the pressure moms and dads face: “It is left to parents to judge appropriate levels of involvement, but many parents seem to feel as though they are running on a treadmill to keep up yet dare not slow their pace for fear their children will fall behind.”

A Healthy Balance

Clearly, activities such as swimming and painting have tremendous value; they are fun and beneficial to kids. No one’s saying there isn’t a place for structured classes and events. Many children thrive with one or more regular commitments. But others react to a busy schedule with anxiety and stress. Even those who enjoy having a lot on the go need time for free play, time to fire up their imaginations instead of their computers.

Jackie Bernard chose downtime over a busy time for her daughter Antonia, who’s now 11. When she was a toddler, Antonia started out taking swimming and gymnastics then moved on to team sports.

“We enrolled her in soccer when she was four,” Bernard says in a phone interview from her Calgary home. “She hated it. It was at 6:15 pm twice a week. It was a huge rush. Nobody ate dinner. She was too young to know there was a game going on. It definitely left an impression. To this day she has no interest in soccer.”

Bernard says that after that experience, she made sure that she didn’t schedule things that caused more stress than pleasure for the whole family. She went on to enroll Antonia in various activities over the years, but never more than one at a time.

“I talk to plenty of parents who are doing lots of running around; they’re exhausted,” she says. “We know parents who are run ragged. Where’s the balance? What value are you adding to your kid’s life, and to your own life?”

Freedom Versus Structure

Linda Rose-Krasnor, a psychology professor at Brock University who specializes in child and youth development, says that one of the challenges of modern-day parenting is determining how much free versus structured play a child should have. “Parents need to watch their children, know their children, and recognize when their children are stressed,” Rose-Krasnor told alive in a phone interview. “For some, one activity a week is more than they can handle; others are comfortable with a couple. You also need to look at the quality of the activity. Some parents just drop their kids off and don’t really know what the experience is like. Maybe the activity doesn’t suit the child’s temperament or personality.”

Time to Bond

Another benefit of play is the bonding that can ensue when parents join their kids. Adults get to see the world from their children’s perspective while conveying that they’re paying attention to them.

“It’s a wonderful, valuable, positive time for parents and their kids,” Rose-Krasnor says.

In a world desperate for more time, playtime’s clearly not a waste of time.

Gail Johnson is an award-winning Vancouver writer.

Source: alive #311, September 2008

No Comments | In: inspired living - article archive | | #

From the NY Times:
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/health/27plac.html?ref=science)

By CHRISTIE ASCHWANDEN
Published: May 27, 2008

Jennifer Buettner was taking care of her young niece when the idea struck her. The child had a nagging case of hypochondria, and Ms. Buettner’s mother-in-law, a nurse, instructed her to give the girl a Motrin tablet.

“She told me it was the most benign thing I could give,” Ms. Buettner said. “I thought, why give her any drug? Why not give her a placebo?”

Studies have repeatedly shown that placebos can produce improvements for many problems like depression, pain and high blood pressure, and Ms. Buettner reasoned that she could harness the placebo effect to help her niece. She sent her husband to the drugstore to buy placebo pills. When he came back empty handed, she said, “It was one of those ‘aha!’ moments when everything just clicks.”

Ms. Buettner, 40, who lives in Severna Park, Md., with her husband, 7-month-old son and 22-month-old twins, envisioned a children’s placebo tablet that would empower parents to do something tangible for minor ills and reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics and other medicines.

With the help of her husband, Dennis, she founded a placebo company, and, without a hint of irony, named it Efficacy Brands. Its chewable, cherry-flavored dextrose tablets, Obecalp, for placebo spelled backward, goes on sale on June 1 at the Efficacy Brands Web site. Bottles of 50 tablets will sell for $5.95. The Buettners have plans for a liquid version, too.

Because they contain no active drug, the pills will not be sold as a drug under Food and Drug Administration rules. They will be marketed as dietary supplements, meaning they can be sold at groceries, drugstores and discount stores without a prescription.

“This is designed to have the texture and taste of actual medicine so it will trick kids into thinking that they’re taking something,” Ms. Buettner said. “Then their brain takes over, and they say, ‘Oh, I feel better.’ ”

But some experts question the premise behind the tablets. “Placebos are unpredictable,” said Dr. Howard Brody, a medical ethicist and family physician at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. “Each and every time you give a placebo you see a dramatic response among some people and no response in others.”

He added that there was no way to predict who would respond.

“The idea that we can use a placebo as a general treatment method,” Dr. Brody said, “strikes me as inappropriate.”

Ms. Buettner does not spell out the conditions that her pills could treat. As a parent, she said, “you’ll know when Obecalp is necessary.”

Franklin G. Miller, a bioethicist at the National Institutes of Health, is skeptical. “As a parent of three now grown children,” he said, “I can’t think of a single instance where I’d want to give a placebo.”

Much of the power of the placebo effect seems to lie in the belief that it will work, and some experts question whether this expectation can be sustained if the person giving it knows it is a sham.

Most clinical trials that have shown benefits from placebos are double blinded. Neither the recipient nor the giver knows that the pills are fake.

“For this to work really well as placebo, you cannot let the parents know that it’s a sugar pill,” Dr. Brody said. “You have to lie to the parents, too, if you expect them to fool their kids.”

At least one study has shown that placebos can be effective even when the patients know that they are inert. In a study in 2007, 70 children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder were asked to reduce their medications gradually by replacing some of their drugs with placebo pills. The children and their parents were explicitly told that these “dose extender” pills contained no drug.

After three months, 80 percent of the children reported that the placebo had helped them. Although that study used a placebo in a different context from Obecalp, it did suggest that deception might not be necessary for a placebo to work, said the senior author, Gail Geller, a bioethicist at the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins.

Even if Obecalp proved helpful, some doctors worry that giving children “medicine” for every ache and pain teaches that every ailment has a cure in a bottle.

“Kids could grow up thinking that the only way to get better is by taking a pill,” Dr. Brody said. If they do that, he added, they will not learn that a minor complaint like a scraped knee or a cold can improve on its own.

Dr. David Spiegel, a psychiatrist who studies placebos at the Stanford School of Medicine, said conditioning children to reach for relief in a pill could also make them easy targets for quacks and pharmaceutical pitches later. “They used to sell candied cigarettes to kids to get them used to the idea of playing with cigarettes,” he said.

Ms. Buettner acknowledged that “we expect controversy with this,” but she added, “We are not promoting drug use.”

Despite his misgivings, Dr. Brody predicted that Obecalp would entice many parents. “Anybody who has ever been up in the middle of the night with a crying child would be tempted to try something like this,” he said. “You’re so desperate for anything that could quiet down your poor, miserable kid.”

Doctors themselves have been known to dole out placebos to overwhelmed parents, said Dr. Brian Olshansky, a physician at the University of Iowa Hospitals. A screaming child with an earache may leave the emergency room with a prescription for antibiotics, even though the drug will not speed recovery and could potentially cause harm.

Ms. Buettner said her pill could satisfy that need while reducing potential harms from unnecessary medications. “The overprescription of drugs is a serious problem, and I think there needs to be an alternative,” she said.

Some experts question whether an alternative should involve deception. “I don’t like the idea of parents lying to their kids,” said Dr. Steven Joffe, a pediatrician and bioethicist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “It makes me squeamish.”

Dr. Geller, the bioethicist, agrees that parents should not deceive their children. But she added that a parent who truly believed in the power of the placebo was not really being deceptive. “In principle,” she said, “I don’t have a problem with the thoughtful use of placebo. The starting premise and your own belief about what you’re doing matters a lot.”

Dr. Brody said parents did not need a pill to induce the placebo effect. Mothers have long promised to “kiss it and make it better” and it is that type of placebo children really yearn for, he said.

“Does a sick child really want X-rays or M.R.I.’s or the latest antibiotic?” he asked. “No. All the sick child wants is comforting.”

No Comments | In: inspired living - article archive | | #

Natural Moms Podcast #81

Posted using ShareThis

My guest this week is Aurore Adamkiewicz, ND. She is a nursing student turned naturopath. Interestingly she found some of the same idiocies in traditional medicine in alternative medicine, such as hysteria. She favors more balance, less scaring in her approach to wellness, which includes color therapy.

One of her concerns with the widespread use of CFLs is who is promoting them – the same people who are pushing nuclear energy. As many people know, CFLs are difficult to dispose of properly. Few people are going to go to the proper lengths to deal with them safely.

In Aurore’s work with color therapy, she notes that incandescent bulbs are closer to the natural spectrum. Some research shows that kids with ADD symptoms get better away from fluorescent lights.CFLs – compact fluorescents

The next best thing to incandescent when it comes to the quality of light is LED. LEDs last longer than incandescents and are smaller bulbs. They are closer to the natural light spectrum. Gaiam is one source of LEDs.

Researchers who were uncovering the truth about CFLs were really excited about it and they knew about the dangers of CFL, but when push came to shove they wouldn’t publish it. Aurore believes that the CFL’s are involved with a mass money making scheme-much like vaccines.

1 Comment | In: inspired living - article archive | | #

Health Concerns With CFLs – Compact Fluorescent Lights

Posted using ShareThis

May 1, 2008

This article was contributed by this week’s guest, Aurore Adamkiewicz.
“Under the Fluorescent Light”
Fluorescent lighting and its contribution to: Cancer, depression and learning disabilities

By: Aurore Adamkiewicz ND

It’s official, Canada is now in the process of phasing out incandescent lighting and switching over to compact fluorescent lighting in favor of the Kyoto Protocol. The United States is presently considering following in Canada’s footsteps. Sounds like just the promising “Green” change that environmentalists were looking for. Indeed, many are rejoicing over these compact glass gadgets that have been hailed as money/energy earth savers. Why is the fact that CFL’s are filled with mercury, emit microwaves, are labeled a biohazard, and let off a strong and dangerous electromagnetic field being virtually ignored or downplayed in almost every article touting its “benefits”? With these serious health implications to consider, it is worth it for us as a society to take a deeper look at the CFL phenomena and what its potential impact will be on the human race. Let us not forget what the impact that nuclear energy has already left on our entire world. This was also once esteemed as a monetary and environmental breakthrough by many of the same people who are pushing the fluorescent lighting agenda today.

I would first like to explain why this subject interests me so and why I am taking this potential risk to our health so seriously. I am a naturopath doctor that practices sound and color therapy. Color therapy, also known as chromatherapy, is the practice of applying color to certain parts of the body using a light bulb and colored filters to balance, rejuvenate, and heal the human body and organs.

While this sounds like a simple and cost effective therapy (and it is), let me assure you that color and sound therapy is a science based on the effect of sound waves and frequencies and their effects on the human body. In order for a chromatherapist to effectively treat the human body they have to rely on the most perfect light source to deliver the color. Obviously, the most perfect source would be the sun itself, (yes, the sun, you know that big bright ball in the sky that has accumulated so many enemies these days?). You maybe thinking about now that I am going to tell you that I use a full spectrum light, LED’s, or a halogen…think again.

Non-frosted, clear, incandescent bulbs, hands down, have the best and closest spectrum to natural sunlight. Does that surprise you? This is probably because you have been lied to for so long about the benefits of “full-spectrum” lighting. A full-spectrum light or “Ott-light” is a bulb that has had the color yellow completely removed from its spectrum (Dinshah, 2005). Taking out the yellow makes everything appear more clear and crisp, however, the fact that the color blue is completely missing is creates a potential imbalance to the human body. A regular non frosted incandescent bulb has a larger amount of yellow than natural sunlight; however it has a complete spectrum and is not missing any colors. Even with my rejection of the Ott light and the full spectrum light, do not think that I disregard the work of John Ott the founder of full spectrum lighting. To the contrary, Dr. Ott’s research on the dangers of fluorescent lighting on the human body and environment is a powerful voice of dissent among the hypnotized masses. His pioneering research 25 years ago on the biological effects of light sources on the human body is as relevant today as ever.

We no longer need to rely solely on Ott’s work for information about the dangers of Fluorescent lighting. Robert Brennan from the New York Megaphone recently wrote an article calling for the removal of fluorescent lighting from public work places, schools and businesses. Brennan states that fluorescent lighting causes mental and physical illness and poses risks to people who live and work under the lights all day long (Brennan, 2007). Citing revolutionary research from such highly regarded scientists and researchers as Dr. Richard Stevens an epidemiologist from the University of Connecticut medical center and Laurence Martel Ph.D president of the National Academy of integrated learning, Brennan makes an irrefutable case against the “environmentally un-friendly” fluorescent lighting. Fluorescent lighting has been linked to problematic modern day illnesses plaguing our society today, such as: depression, leukemia, melanoma, anxiety, tooth decay, sleep disorders, headaches, SAD, and aggressive behavior. New studies have now proven that people who worked outdoors in the sun all day had the lowest amounts of skin cancer while office workers who worked under fluorescent lights all day had the highest (Cousens, 2000).
Protecting Our Children from the Fluorescent Fall Out

While shopping at Home Depot several weeks ago, I noticed a man knock down a stand of at least 15 fluorescent lights. The crash was so loud it startled me and when I turned around to see what fell I immediately sought out my children to keep them away from the biohazard “spill”. I witnessed in the midst of the chaos several employees running over to pick up parts of the glass with bare hands, I also saw another employee merely “sweeping” it up into a dustpan. Customers, oblivious to the mercury and carcinogenic danger, simply stepped over and onto the debris.

I already knew about the perils of the fluorescent clean up protocol, having just read about the plight of a woman from Prospect, Maine named Brandy Bridges who had a fluorescent bulb break in her child’s bedroom. Ms. Bridges contacted Home Depot, the store who sold her the bulb, and the store warned her not to simply vacuum up the broken bulb but to call poison control. What ensued in the following months was a dangerous fiascal which falls short of a home based reality show called “Biohazard Survivors”. She was instructed to completely seal off her child’s bedroom after the room tested above safe levels for mercury and hire a company that cleans up mercury spills for no less than $2,000! She also found out that her home insurance would not pay for such a service (Farah, 2007). This leads me to ask a personal question to fellow American’s everywhere. How many people do you know return burnt out CFL’s to the store for disposal? How many people do you know have cleaned up fluorescent bulbs with their bare hands and a vacuum cleaner, completely oblivious to the dangers?

At the Home Depot store I was shocked by what I had witnessed. Furthermore, I imagined children running over to that same area and touching and playing on the ground where the spill occurred. I went to two different managers and received a different answer from each one. The first, manager told me that there was no danger as the dangerous chemicals simply “evaporate” into the air upon breaking. The second manager explained the protocol that Home Depot takes such as; using HAZMAT, OSHA, and EPA guidelines when cleaning up. This involves; reporting the spill, wearing special gloves and disposing them with the broken CFL’s, spraying a special solution, and sealing off the area from customers until the clean-up was over. He seemed disappointed by his employees disregard for biohazard protocol but was not immediately alarmed either. This led me to write a certified letter to Francis Blake the CEO of Home Depot, which I hope will make an impact but I have recently learned by reading his bio on the Home Depot webpage that he used to be apart of the environmental protection agency. I now believe because of the marriage between CFL’s, special interest, and government agencies, that it is up to the American populace to educate themselves and protect their families from this potential environmental catastrophe.

The fact that Germany has already restricted the use of fluorescent lighting in public places and has banned fluorescent lights in hospitals shows us that this issue is too great to be shrugged off and ignored (Brennan). We should follow Germany’s path instead of Canada’s in regards to lighting and start as a country looking at more relevant and pressing issues that are beckoning for our attention. Clean water and the effects of fluoride, pesticides and insecticides on our health and water table is something that is spiraling out of control and needs to be taken seriously. While climate change has been apart of life on earth for millions of years, the utter and complete destruction of our environment through man made chemicals has not. Let us work together to keep our environmental priorities and not get caught up in special interest hype. If you want to go “green” and still stay healthy then use LEDs and not fluorescents.

References:
Dinshah, Darius, (2005). Let there be light.

Malaga: Dinshah Health Society
Brennan, Robert, (2007). Cited, Fluorescent light ain’t right.

The New York Megaphone: New York City.

Reprinted: James DeMeo’s OBRL Bulletin

Cousens, Gabriel, (2000). Conscious eating.

Berkley: North Atlantic Books. * See additional research below
(Arch Environmental Health, 1990;45:261-267)

A US Navy study found that the most malignant melanoma was found not in people who worked in the sun, but with people who worked indoors under artificial light.
(Lancet, 8/7/82, 290-293)

A study published in The Lancet found that it was not sunlight that caused melanoma but rather fluorescent light that caused more than twice the melanoma risk.
Farah, Joseph, (2007). Cited, Consumers in dark over new bulbs.

www.worldnetdaily.com

No Comments | In: inspired living - article archive | | #