PyraBang.Com - Discover... Post... Profit!

JOIN our e-Mailing List
Email:
Name:
 

 

 

I‘m sure you believe in everything you are saying, what I’m saying is that you wouldn’t be where you are if you thought something different. Chomsky

 

“Life is a train of moods like a string of beads;
and as we pass through them they prove to be
many colored lenses, which paint the world
their own hue, and each shows us only what lies
in its own focus.” ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

 

 

He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. ~Harold Wilson

 

 

 

DesktopLightning – Click Here For Free Traffic http://cs88.clearspring.com/u/4a5e89c17fec94df/4a86cce81b1d9a27 http://cs88.clearspring.com/u/4a5e89c17fec94df/4a86cce81b1d9a27

To view video, either turn off your Java Script blocker or update your Adobe Flash.

Every time you tell your better-feeling story, you will feel better and the details of your life will improve.

DesktopLightning – Click Here For Free Traffic

  • Share/Bookmark



codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"> 

PyraBang.Com - Discover... Post... Profit!

 JOIN our e-Mailing List
Email:
Name:
 

Every cell in your body has a direct relationship with Creative Life Force, and each cell is independently responding. When you feel joy, all the circuits are open and the Life Force or God Force can be fully received. When you feel guilt or blame or fear or anger, the circuits are hindered and the Life Force cannot flow as effectively. Physical experience is about monitoring those circuits and keeping them as open as possible. The cells know what to do. They are summoning the Energy.

Abraham

Helen Keller — inspiration to generations and inspiration for an entire genre of schoolyard humor — and her teacher and friend Anne Sullivan in a clip from 1930 in which they describe the way in which Helen learned how to speak … It’s a fascinating little clip which pays homage to a woman who, even beyond her amazing circumstances, was a radical socialist, suffragist, and supporter of birth control, who was friends with the likes of Mark Twain and who worked tirelessly to champion the rights of both the downtrodden and the physically disabled.

To view video, either turn off your Java Script blocker or update your Adobe Flash.

Every time you tell your better-feeling story, you will feel better and the details of your life will improve.

DesktopLightning – Click Here For Free Traffic

Why Low Vitamin D Raises Heart Disease Risks In Diabetics

ScienceDaily (2009-08-25) — Low levels of vitamin D are known to nearly double the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes, and researchers now think they know why. … > read full article

Rep. Mike Rogers: Healthcare Reform Will Punish the Already-Insured
by: Eclectablog
Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 12:12:55 PM EDT

Cross-posted at The Daily Kos.

In todays edition of Livingston Press & Argus, Republican Representative Mike Rogers (R-Brighton) goes on the attack against the health care legislation currently being considered by Congress. According to Rogers:
“We are going to punish the 85 percent of Americans who have private health insurance so that we can try and fix this problem of the 15 percent who don’t,” he said. “It makes no sense to me that we would abandon American ingenuity.”
Given Rogers’ ties to the health care industry, his stance to protect the health insurance companies at the expense of the un- and under-insured citizens of the U.S.A. is no surprise.
Eclectablog :: Rep. Mike Rogers: Healthcare Reform Will Punish the Already-Insured
According to OpenSecrets.org, Mike Rogers has received over $800,000 from health-oriented sources since 2006. Perhaps this explains, at least in part, his vociferous defense of private health insurance. What it doesn’t do is explain his bizarre explanation for his stance. To wit:
Rogers…found several issues with the existing plan. For starters, he noted, according to Democrats, 45.8 million (roughly 15 percent) of Americans do not have health insurance.

However, he added that 9 million people in that group make more than $75,000 and do not purchase insurance, while another 11 million are people eligible for a government program but choose not to enroll.

“We are going to punish the 85 percent of Americans who have private health insurance so that we can try and fix this problem of the 15 percent who don’t,” he said. “It makes no sense to me that we would abandon American ingenuity.”
Let’s parse that a bit, shall we? According to Rogers, 20 million people in this country are uninsured by choice. 9 million, he says, can afford it but choose not to buy it anyway. As FactCheck.org points out, this number is quite inflated. Annual health care insurance costs can be as high as $16,000 in some places plus many folks are turned down for insurance due to pre-existing conditions and those that do qualify are often quoted higher rates.

Of the 11 million he cites that supposedly qualify for federal assistance but don’t avail themselves of it, over half are children under the age of 18. There are many reasons why people don’t seek federal help. Some of them may simply be unaware the programs exist while others fear the shame they would experience having to “be on the public dole”. Why children don’t go down to the government offices to apply on their own behalf is left to the reader as a take-home exercise.

At any rate, those (less than) 20 million “uninsured-by-choice” people are not 15% of the uninsured so his statement that we’re punishing the other 85% on their behalf is, well, absurd.

Rogers also thinks it’s unfair to tax the wealthy.

“This is just for health care,” Rogers said. “They’ve gone after them for other things. When it’s all said and done, that income level will spend more than half of its income on the federal, state (and) local government. When you start taking that much money from anybody, it becomes an issue of fairness and growth.”
What Rogers doesn’t say is that the level of taxation of the über-wealthy under the proposed plan would still be less than that during the Reagan years. In the meantime, improving our health care insurance system and lowering costs helps everyone, including wealthy business owners who now compete on a slightly more level playing field in the global market against countries with single-payer systems. All of that money they don’t spend on health care costs? It goes right to the bottom line.

However, Rogers’ real motivations can be found in the following quote:

Moreover, Rogers said that under the Democrats’ plan, businesses would actually save more money by kicking employees off their private insurance plans and onto a government-run plan.

“They’ve created this perverse incentive for people to get off their private plans and to get on the government plan,” he said. “They’ve made no provision to handle that many people.”
That’s the key to the whole thing isn’t it? He’s worried people will actually like the government-run insurance because it will be lower costs (no profit motive, right?) and because you can’t be kicked off due to a pre-existing condition. What happens when people begin to move to the public option? Rogers benefactors see their profits go down. And this, as they say, simply can not stand!

So what’s Rogers’ answer?

Rogers…said the keys are to expand federal support for state high-risk pools, so the larger the pool, the less the premiums. Small businesses should also be allowed to band together to purchase insurance, which he noted would lower insurance costs and make coverage available to more people.

“All of those things are part of a complicated way of lowering costs and bettering access to better quality without turning over your doctor-patient relationship to the federal government,” Rogers said.

Rogers also wants to expand and protect health savings accounts, noting the plans are, on average, 20 percent cheaper for employers than traditional insurance plans, while giving patients more control and choices.
Rogers plan doesn’t help the uninsured that don’t belong to one of these so-called “high-risk pools” and there’s certainly no guarantee that privately insuring “high-risk” Americans will mean their rates will be lower than would be the case with a public insurance program. The plan to “expand and protect health savings accounts” is ludicrous. Those plans exist now and expanding them will have an infinitesimal effect on health care costs.

But it’s Rogers’ concern about the federal government being involved with the doctor-patient relationship that is most ridiculous. He would, apparently, prefer that bureaucrats from for-profit insurance companies be the only ones allowed to get between the doctor and patient. And when profits are on the line, I think we all know who gets “punished”.

There is some good news, however:
[Rogers] said he plans on proposing all the aforementioned items as amendments to the health-care reform plan currently before Congress, but he acknowledges they will likely be shot down during committee hearings.
Can I get an amen?

I’m just sayin’…

 

Dee — Michelle and I were heartbroken to learn this morning of the death of our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy. For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts. His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives — in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education’s promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me. In the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth and good cheer. He battled passionately on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintained warm friendships across party lines. And that’s one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy. I personally valued his wise counsel in the Senate, where, regardless of the swirl of events, he always had time for a new colleague. I cherished his confidence and momentous support in my race for the Presidency. And even as he waged a valiant struggle with a mortal illness, I’ve benefited as President from his encouragement and wisdom. His fight gave us the opportunity we were denied when his brothers John and Robert were taken from us: the blessing of time to say thank you and goodbye. The outpouring of love, gratitude and fond memories to which we’ve all borne witness is a testament to the way this singular figure in American history touched so many lives. For America, he was a defender of a dream. For his family, he was a guardian. Our hearts and prayers go out to them today — to his wonderful wife, Vicki, his children Ted Jr., Patrick and Kara, his grandchildren and his extended family. Today, our country mourns. We say goodbye to a friend and a true leader who challenged us all to live out our noblest values. And we give thanks for his memory, which inspires us still. Sincerely, President Barack Obama

  • Share/Bookmark



JOIN our e-Mailing List
Email:
Name:
 

Orthomolecular Medicine and Your Immunity to Colds and Influenza

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, March 19, 2008

Vitamins Reduce the Duration and Severity of Influenza

(OMNS, March 19, 2008) Vitamins fight the flu by boosting the body?s own immune response and by accelerating healing. Individuals can be better prepared for an influenza epidemic by learning how to use vitamin supplements to fight off ordinary respiratory infections. The most important vitamins are vitamins C, D, niacin, and thiamine.

Vitamin D
Vitamin D has known anti-viral properties [1] and has been directly associated with fighting influenza in a recent scientific review. [2] Extensive evidence now shows that vitamin D serves as an important regulator of immune system responses. [3] The most dramatic evidence is a recent double-blind trial proving that vitamin D prevents cancers [4], supported by two recent epidemiological studies. [5,6] Vitamin D has been part of a supplement combination proven effective against HIV in a recent double-blind trial. [7]

During a viral infection, the body can draw on vitamin D stored in the body to supply the increased needs of the immune system. The withdrawn supplies of vitamin D are quickly replenished with 4,000 to 10,000 IU/day doses for a few days. Due to biochemical individuality, we recommend vitamin D blood testing as a routine part of a yearly physical exam.

Niacin
Niacin has known anti-viral properties. The most persuasive evidence comes from recent work with HIV patients.[8-12] Niacin is required for cells to generate the energy they use to perform virtually all biological functions.

Niacin?s effectiveness fighting viruses may have to do with accelerating wound healing as well as improving immunity. Accelerating tissue repair limits collateral damage and minimizes the risk of secondary infection. Niacin has been proven to promote healing of damaged skin in double-blind trials. [13] Other recent findings (niacin reduces injury to the brain after strokes and reduces inflammation in general) also provide evidence of healing. [14,15]

Niacin, 500 to 2,000 mg/day in divided doses, is generally well tolerated during periods when the immune system is fighting viral infections. One takes such doses for several days starting at the onset of a viral infection. Dividing the dose reduces flushing. Using “no-flush” form niacin (inositol hexaniacinate) eliminates the flushing side effect.

Vitamin C
Strong evidence shows that high doses of vitamin C prevent common colds and reduce a cold?s severity and duration. [16] Given the similarities between cold and influenza viruses, the scientific case for treating influenza with vitamin C has been investigated and shown to have merit. [17] Fighting influenza with vitamin C has been tested in the clinical setting and reported to be effective at very high doses. [18, 19]

Extraordinary quantities of vitamin C, between 20,000 and 100,000 mg/day, are surprisingly well tolerated during periods when the immune system is fighting viral infections. These large daily amounts are best taken divided up into as many doses per day as possible, beginning immediately at the first sign of a viral infection. To achieve maximum effect it is necessary to maintain high concentrations of vitamin C in the body. Large, very frequent oral intake of vitamin C can maintain much higher blood plasma concentrations of vitamin C than is generally believed. [16, 19, 20]

Thiamine (Vitamin B1)
Two items of recent scientific research have shown that the B-vitamin thiamine has anti-viral properties. TTFD, one of the fat-soluble forms of thiamine, was recently proven to be a potent inhibitor of HIV virus replication [21]. Thiamine was shown to be an effective treatment for chronic hepatitis B. [22]

Influenza killed more people in the two years following World War I than all soldiers killed on both sides in four years of machine-gun warfare. Influenza has been and remains a serious threat to human health. There is a great deal of public concern about the possibility of a repeat of the 1918 influenza pandemic. Vitamin C, niacin, vitamin D, and thiamine act together to strengthen the immune system, and to optimize health. Intelligent, high-dose vitamin supplement use can do much to eliminate the risk of death and disability for individuals with average health, and dramatically reduce the hospitalization and death rates amongst the most vulnerable members of the population.

References:

[1] http://www.vitamindcouncil.org

[2] Cannell JJ et al. Epidemic influenza and vitamin D. Epidemiology and Infection. 2006. Dec;134(6):1129-40. Free access to full text paper at http://www.biochem.wisc.edu/courses/biochem901/secure/materials/readings/09_Cannell.pdf

[3] Tavera-Mendoza LE, White JH. Cell defenses and the sunshine vitamin. Scientific American, November 2007, 62-72.

[4] Lappe JM et al. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.

[5] Abbas S, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer – results of a large case-control study. Carcinogenesis. 2008 Jan;29(1):93-9.

[6] Freedman DM et al. Prospective study of serum vitamin D and cancer mortality in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007. Nov 7;99(21):1594-602.

[7] Kaiser JD et al. Micronutrient supplementation increases CD4 count in HIV-infected individuals on highly active antiretroviral therapy: A prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 2006. 42(5), 523-528. “Micronutrient supplementation can significantly improve CD4 cell count reconstitution in HIV-infected patients. . . ”

[8] Murray MF. Niacin as a potential AIDS preventive factor. Medical Hypotheses, 1999. 53(5), 375-379.

[9] Murray MF, Langan M, MacGregor RR. Increased plasma tryptophan in HIV-infected patients treated with pharmacologic doses of nicotinamide. Nutrition (NY), 2001. 17(7/8), 654-656.

[10] Murray MF. Treatment of retrovirus induced derangements with niacin compounds. The Foundation for Innovative Therapies, Inc., USA, 2006. 9 p. US 7012086.

[11] Pero RW. A method for increasing tryptophan and nicotinamide levels in vivo, and therapeutic and monitoring methods. Lynpete Trading 6 Pty., Ltd. Trading as Genetic Health Enterprises, S. Afr. PCT Int. Appl. 2008, 73pp. WO 2008008837 A2 20080117

[12] Dube MP et al. Safety and efficacy of extended-release niacin for the treatment of dyslipidaemia in patients with HIV infection: AIDS clinical trials group study A5148. Antiviral Therapy, 2006. 11(8), 1081-1089. “(D)doses up to 2,000 mg daily was safe, well-tolerated and efficacious in HIV-infected subjects. . . ”

[13] http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n01.shtml

[14] Maynard KI. Natural neuroprotectants after stroke. Science & Medicine, 2002. 8(5), 258-267.

[15] Yu, Bi-lian; Zhao, Shui-ping. Anti-inflammatory effect is an important property of niacin on atherosclerosis beyond its lipid-altering effects. Medical Hypotheses, 2007. 69(1), 90-94.

[16] Hickey S, Roberts H. Ascorbate: The science of vitamin C. 2004. Lulu Press. ISBN 1-4116-0724-4. Reviewed at http://www.doctoryourself.com/ascorbate.html

[17] www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v02n01.shtml

[18] Ely JT. Ascorbic acid role in containment of the world avian flu pandemic. Experimental Biology and Medicine, 2007. 232(7), 847-851.

[19] Cathcart RF. Vitamin C, titrating to bowel tolerance, anascorbemia, and acute induced scurvy. Med Hypotheses. 1981 Nov;7(11):1359-76. Free access to full text paper at http://www.doctoryourself.com/titration.html See also: Cathcart RF. The third face of vitamin C. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 7:4;197-200, 1993. Free access at http://www.orthomoleculartherapy.net/library/jom/1992/pdf/1992-v07n04-p197.pdf or http://www.doctoryourself.com/cathcart_thirdface.html

Other Cathcart papers posted at www.orthomed.com and http://www.doctoryourself.com/biblio_cathcart.html.

[20] Duconge J et al. Pharmacokinetics of vitamin C: insights into the oral and intravenous administration of ascorbate. PR Health Sciences Journal, 2008. 27:1, March.

[21] Shoji, Shozo et al. Thiamine disulfide as a potent inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus (type-1) production. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 1994. 205(1), 967-75. “The results suggest that thiamine disulfide may be important for AIDS chemotherapy.”

[22] Wallace AE, Weeks WB. Thiamine treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2001. 96(3), 864-868.

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.

Editorial Review Board:

Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D.
Damien Downing, M.D.
Harold D. Foster, Ph.D.
Steve Hickey, Ph.D.
Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D.
Bo H. Jonsson, MD, PhD
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D.
Erik Paterson, M.D.

Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D., Editor and contact person. Email: omns@orthomolecular.org
To Subscribe at no charge: http://www.orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html

http://cs88.clearspring.com/u/4a5e89c17fec94df/4a86cce81b1d9a27

http://cs88.clearspring.com/u/4a5e89c17fec94df/4a86cce81b1d9a27

To view video, either turn off your Java Script blocker or update your Adobe Flash.

Every time you tell your better-feeling story, you will feel better and the details of your life will improve.

DesktopLightning – Click Here For Free Traffic

  • Share/Bookmark



   

PyraBang.Com - Discover... Post... Profit!

HHS Agencies and Offices

The work of HHS is conducted by the Office of the Secretary and 11 agencies.

Agencies
The agencies perform a wide variety of tasks and services, including research, public health, food and drug safety, grants and other funding, health insurance, and many others.

Show Details
Hide Details

OS – Office of the Secretary
ACF – Administration for Children & Families
AoA – Administration on Aging
AHRQ – Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality
ATSDR – Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease
CDC – Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
CMS – Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
FDA – Food & Drug Administration
HRSA – Health Resources & Services Administration
IHS – Indian Health Service
NIH – National Institutes of Health
OIG – Office of Inspector General
SAMHSA – Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration
Offices
The subdivisions of the Office of the Secretary provide direct support for the Secretary’s initiatives.

Show Details
Hide Details

Immediate Office of the Secretary (IOS)
The Immediate Office of the Secretary includes:
Office of the Deputy Secretary (DS)
Directs operations of the largest civilian department in the federal government.
Office of the Chief of Staff (COS)
The Executive Secretariat (ES)
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA)
Facilitates communication regarding HHS initiatives with state, local, and tribal governments.
Office of the Secretary’s Regional Directors
Oversees regional and state office directors.
Office on Disability (OD)
Advises on HHS activities relating to persons with disabilities.
Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (ASAM)
Provides leadership for HHS management, including human resource policy, grants management, acquisitions, and departmental operations
Assistant Secretary for Resources and Technology (ASRT)
Provides advice and guidance to the Secretary on budget, financial management, information technology, grants management, and provides for the direction and coordination of these activities throughout the Department.
Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH)
Advises the Secretary on matters involving the nation’s public health and oversees HHS’ U.S. Public Service (PHS) for the Secretary.
Assistant Secretary for Legislation (ASL)
Serves as the primary liaison between the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and Congress.
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
Directs major activities in policy coordination, legislation development, strategic planning, policy research, evaluation, and economic analysis.
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs( ASPA)
Serves as the principle counsel on public affairs matters, conducts a national public affairs program, provides centralized leadership and guidance for public affairs activities, including Web and new media and broadcast communications, within HHS’ staff and operating divisions and regional offices, and administers the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR)
Advises on matters related to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies and disasters.
Departmental Appeals Board (DAB)
Provides prompt, fair, and impartial dispute resolution services with parties related to HHS office issues.
Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
Enforces Federal laws that prohibit discrimination by health care and human services providers that receive funds from HHS.
Office of Global Health Affairs (OGHA)
Represents the Department to the governments, other Federal Departments and agencies, international organizations and the private sector on international and refugee health issues.
Office of Inspector General (OIG)
Protects the integrity of HHS programs, as well as the health and welfare of the beneficiaries of those programs.
Office Of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA)
Administers nationwide hearings for the Medicare program.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC)
Provides counsel to the Secretary of HHS and Departmental leadership for the development and nationwide implementation of an interoperable health information technology infrastructure.
Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
Represents HHS and offers legal advice on a wide range of highly visible national issues.
Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives (CFBCI)
Provides information and technical assistance to help faith-based and community organizations to compete more effectively for Federal funds.

——————————————————————————–

HHS Regional Offices

Find the regional office for your area and get contact information.


Visit Peacemaker Institute


DesktopLightning – Click Here For Free Traffic

Key Feature Of Immune System Survived In Humans, Other Primates For 60 Million Years
ScienceDaily (2009-08-22) — A new study has concluded that one key part of the immune system, the ability of vitamin D to regulate anti-bactericidal proteins, is so important that is has been conserved through almost 60 million years of evolution and is shared only by primates, including humans — but no other known animal species. … > read full article

  • Share/Bookmark



   

PyraBang.Com - Discover... Post... Profit!

 

  Conquer High Cholesterol

 

posted by Robyn, selected from Experience Life Jul 13, 2009 9:03 am

filed under: Cholesterol, Diet & Nutrition, Health & Wellness, , ,

Conquer High Cholesterol

 

If the nation’s health police had a 10-Most-Wanted poster, cholesterol’s mug shot would be front and center. It stands accused of aiding and abetting the country’s No. 1 killer: heart disease. But cholesterol may have been implicated unfairly, framed for crimes in which it acted more as an innocent bystander — or even as a well-intended Good Samaritan who got caught up in the crossfire.The case against cholesterol traces back to the mid-20th century, when scientists first found its sticky fingerprints inside plaque-filled arteries. The leap from having located blood-borne cholesterol in arterial plaques to assuming it came from the cholesterol in food (and was a root cause of arterial damage) was a short and notoriously unscientific one. (You can read more about the scientific controversy surrounding cholesterol in Cholesterol Myths,” available in the December 2005 archives.)Nevertheless, the medical and dietary-advice establishments put out a loud all-points bulletin: If you eat fat-rich, cholesterol-rich foods, like beef, butter and egg yolks, you’re digging your own grave — one forkful at a time. That was the line adopted by the American Heart Association, American Medical Association and the Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (primary sources for most mainstream health journalists). And so that was the story that got told by the media — for decades on end. Eventually, it became a sort of sacrosanct “common knowledge.”

Yet, not everyone has been convinced. A number of skeptical health professionals — including a variety of doctors and academic researchers — have long insisted that the establishment doctrine on cholesterol is misguided, has been manipulated by pharmaceutical interests, and that the so-called scientific conclusions supporting the now-accepted-as-fact hypotheses are, in fact, deeply flawed.

Some of these skeptics have written copiously footnoted books — like The Cholesterol Myths by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD (New Trends, 2002); The Cholesterol Hoax by Sherry Rogers, MD (Prestige, 2008); and Know Your Fats by biochemist Mary Enig, PhD (Bethesda Press, 2000) — demonstrating that the scientific evidence tying saturated fat and cholesterol to heart disease has never been particularly convincing, and that the evidence tying intake of dietary cholesterol to high levels of cholesterol in the blood is circumstantial at best.

The advice we’ve been given (to cut out all foods high in saturated fat and cholesterol and embrace diet foods instead) has actually made our heart-disease problems far worse, these experts say. It has distracted us from understanding cholesterol’s health-supporting roles in the body, robbed us of our pleasure in eating, given rise to obesity and resulted in widespread overmedication. It has also dissuaded us from taking more effective and sustainable steps — like embracing a high-nutrition, anti-inflammatory diet and exercising more — that would have improved national health and dramatically lowered healthcare costs.

For the most part, these cholesterol iconoclasts have either been ignored or dismissed as heretics by mainstream medical organizations. But over the past several years, as the role of inflammation in disease has become better understood, a growing number of well-recognized experts have begun agreeing that much of what we’ve been told or assumed was true about cholesterol is just plain wrong.

In particular, now that the important health-supporting role played by natural dietary fats has become better understood, the characterization of dietary cholesterol as a big health-risk factor has been called into serious doubt.

Robert Knopp, MD, an endocrinologist and the endowed professor of lipid research at the University of Washington in Seattle, puts it bluntly: “Cholesterol in the diet is a minor player in heart disease.”

A significant body of scientific evidence (much of which is referenced in Ravnskova’s and Rogers’s books — see the Web Extra! at right for a selection of study references) points to high cholesterol as a marker of inflammation-based diseases like heart disease, rather than a root cause. Meanwhile, science is also revealing that trans fats, sugars, refined carbohydrates — particularly when combined with a too-low intake of plant-based, whole-food nutrition — are the primary culprits in creating inflammation, and thus more strongly implicated than egg yolks, butter or sirloin tips in triggering high cholesterol levels in the body.

All of which means it’s probably time for health-concerned people everywhere to reconsider what we thought we knew about cholesterol, and its real role in making or breaking our health.

Cholesterol Basics
The first thing to know: Cholesterol and fat are not the same. Cholesterol is a white, waxy substance found in fat. It’s one of a group of compounds called lipids, which are vital to the body’s basic functions.

The body uses cholesterol for a variety of critically important purposes: to make and repair cell membranes, and to communicate between cells, absorb vitamin D, and produce hormones — including estrogen and testosterone. Lipoproteins are also part of our immune system, where they bind and neutralize bacteria, viruses and toxins.”

Cholesterol is an essential component of our physiology,” explains Mark Hyman, MD, medical director of the UltraWellness Center in Lennox, Mass., and author of The UltraMind Solution: Fix Your Broken Brain by Healing Your Body First (Scribner, 2008).

Cholesterol is also an important repair substance: It concentrates wherever the body has an infection, wound or other source of inflammation (which is how it gets involved in arterial plaques, but we’ll get to that in a moment).

The average person ingests between 200 and 300 milligrams (mg) of cholesterol a day from animal-derived foods, such as cheese, egg yolks and meat. But that’s only a small portion of the body’s normal cholesterol requirement. The liver makes up the difference (roughly 1,000 mg daily in a normal, healthy person), generating cholesterol from a variety of fats, proteins and carbohydrates available in the bloodstream.

“When we eat large amounts of cholesterol, our body’s production goes down,” writes Ravnskov in Fat and Cholesterol are GOOD for You!: What REALLY Causes Heart Disease (GB Publishing, 2009). “When we eat small amounts, it goes up.”

But as noted, your body also regulates its cholesterol production — and, thus, the concentration of cholesterol in your blood — based on its needs for the substance. And one of the things that dictates the body’s level of need is the presence of free radicals, infection and inflammation.

The more inflammation, oxidation or irritation present in the body, the more cholesterol the body produces in an effort to help tackle the problem.

“Cholesterol is much more of a good guy than a bad guy,” writes Rogers in The Cholesterol Hoax. “Cholesterol is a messenger giving you a last-ditch warning.” One shouldn’t kill the messenger, says Rogers, “just because he brought you the message that you are in trouble.”

The cholesterol-as-hero story is not entirely difficult to swallow: After all, we’ve heard about those high-density lipoproteins (HDL) known as “good” cholesterol. But haven’t we also been led to believe that some components of cholesterol — those dastardly low-density lipoproteins (LDL) — are the ones swelling and clogging our arteries?

According to the alternative-view crowd, it’s not that simple. Not only is high LDL cholesterol not the cause of this arterial inflammation, says Ravnskov, it is actually “a noble knight” that, working with other lipoproteins, “is an important actor in our immune system,” valiantly striving to repair damage already done.

Here’s how it works: Uncontrolled blood sugar, free-radical activity, toxins and other pro-inflammatory factors inflame and corrode arteries by creating microscopic tears in the arterial walls. The body attempts to patch and heal the tears by putting down a thin layer of cholesterol, which acts like spackle or plaster.

But if the root causes of arterial damage (i.e., the presence of unchecked inflammation) go unaddressed, those well-intended cholesterol-composed plaques begin to accumulate and stiffen. Eventually, if irritated and inflamed, they can burst, blocking the arteries with debris and setting the stage for a heart attack.

Whether or not this buildup is likely to occur depends in part on the nature of your cholesterol and how it is being transported through your body.

Cargo Confusion
Neither fat nor cholesterol dissolves in blood, so the body ingeniously packs fat molecules inside protein-laced particles called lipoproteins. These are either low-density lipoproteins (LDL) or high-density lipoproteins (HDL).

“Think of the basic cholesterol molecule as a single, brick-size package,” says Byron Richards, a clinical nutritionist in Minneapolis. “Think of LDL and HDL as UPS trucks that cart loads of those packages around.” Both LDL and HDL transport cholesterol in the body. But they do it in different ways and are packed at different densities. LDL particles are (as their name implies) less densely packed vehicles. HDL particles, conversely, are smaller and packed more tightly.

To simplify LDL and HDL for the public, scientists have labeled HDL as “good” for the heart (in part because it helps transport cholesterol away from the arteries and back to the gut for elimination) and LDL as “bad.” But those labels gloss over some very important facts.

For one thing, LDL is critical for transporting cholesterol to cells in need of it. But researchers believe that under certain biochemical conditions, some LDL particles become smaller and denser than they are designed to be. They begin acting like little pieces of sand, lodging in arterial walls. One of the things that renders these lipid particles smaller and denser, says Hyman, is “insulin resistance as a result of eating too much sugar and refined carbohydrates, which drives a whole set of metabolic downstream effects.”

And when these small and dense LDL particles become oxidized as a result of free-radical activity, the situation gets worse: Some LDL turns into sticky foam cells that start the buildup of cholesterol deposits in your arteries. That oxidation can be triggered by anything that triggers inflammation, says Hyman, “whether it’s an inflammatory diet — like processed and junk foods and trans fats and too much sugar — infection, allergens, toxins, nutritional deficiencies or stress.” In other words, it is not cholesterol itself that is dangerous. It is how the body modifies it, under certain inflammatory conditions, that makes it threatening.

Pick Your Battles
Ask virtually any conventional doctor and he or she will tell you that lowering cholesterol is an effective way to lower heart disease. But ask those like Rogers, Ravnskov and Enig, all of whom have spent decades decoding the studies, and you’ll get a drastically different opinion. They point to studies that show little or no meaningful risk reduction from artificially lowering cholesterol levels, and they posit that lowering inflammation through good nutrition, exercise and stress management delivers far more promising long-term health outcomes.

“The real message here is that, in the absence of inflammation, cholesterol is not the problem we once thought it was,” says Hyman. In other words, cholesterol is not the real enemy — inflammation is. And inflammation is primarily driven not by dietary cholesterol or saturated fats, but rather by trans fats, sugar, refined carbs and a sedentary lifestyle, or by the presence of an infection or other irritation in the body.

Nevertheless, in part because attempts to control cholesterol by conventional low-fat dietary recommendations have not been effective, pharmaceutical companies are raking in record profits selling cholesterol-lowering drugs, called statins, to an ever-expanding market, which now includes young children and individuals with only slightly elevated cholesterol levels.

“Although 15 million people currently take cholesterol-lowering drugs in the United States, many policymakers want to extend that to 36 million more adults, including those who don’t even have high cholesterol,” writes Rogers. “They want folks to use them prophylactically, and currently children are the next target market.”

But forcing cholesterol levels down with drugs may not deliver the benefits we’ve been led to believe, and it may also pose some real dangers. Although the potential risks of artificially depressed cholesterol levels are still being debated, critics point to research showing it can lead to memory loss, erectile dysfunction, depression, severe nutritional deficiencies, even cancer. A recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal links low levels of LDL cholesterol to higher rates of cancer and premature death.

Others wonder whether dramatically lowering cholesterol — particularly without addressing underlying causes of inflammation — may give people a false sense of security and make them less likely to make the lifestyle changes required to protect their health in a meaningful way.

For these reasons, even if your cholesterol levels are sky high, statins may not be the best or most effective long-term solution for bringing them down.

Statins: Friend or Foe?
The longstanding misunderstandings about cholesterol’s role in heart disease have led both medical professionals and drug makers down treatment paths with questionable outcomes. Impressed by statins’ effectiveness in lowering cholesterol levels, many doctors have rushed to prescribe them — even though there are hundreds of studies that raise important questions about whether statins reliably and effectively improve health or heart-disease outcomes.

Statins, which work by interfering with a gene that produces an enzyme the liver uses to make cholesterol, now rank among the best-selling drugs in the United States, generating sales of nearly $20 billion in 2007. Last summer, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out in support of prescribing statins for children with high cholesterol levels resulting from garden-variety obesity (as opposed to dyslipedemias and other rare genetic abnormalities that make it impossible for the body to balance cholesterol).

These recommendations have drawn widespread criticism, particularly among health professionals alarmed that merely lowering the marker of inflammation without addressing underlying causes presents an increased rather than decreased health threat to the individuals being treated.

Knopp expresses the concern that a drug-first approach is also likely to delay or deter more promising interventions. “Treating obese children with cholesterol drugs doesn’t make any sense; the focus needs to be squarely on diet and exercise.”

Other critics point to the lack of long-term safety data (recent evidence suggests a host of potential statin side effects, such as muscle damage, dementia and impotence) and the possibility that artificially lowering children’s cholesterol could impede normal growth and development. (Remember, cholesterol is necessary for healthy cellular reproduction and hormone function.)

Although many physicians draw the line at treating children with statins, the pressure to prescribe the drugs to even relatively healthy adults is growing increasingly difficult to resist. And the average person’s likelihood of receiving a “high cholesterol” diagnosis has increased dramatically — even if his or her cholesterol levels have remained unchanged. That’s because the rise of statins has correlated directly with the lowering of what doctors now consider an “optimal” level of LDL cholesterol.

Less than 10 years ago, an LDL cholesterol level of under 130 mg was considered fine. But the guidelines, updated in 2004, lowered the “optimal” level of LDL to less than 100 mg and nudged doctors with patients at very high risk of heart disease to aim for less than 70. (A more recent study suggests 55 mg is an even better target.)

The only way to push levels that low is with drug therapy. And if every doctor followed the guidelines to the letter, 36 million Americans would be on statins.

That’s a windfall for the drug makers, but is it a boon for patients? Not according to a review published last year in the British health journal Lancet. When researchers looked at the drugs’ ability to prevent heart attacks, they found no evidence showing statins can protect women (for whom HDL is the key lipoprotein), nor did they find a benefit in men and women over age 69 — presumably the same group many doctors are trying to help.

A lot of people — doctors and patients alike — want a quick fix, so they take drugs to make the cholesterol score look better, says Richards. “The problem is that a better cholesterol score doesn’t necessarily equate to better health.”

Hyman agrees: “If you’re doing things that are driving small particle size and things that drive oxidation, like eating a high-sugar diet, for example, you can take all the Lipitor medication you want — it doesn’t work. We need to deal with the underlying cause.”

Rogers puts it even more bluntly: “To take a cholesterol-lowering drug is like seeing the red oil light in your car go on and smashing it with a hammer.”

In reality, having low cholesterol doesn’t mean you have a healthy body — or a healthy heart. A study published in the January issue of the American Heart Journal found that nearly 75 percent of patients hospitalized for a heart attack had cholesterol levels that fell within the recommended guidelines. Plus, more than 20 percent of those studied were already taking statins.

“The take-home message is not to be afraid of your cholesterol,” says Suzy Cohen, RPh, author of The 24-Hour Pharmacist (HarperCollins, 2007). Instead, take a step back from both diet fads and quick-fix drugs and look at the big picture. Make the lifestyle adjustments that are known to address the major underlying causes of heart disease, i.e., poor nutrition, lack of exercise and inflammation.

To rely on statins without determining whether inflammation, infection or another health issue is at the root of the problem can put you in peril, says Cohen. “Lowering cholesterol in your body is the equivalent of blowing smoke out of your house while a smoldering fire remains.”

Conquer High Cholesterol
Lower your inflammation, and watch your cholesterol fall in line.

Here are six ways to right-size your cholesterol, reduce your heart-disease risk factors and get a whole lot healthier in the process:

  • Eat less sugar and flour. Refined flours and sugars not only spark inflammation, they elevate triglycerides, a potentially dangerous form of cholesterol. Too many triglycerides in the blood impede the circulation of healthy cholesterol, causing the entire system to break down, explains Byron Richards, a clinical nutritionist in Minneapolis. When choosing grain products, look for those made with whole and sprouted grains. Avoid sugary cereals, cookies, cakes and other sweets, and minimize your intake of pastas and breads made with refined flours.
  • Eat more vegetables, fruits and whole foods. The antioxidants and phytonutrients in vegetables, fruits, legumes and whole grains help protect cholesterol in the blood from free-radical damage, says Richards. They are also high in fiber (see below), which assists the body in ridding itself of cholesterol-laden bile. Worth noting: The Harvard Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study both showed that participants who ate five or more servings of vegetables and fruits a day had a 25 percent lower risk of heart attack and stroke than those who ate the fewest servings.
  • Prioritize quality fats over junk fats. That means nixing trans fats entirely, and avoiding high-fat processed and fried foods in favor of healthy, nutrient-dense whole foods. Enjoy nuts, seeds, fish, avocados and olive oil — and don’t feel you need to cut out saturated fats entirely, either. The body craves these and requires them for proper cell, nerve and brain function, says Richards. Plus, when people don’t satisfy their flavor and satisfaction desires for saturated fats, they’ll often substitute processed carbohydrates instead, thereby increasing weight gain and inflammation. When selecting meat and dairy, choose minimally processed foods, ideally from pastured, free-range and grass-fed animals. These have more nutrients the body needs and fewer pro-inflammatory fats, says Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation and coauthor of Eat Fat, Lose Fat (Penguin, 2005). And whole eggs are fine: Research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition shows that people eating up to seven eggs a week are no more likely to experience heart attacks or strokes than those who eat less than an egg a week.
  • Befriend fiber. Eating more soluble fiber is one of the easiest ways to lower your cholesterol naturally, says Suzy Cohen, RPh, author of The 24-Hour Pharmacist (HarperCollins, 2007). That’s because fiber binds to bile, which is composed of cholesterol and triglycerides, and escorts it (along with a variety of pro-inflammatory toxins) out of the body. The body then produces fresh bile, making use of cholesterol and triglycerides that would otherwise accumulate in the bloodstream. “Just eating two high-fiber foods a day can make a big difference,” she says. Nuts, whole grains, vegetables and berries are all high in fiber, but legumes (like kidney, lima, pinto beans and black-eyed peas) are perhaps the very best source. “Legumes have hormone-regulating properties that help regulate insulin and make sure cholesterol behaves itself,” says Richards. Licensed nutritionist Karen Hurd of Fall Creek, Wis., regularly recommends three daily half-cup servings of legumes to her clients battling inflammation-based health problems. Not a big fan of beans? “You can substitute 2 teaspoons of psyllium husk mixed in a glass of water” for one or more of those servings, says Hurd.
  • Get a Move On. Moderate to intense exercise lowers cholesterol overall and raises the relative levels of protective HDL. Exercise also helps reduce excess weight and moderate the negative, inflammatory effects of stress. A 2006 Duke study that examined the effects of exercise on inactive, overweight adults found that, after six months, many of the factors putting them at risk for heart disease had reversed or improved.

Experience Life magazine is an award-winning health and fitness publication that aims to empower people to live their best, most authentic lives, and challenges the conventions of hype, gimmicks and superficiality in favor of a discerning, whole-person perspective. Visit www.experiencelifemag.com to learn more and to sign up for the Experience Life newsletter.

More on Cholesterol (2 articles available)
More from Robyn, selected from Experience Life (5 articles available)


Visit EFT World

  • Share/Bookmark



    

PyraBang.Com - Discover... Post... Profit!

 

A Dark Hole of Democracy: How the Fed Prints Money Out of Thin Air

By William Greider, The Nation. Posted July 17, 2009.
Pelosi: “We wake up one morning and AIG was receiving $80 billion from the Fed. So of course we’re saying, ‘Where is this money coming from?”

 

 

 

The financial crisis has propelled the Federal Reserve into an excruciating political dilemma. The Fed is at the zenith of its influence, using its extraordinary powers to rescue the economy. Yet the extreme irregularity of its behavior is producing a legitimacy crisis for the central bank. The remote technocrats at the Fed who decide money and credit policy for the nation are deliberately opaque and little understood by most Americans. For the first time in generations, they are now threatened with popular rebellion.

 

 
During the past year, the Fed has flooded the streets with money — distributing trillions of dollars to banks, financial markets and commercial interests — in an attempt to revive the credit system and get the economy growing again. As a result, the awesome authority of this cloistered institution is visible to many ordinary Americans for the first time. People and politicians are shocked and confused, and also angered, by what they see. They are beginning to ask some hard questions for which Federal Reserve governors do not have satisfactory answers.
 
 
Where did the central bank get all the money it is handing out? Basically, the Fed printed it, out of thin air. That is what central banks do. Who told the Fed governors they could do this? Nobody, really — not Congress or the president. The Federal Reserve Board, alone among government agencies, does not submit its budgets to Congress for authorization and appropriation. It raises its own money, sets its own priorities.
 

 

Representative Wright Patman, the Texas populist who was a scourge of central bankers, once described the Federal Reserve as “a pretty queer duck.” Congress created the Fed in 1913 with the presumption that it would be “independent” from the rest of government, aloof from regular politics and deliberately shielded from the hot breath of voters or the grasping appetites of private interests — with one powerful exception: the bankers.

 

 

The Fed was designed as a unique hybrid in which government would share its powers with the private banking industry. Bankers collaborate closely on Fed policy. Banks are the “shareholders” who ostensibly own the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks. Bankers sit on the boards of directors, proposing interest-rate changes for Fed governors in Washington to decide. Bankers also have a special advisory council that meets privately with governors to critique monetary policy and management of the economy. Sometimes, the Fed pretends to be a private organization. Other times, it admits to being part of the government.

 

 

The antiquated quality of this institution is reflected in the map of the Fed’s twelve regional banks. Five of them are located in the Midwest (better known today as the industrial Rust Belt). Missouri has two Federal Reserve banks (St. Louis and Kansas City), while the entire West Coast has only one (located in San Francisco, not Los Angeles or Seattle). Virginia has one; Florida does not. Among its functions, the Federal Reserve directly regulates the largest banks, but it also looks out for their well-being — providing regular liquidity loans for those caught short and bailing out endangered banks it deems “too big to fail.” Critics look askance at these peculiar arrangements and see “conspiracy.” But it’s not really secret. This duck was created by an act of Congress. The Fed’s favoritism toward bankers is embedded in its DNA.

 

 

This awkward reality explains the dilemma facing the Fed. It cannot stand too much visibility, nor can it easily explain or justify its peculiar status. The Federal Reserve is the black hole of our democracy — the crucial contradiction that keeps the people and their representatives from having any voice in these most important public policies. That’s why the central bankers have always operated in secrecy, avoiding public controversy and inevitable accusations of special deal-making. The current crisis has blown the central bank’s cover. Many in Congress are alarmed, demanding greater transparency. More than 250 House members are seeking an independent audit of Fed accounts. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi observed that the Fed seems to be poaching on Congressional functions — handing out public money without the bother of public decision-making.

 

 

“Many of us were…if not surprised, taken aback, when the Fed had $80 billion to invest in AIG just out of the blue,” Pelosi said. “All of a sudden, we wake up one morning and AIG was receiving $80 billion from the Fed. So of course we’re saying, Where is this money coming from? ‘Oh, we have it. And not only that, we have more.’” So who needs Congress? Pelosi sounded guileless, but she knows very well where the Fed gets its money. She was slyly tweaking the central bankers on their vulnerability.

 

 

Fed chair Ben Bernanke responded with the usual aloofness. An audit, he insisted, would amount to “a takeover of monetary policy by the Congress.” He did not appear to recognize how arrogant that sounded. Congress created the Fed, but it must not look too deeply into the Fed’s private business. The mystique intimidates many politicians. The Fed’s power depends crucially upon the people not knowing exactly what it does.

 

 

Basically, what the central bank is trying to do with its aggressive distribution of trillions is avoid repeating the great mistake the Fed made after the 1929 stock market crash. The central bankers responded hesitantly then and allowed the money supply to collapse, which led to the ultimate catastrophe of full-blown monetary deflation and created the Great Depression. Bernanke has not yet won this struggle against falling prices and production — deflationary symptoms remain visible around the world — but he has not lost either. He might get more public sympathy if Fed officials explained this dilemma in plain English. Instead, they are shielding people from understanding the full dimensions of our predicament.

 

 

President Obama inadvertently made the political problem worse for the Fed in June, when he proposed to make the central bank the supercop to guard against “systemic risk” and decide the terms for regulating the largest commercial banks and some heavyweight industrial corporations engaged in finance. The House Financial Services Committee intends to draft the legislation quickly, but many members want to learn more first. Obama’s proposal gives the central bank even greater power, including broad power to pick winners and losers in the private economy and behind closed doors. Yet Obama did not propose any changes in the Fed’s privileged status. Instead, he asked Fed governors to consider the matter. But perhaps it is the Federal Reserve that needs to be reformed.

 

 

A few months back, I ran into a retired Fed official who had been a good source twenty years ago when I was writing my book about the central bank,

 

 

Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country

 

 

. He is a Fed loyalist and did not leak damaging secrets. But he helped me understand how the supposedly nonpolitical Fed does its politics, behind the veil of disinterested expertise. When we met recently, he said the central bank is already making preparations to celebrate its approaching centennial. Some of us, I responded, have a different idea for 2013.

 

 

“We think that would be a good time to dismantle the temple,” I playfully told my old friend. “Democratize the Fed. Or tear it down. Create something new in its place that’s accountable to the public.”

 

 

The Fed man did not react well to my teasing. He got a stricken look. His voice tightened. Please, he pleaded, do not go down that road. The Fed has made mistakes, he agreed, but the country needs its central bank. His nervous reaction told me this venerable institution is feeling insecure about its future.

 

 

Six reasons why granting the Fed even more power is a really bad idea:

 

 

1. It would reward failure. Like the largest banks that have been bailed out, the Fed was a co-author of the destruction. During the past twenty-five years, it failed to protect the country against reckless banking and finance adventures. It also failed in its most basic function — moderating the expansion of credit to keep it in balance with economic growth. The Fed instead allowed, even encouraged, the explosion of debt and inflation of financial assets that have now collapsed. The central bank was derelict in enforcing regulations and led cheers for dismantling them. Above all, the Fed did not see this disaster coming, or so it claims. It certainly did nothing to warn people.

 

 

2. Cumulatively, Fed policy was a central force in destabilizing the US economy. Its extreme swings in monetary policy, combined with utter disregard for timely regulatory enforcement, steadily shifted economic rewards away from the real economy of production, work and wages and toward the financial realm, where profits and incomes were wildly inflated by false valuations. Abandoning its role as neutral arbitrator, the Fed tilted in favor of capital over labor. The institution was remolded to conform with the right-wing market doctrine of chairman Alan Greenspan, and it was blinded to reality by his ideology (see my Nation article “The One-Eyed Chairman,” September 19, 2005).

 

 

3. The Fed cannot possibly examine “systemic risk” objectively because it helped to create the very structural flaws that led to breakdown. The Fed served as midwife to Citigroup, the failed conglomerate now on government life support. Greenspan unilaterally authorized this new financial/banking combine in the 1990s — even before Congress had repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited such mergers. Now the Fed keeps Citigroup alive with a $300 billion loan guarantee. The central bank, in other words, is deeply invested in protecting the banking behemoths that it promoted, if only to cover its own mistakes.

 

 

4. The Fed can’t be trusted to defend the public in its private deal-making with bank executives. The numerous revelations of collusion have shocked the public, and more scandals are certain if Congress conducts a thorough investigation. When Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was president of the New York Fed, he supervised the demise of Bear Stearns with a sweet deal for JPMorgan Chase, which took over the failed brokerage — $30 billion to cover any losses. Geithner was negotiating with Morgan Chase CEO and New York Fed board member Jamie Dimon. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein got similar solicitude when the Fed bailed out insurance giant AIG, a Goldman counterparty: a side-door payout of $13 billion. The new president at the New York Fed, William Dudley, is another Goldman man.

 

 

5. Instead of disowning the notorious policy of “too big to fail,” the Fed will be bound to embrace the doctrine more explicitly as “systemic risk” regulator. A new superclass of forty or fifty financial giants will emerge as the born-again “money trust” that citizens railed against 100 years ago. But this time, it will be armed with a permanent line of credit from Washington. The Fed, having restored and consolidated the battered Wall Street club, will doubtless also shield a few of the largest industrial-financial corporations, like General Electric (whose CEO also sits on the New York Fed board). Whatever officials may claim, financial-market investors will understand that these mammoth institutions are insured against failure. Everyone else gets to experience capitalism in the raw.

 

 

6. This road leads to the corporate state — a fusion of private and public power, a privileged club that dominates everything else from the top down. This will likely foster even greater concentration of financial power, since any large company left out of the protected class will want to join by growing larger and acquiring the banking elements needed to qualify. Most enterprises in banking and commerce will compete with the big boys at greater disadvantage, vulnerable to predatory power plays the Fed has implicitly blessed.

 

 

Whatever good intentions the central bank enunciates, it will be deeply conflicted in its actions, always pulled in opposite directions. If the Fed tries to curb the growth of the megabanks or prohibit their reckless practices, it will be accused of damaging profitability and thus threatening the stability of the system. If it allows overconfident bankers to wander again into dangerous territory, it will be blamed for creating the mess and stuck with cleaning it up. Obama’s reform might prevail in the short run. The biggest banks, after all, will be lobbying alongside him in favor of the Fed, and Congress may not have the backbone to resist. The Fed, however, is sure to remain in the cross hairs. Too many different interests will be damaged — thousands of smaller banks, all the companies left out of the club, organized labor, consumers and other sectors, not to mention libertarian conservatives like Texas Representative Ron Paul. They will recognize that the “money trust” once again has its boot on their neck, and that this time the government arranged it.

 

 

The obstacles to democratizing the Fed are obviously formidable. Tampering with the temple is politically taboo. But this crisis has demonstrated that the present arrangement no longer works for the public interest. The society of 1913 no longer exists, nor does the New Deal economic order that carried us to twentieth-century prosperity. The country thus has a rare opportunity to reconstitute the Federal Reserve as a normal government agency, shorn of the bankers’ preferential trappings and the fallacious claim to “independent” status as well as the claustrophobic demand for secrecy.

 

 

Progressives in the early twentieth century, drawn from the growing ranks of managerial professionals, believed “good government” required technocratic experts who would be shielded from the unruly populace and especially from radical voices of organized labor, populism, socialism and other upstart movements. The pretensions of “scientific” decision-making by remote governing elites — both the mysterious wisdom of central bankers and the inventive wizardry of financial titans — failed spectacularly in our current catastrophe. The Fed was never independent in any real sense. Its power depended on taking care of its one true constituency in banking and finance.

 

 

A reconstituted central bank might keep the famous name and presidentially appointed governors, confirmed by Congress, but it would forfeit the mystique and submit to the usual standards of transparency and public scrutiny. The institution would be directed to concentrate on the Fed’s one great purpose — making monetary policy and controlling credit expansion to produce balanced economic growth and stable money. Most regulatory functions would be located elsewhere, in a new enforcement agency that would oversee regulated commercial banks as well as the “shadow banking” of hedge funds, private equity firms and others.

 

 

The Fed would thus be relieved of its conflicted objectives. Bank examiners would be free of the insider pressures that inevitably emanate from the Fed’s cozy relations with major banks. All of the private-public ambiguities concocted in 1913 would be swept away, including bank ownership of the twelve Federal Reserve banks, which could be reorganized as branch offices with a focus on regional economies.

 

 

Altering the central bank would also give Congress an opening to reclaim its primacy in this most important matter. That sounds farfetched to modern sensibilities, and traditionalists will scream that it is a recipe for inflationary disaster. But this is what the Constitution prescribes: “The Congress shall have the power to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof.” It does not grant the president or the treasury secretary this power. Nor does it envision a secretive central bank that interacts murkily with the executive branch.

 

 

Given Congress’s weakened condition and its weak grasp of the complexities of monetary policy, these changes cannot take place overnight. But the gradual realignment of power can start with Congress and an internal reorganization aimed at building its expertise and educating members on how to develop a critical perspective. Congress has already created models for how to do this. The Congressional Budget Office is a respected authority on fiscal policy, reliably nonpartisan. Congress needs to create something similar for monetary policy.

 

 

Instead of consigning monetary policy to backwater subcommittees, each chamber should create a major new committee to supervise money and credit, limited in size to members willing to concentrate on becoming responsible stewards for the long run. The monetary committees, working in tandem with the Fed’s board of governors, would occasionally recommend (and sometimes command) new policy directions at the federal agency and also review its spending.

 

 

Setting monetary policy is a very different process from enacting laws. The Fed operates through a continuum of decisions and rolling adjustments spread over months, even years. Congress would have to learn how to respond to deeper economic conditions that may not become clear until after the next election. The education could help the institution mature.

 

 

Congress also needs a “council of public elders” — a rotating board of outside advisers drawn from diverse interests and empowered to speak their minds in public. They could second-guess the makers of monetary policy but also Congress. These might include retired pols, labor leaders, academics and state governors — preferably people whose thinking is no longer defined by party politics or personal ambitions. The public could nominate representatives too. No financial wizards need apply.

 

 

A revived Congress armed with this kind of experience would be better equipped to enact substantive law rather than simply turning problems over to regulatory agencies with hollow laws that are merely hortatory suggestions. Reordering the financial system and the economy will require hard rules — classic laws of “Thou shalt” and “Thou shalt not” that command different behavior from certain private interests and prohibit what has proved reckless and destructive. If “too big to fail” is the problem, don’t leave it to private negotiations between banks and the Federal Reserve. Restore anti-monopoly laws and make big banks get smaller. If the financial system’s risky innovations are too complicated for bank examiners to understand, then those innovations should probably be illegal.

 

 

Many in Congress will be afraid to take on the temple and reluctant to violate the taboo surrounding the Fed. It will probably require popular rebellion to make this happen, and that requires citizens who see through the temple’s secrets. But the present crisis has not only exposed the Fed’s worst failures and structural flaws; it has also introduced citizens to the vast potential of monetary policy to serve the common good. If Ben Bernanke can create trillions of dollars at will and spread them around the financial system, could government do the same thing to finance important public projects the people want and need? Daring as it sounds, the answer is, Yes, we can.

 

 

The central bank’s most mysterious power — to create money with a few computer keystrokes — is dauntingly complicated, and the mechanics are not widely understood. But the essential thing to understand is that this power relies on democratic consent — the people’s trust, their willingness to accept the currency and use it in exchange. This is not entirely voluntary, since the government also requires people to pay their taxes in dollars, not euros or yen. But citizens conferred the power on government through their elected representatives. Newly created money is often called the “pure credit” of the nation. In principle, it exists for the benefit of all.

 

 

In this emergency, Bernanke essentially used the Fed’s money-creation power in a way that resembles the “greenbacks” Abraham Lincoln printed to fight the Civil War. Lincoln was faced with rising costs and shrinking revenues (because the Confederate states had left the Union). The president authorized issuance of a novel national currency — the “greenback” — that had no backing in gold reserves and therefore outraged orthodox thinking. But the greenbacks worked. The expanded money supply helped pay for war mobilization and kept the economy booming. In a sense, Lincoln won the war by relying on the “full faith and credit” of the people, much as Bernanke is printing money freely to fight off financial collapse and deflation.

 

 

If Congress chooses to take charge of its constitutional duty, it could similarly use greenback currency created by the Federal Reserve as a legitimate channel for financing important public projects — like sorely needed improvements to the nation’s infrastructure. Obviously, this has to be done carefully and responsibly, limited to normal expansion of the money supply and used only for projects that truly benefit the entire nation (lest it lead to inflation). But here is an example of how it would work.

 

 

President Obama has announced the goal of building a high-speed rail system. Ours is the only advanced industrial society that doesn’t have one (ride the modern trains in France or Japan to see what our society is missing). Trouble is, Obama has only budgeted a pittance ($8 billion) for this project. Spain, by comparison, has committed more than $100 billion to its fifteen-year railroad-building project. Given the vast shortcomings in US infrastructure, the country will never catch up with the backlog through the regular financing of taxing and borrowing.

 

 

Instead, Congress should create a stand-alone development fund for long-term capital investment projects (this would require the long-sought reform of the federal budget, which makes no distinction between current operating spending and long-term investment). The Fed would continue to create money only as needed by the economy; but instead of injecting this money into the banking system, a portion of it would go directly to the capital investment fund, earmarked by Congress for specific projects of great urgency. The idea of direct financing for infrastructure has been proposed periodically for many years by groups from right and left. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood co-sponsored legislation along these lines a decade ago when he was a Republican Congressman from Illinois.

 

 

This approach speaks to the contradiction House Speaker Pelosi pointed out when she asked why the Fed has limitless money to spend however it sees fit. Instead of borrowing the money to pay for the new rail system, the government financing would draw on the public’s money-creation process — just as Lincoln did and Bernanke is now doing.

 

 

The bankers would howl, for good reason. They profit enormously from the present system and share in the money-creation process. When the Fed injects more reserves into the banking system, it automatically multiplies the banks’ capacity to create money by increasing their lending (and banks, in turn, collect interest on their new loans). The direct-financing approach would not halt the banking industry’s role in allocating new credit, since the newly created money would still wind up in the banks as deposits. But the government would now decide how to allocate new credit to preferred public projects rather than let private banks make all the decisions for us.

 

 

The reform of monetary policy, in other words, has promising possibilities for revitalizing democracy. Congress is a human institution and therefore fallible. Mistakes will be made, for sure. But we might ask ourselves, If Congress were empowered to manage monetary policy, could it do any worse than those experts who brought us to ruin?

 

                

 

See more stories tagged with: federal reserve, financial crisis

William Greider is the author of, most recently, “Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of Our Country (Rodale Books, 2009).”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DesktopLightning – Click Here For Free Traffic

  • Share/Bookmark



 
August 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

LIKE

 
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes