Friday, June 24, 2011

Vegan Blogger Misleads Readers About Vitamin D

The ease of publishing on the web has granted a new, powerful voice to millions of people around the world who were previously restricted to communicating amongst those within speaking distance.

As with any technological breakthrough, most people will use the technology for good or at the very least benign purposes. However, as with any technology, blog publishing has its share of individuals who use it for, shall we say, less than benign purposes.

This brings me to Ginny Messina, some crackpot vegan blogger who likes to write about health and nutrition-related topics. She no doubt enjoys the platform and the subject matter, however she is woefully lacking in credibility and credentials, a fact that became painfully obvious during a recent post on her blog (not named here due to my policy of not linking to agents of misinformation).

In the post, Messina was blabbing about fat-soluble hormones. Vitamin D is considered to be a fat-soluble hormone as well as a vitamin.

As most readers here are aware, I am something of an expert on the subject of vitamin D, and there may be no one more qualified to speak about the subject than my mother Pam (whose abbreviations are too many to list here).

One of Messina's readers cited a paragraph from the Vitamin D3 Blog in the comments section of her post about fat-soluble hormones. In an attempt to dismissively undermine what she perceived to be a blogger in competition with herself, she flat-out lied to the reader in an effort to contrast the post from the Vitamin D3 Blog --- a blog whose authors are fully qualified to discuss matters such as the one I'm about to get into.

Ginny Messina told her reader that no significant difference between vitamin D2 and D3 exists. This is flat-out incorrect, and could not be any further from the truth. She then went on to insult the authors of the post being cited by the reader in suggesting they were "confused" about the subject.

Well, I happen to know for a fact that said authors are far more qualified to be speaking on matters such as vitamin D2 vs. D3 than some vegan crackpot with no particular educational or clinical qualifications. Messina is dead-wrong in her assertions about vitamin D3, and for that she is being heretoforth called out.

Vitamin D3 is indeed a more bioavailable and otherwise superior form of vitamin D than D2. This is true in spite of whatever uninformed crackpot bloggers like Ginny Messina have to say about it.

Ginny, I suggest you start to read up on the topics you blog about before you around spouting off a bunch of misinformation, lies and dismissive rhetoric that directly contradicts the scientific findings of every single study that has every been conducted on the topic. You're out of your element, and you would be doing your readers a service by ceasing to blog about matters which you know nothing about.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Endocrine Society Emphasizes Vitamin D3 Supplementation

Endocrine Society Emphasizes Vitamin D3 Supplementation

The Endocrine Society has published a new set of recommendations regarding daily vitamin D3 intake. In the recommendation, which was published in the June online edition of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the organization essentially recommends that almost everyone participate in a daily vitamin d supplement regimen. The amount of the nutrient taken by each person would depend on the person's age and his or her potential risk of developing vitamin D deficiency.

The research that led to the mass-recommendation noticed that vitamin D deficiency was widespread across all age groups, hence why the organization issued a broad recommendation that everyone supplement with vitamin D, and with those most vulnerable to deficiency directed to take the highest dosages.

Vitamin D deficiency is a health condition in which a person's blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3, also known as calcifediol, are severely depleted for a recurring or prolonged period of time. The condition can contribute to the development and/or worsening of more than two dozen illnesses and various medical conditions.

The condition can be corrected by taking two specific measures:
  1. Make it a point to sunbathe whenever possible, soaking up as much of the sun's rays as is possible without overdoing it. Let your body tell you when you've had enough, unless you've been drinking alcohol, in which case you will want to return to the shade after a predetermined period of time so as to make sure you're not being overexposed.
  2. Take a daily, high-quality and high-potency vitamin D3 supplement.
The latter of the two options comes with the least amount of associated risk. While vitamin D3 toxicity is always a remote possibility, it is highly uncommon and should not be a concern so long as you take the supplement according to your doctor's instructions.

Vitamin D3 is available from some food sources like eggs and milk, but in order to obtain the amount recommended by the Endocrine Society a person should be sunbathing and/or supplementing in addition to eating a diet rich in D3.

Vitamin D2 is not as effective or efficient a form of the nutrient as is D3. Ideally, when shopping for vitamin D3 supplements, consumers will be diligent to check the labels to see what form of vitamin D the supplement contains. The recommendation of this author is to go with D3 instead of D2 whenever possible.

Newt May Be GOP's Best Matchup vs Obama

Newt a Sure-Thing Winner Over Obama in 2012

While Newt Gingrich's campaign staff may be in need of a makeover, he still remains an exceptional candidate. In a one-on-one matchup versus Barack Obama, Newt may well represent the GOP's best shot.

Newt Gingrich at the RLC in New Orleans
Where Newt elevates himself from the rest of the pack is in the specifics of his proposed policies and solutions. He is by far the best of the candidates in the current field at articulating the specific reasons why Obama's policies are destructive for the country, what he would do to correct the problems Obama has caused and why.

I had the privilege during last year's SRLC (Southern Republican Leadership Conference) in New Orleans of attending a private meeting with the former House Speaker in which he met with local Tea Party leaders to discuss the direction of the country. I was extremely impressed with Gingrich's depth and breadth of knowledge about the intricacies of the problems facing the country - both in a practical as well as a legislative sense. Newt would not only win the election should he get the nomination, he has the answers to actually fix the problems plaguing the country.

When I try to envision how each candidate in the GOP primary field would fare in a one-on-one election versus Obama, I see Newt being the least risky candidate. I just cannot see Obama defeating Gingrich in a mono-a-mono matchup. I can't say that about the rest of the candidates.

Newt is probably the most intelligent of the bunch --- the man is a certifiable genius. He is the most accomplished as a legislator, having balanced a budget and secured tax cuts in spite of the Clinton White House. Newt is also probably the best debater of the lot, especially when the debate is occurring between Obama and a Republican.

Make no mistake, Newt would absolutely obliterate Obama in a debate. It wouldn't even be close - not even remotely so. The extent of the shellacking would excite Republicans to cheer him like rabid LSU fans in Tiger Stadium in a home-game against Auburn, while sending Democrats running for cover.

Contrary to what the media would have you believe, the field for the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary features a number of very strong and extremely qualified candidates. Of those candidates, it is my belief at this point that Gingrich offers the best shot at defeating Obama.

Newt at the RLC in New Orleans

Newt Announces 2012 GOP Candidacy

Newt in the New Hampshire GOP Primary Debate

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Domain Name Sells

I am pleased to announce that has been purchased in a private sale that is being brokered by Sedo. The domain fetched $775 before commission.

While I personally feel that it might be worth up to $3,000, I agreed to accept the offer for a variety of reasons. These include the fact that my domain portfolio has become a little too top-heavy, the fact that I had no immediate plans to develop the domain, as well as the fact that the overhead for maintaining such a large portfolio is becoming prohibitively burdensome in this tough economy.

In the coming weeks and months, I plan to begin aggressively marketing about 200 of the names in my portfolio in hopes of trimming down on the number of domains I hold that I don't plan to develop in the near future. If you're looking to add inventory, or if I just happen to have a domain name you want, now would be a good time to submit an offer on it.

Full Story: Panax Ginseng Domain Name Has Sold

Monday, June 13, 2011

Crowded Conservative GOP Field Bodes Well for Moderates

For the record, I do still fear that my two favorite candidates for the 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination (Herman Cain and Ron Paul) may hurt each other's candidacies by splitting the Tea Party vote and thus diluting each of their chances to capture statewide races, which in turn could potentially result in another moderate winning the nomination - not because he or she is the most popular candidate, but because the other cluster of candidates were too similar on the issues for any one of them to distinguish themselves enough to outshine the rest.

For example, if four in every five of Republican voters want a strong conservative to win the nomination, and there are eight strong conservatives and one moderate in the race, the moderate could end up winning the party nod by virtue of the other candidates destroying each other's chances by splitting up the conservative and Tea Party votes such that a moderate with 20% of the vote would defeat eight candidates who average 10% each, with none of them eclipsing the 20% held by the moderate.

We all saw how well the moderate Republican fared against Obama in 2008. I hope the the candidates do not allow their personal ambitions to work counterproductive to each of their stated goals by dividing up the conservative vote in such a way that the least desirable candidate gets in thanks to the crowded field of hard-right candidates.

War on Drugs May Work to Ron Paul's Advantage in 2012

The U.S. government's insane bipartisan position on the "need" for the War on Drugs may well be the issue that converts me into a Ron Paul supporter before all is said and done.

I've already stated my support for Government outsider Herman Cain in the 2012 Republican Primaries. However, with so many good candidates in the race, my vote will factor in performance of the respective candidates in the primary elections leading up to the Louisiana GOP Primary. Specifically, I am not going to vote for a candidate who hasn't won a primary by the time Louisiana's nominating contest rolls around, and I reserve the right to vote for a candidate who may not necessarily be my first choice based on among other things, a candidates respective standings in the race to be the party's 2012 Presidential nominee.

So while Herman Cain may be my first choice, and while I would ideally like to see him win the party nomination (and ask Ron Paul to be his running mate), should Cain fail to make a splash in the states leading up to Louisiana's primary, I may well cast my vote for someone whose campaign is in play for the nomination. My first choice among the other candidates Cain excluded is Ron Paul, who is almost neck-and-neck with Cain in the race to win over my vote. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are in a virtual tie for third, and I could feasibly see myself voting for any of these candidates should the others fall out of contention early on.

Of the four names mentioned, the one who has gained the most traction with me as a voter and Tea Party activist in the time since the 2008 elections is Ron Paul. Many of my readers may remember my cold reception to Ron Paul's candidacy in 2008, even as he took the digital world by storm with his staunch libertarian beliefs and apparent disdain for the government.

I did not consider Congressman Paul to be a serious candidate in 2008. My how things have changed. I not only would consider voting for Paul in the GOP Primary this go-round, I have an unprecedented level of optimism for both he and Cain --- two candidates who in other election cycles would have been quickly relegated to the realm of "fringe candidates" who are quickly dismissed by the media and voters alike. Typically, these candidates might get a few percentage points in each of their party's primary elections, but never come close to actually winning one.

I believe the political dynamics this go-round are markedly different from any other election cycle in my lifetime, and I think the very same positions on the very same issues and dynamics that in years past would all but disqualify men like Ron Paul and Herman Cain may not only work to their advantage this time around, but may even be significant enough to put both men into real contention.

There are just so many things wrong with the so-called war on drugs. First and foremost, the very premise of such prohibitions are un-American and unconstitutional. America's war on drugs has created a real war in Mexico pitting the nation, its government and its law enforcement agencies against drug-gang militias that have killed tens of thousands of people in the last few years alone.

How many lives must be lost before the U.S. government decides to start behaving like adults with regard to the issue? How many non-violent Americans whose only crime was pursuing happiness in a manner the U.S. government deems illegitimate must be locked up, taken away from their families, losing their jobs and any prospect of a normal remainder of their lives in the process before Americans say "enough is enough".

For all the Democrats' nefarious behavior in terms of their rewarding campaign contributors with big government contracts, bailouts and other corporate welfare, the Republicans are on-par in their support of the "Big Law Enforcement" industry, whose lobby is hell-bent on seeing to it that drugs remain illegal for the foreseeable future.

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who I am confident would do everything within his capability to end this expensive and ultimately counter-productive war. In the end, that may go an awfully long way to securing my vote in Louisiana.

Author's Note:  For the record, my position regarding the war on drugs is in no way an endorsement of use and/or abuse of illicit substances. I do believe addiction in America is a serious problem, but one that is not solved by incarcerating Americans who develop addictions to mood-altering chemicals. A propensity to abuse alcohol and drugs is passed down genetically from addicts to their children. Technically, addictive disorders are a medical illness, and putting people in jail for suffering from a genetic illness seems as un-American to me as anything with which I am familiar.

John Edwards Indictment Not Without Peculiarities

While scanning the news headlines this morning, I came across a story about the fiasco involving former Democrat U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards' ongoing federal indictment/prosecution. There was nothing in particular about the headline or story that raised my eyebrows. However, there is one key detail about the matter that is very peculiar to say the least.

Specifically, I am referring to the Democrats' history of defending their own against media scrutiny, and propensity to circle the wagons in defense of their own whenever one of them runs afoul of the law, voters, media, etc. To take it a step further, that the mainstream media (which we all know is effectively an extension of the Democrat Party) actively tried to cover up the story for so long indicates to me that there was most likely a request made by one or more high-ranking Democrats that the lurid details of Edwards' affair be kept secret - at least until after the 2008 elections.

Based on the history of similar events in years past, I am hesitant to believe that the Justice Department decided to go after Edwards on its own and without any prompting from someone within the current administration. Assuming that this is correct, it is likewise reasonable to assume that the person who ultimately gave the order was none other than President Obama himself, given that such a brazen request would not have been made by his cabinet without either a direct order from the President himself, or at the very least him signing off on the indictment and prosecution.

I can't help but wonder what Edwards did to piss off Obama, who by all accounts appears to be much more involved in micromanaging the Justice Department than any other President in recent memory. Could Edwards' prosecution be the result of unflattering comments made during the '08 Democrat primaries? Or was it something else potentially involving someone else?

If there's one thing we do know, it's that Democrats don't go after their own unless its personal or in some way related to the advancement of an agenda (such as the Democrat calls for Weiner to resign only came after his scandal kept the attention off of the Ryan Medicare plan for almost two weeks). In this case, there doesn't appear to be any legislative goal, which leads me to believe it is personal retaliation by Obama for some unknown slight.

Every mainstream media organization in America worked tirelessly to cover up the story of Edwards' infidelity for more than a year. They never did release the story. As I'm sure most of you recall, the National Enquirer broke the story after the NYT, LAT, USAT, WP, AP and all the others passed on the opportunity. That very fact alone suggests that somewhere along the way Edwards said or did something that angered Obama enough for him to seek retribution by way of a federal indictment.

Do you remember something that I may have forgotten regarding the relationship between the two men (Edwards and Obama)? If you have a theory about what former Senator John Edwards may have done to invite the wrath of Obama, please be sure to share it in the comments.

If you simply disagree with my theory regarding Edwards' indictment, please feel free to voice that (and/or any other sentiments you may have about the case) in the comments as well.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Fun Zappers Hand-Held Bug Zappers Make Killing Insects Fun

I moved into a new apartment a little over a month ago. The apartment is a dream-come-true, however that is not to say it is not without its own share of problematic issues.

Before I get to the drawbacks of living here, I'd like to state a few of the positives in order to put everything into perspective. First, the building is basically a one-room apartment that was converted from a boat house into a livable space. Two rooms if you count the bathroom. It literally overlooks a tributary of the Tchefuncte River near Covington, Louisiana.

The balcony (and the majority of the apartment) was literally built out over the water. What used to be a boat house was built on top of a garage with slightly over half of the building hovering over a boat slip (a human-dug extension of the river/canal on private property that exists for the purpose of parking a resident boat). The part that is out over the water is supported by reinforced wooden pilings.

The problem is that with all of this wood (specifically the shed, the bottom-side of the floor of the apartment overlooking the boat slip, and the inside of the apartment above the ceiling), wasps and hornets have found the place to be a haven of sorts, with an ideal environment for them to build their nests. With all of the wood that is sheltered from the weather but technically not inside the living area of the apartment, the building is capable of supporting several dozen wasp and hornet nests simultaneously.

With the river below (and in particular its banks), the wasps have an ample food supply to support as many colonies as they decide to found.

Needless to say, I wasn't just going to sit back and allow these pesky insects to dominate my domicile. No, regardless of where I choose to reside, I am the master of my domain, and I refuse to allow a pack of stinging flies to take that away from me. Before they had even had a chance to sting me, I had already committed to fighting back and attempting to reclaim what was now my property.

While I was committed to winning this war by any means necessary, if I could achieve my objectives without the use of toxic chemicals and poisons such as wasp and hornet killer, which inevitably are inhaled by the person spraying them more often than I was comfortable with.

A traditional bug zapper wouldn't work, because these were some smart insects I was dealing with, and I just couldn't envision wasps and hornets flying into a hanging bug zapper in such numbers that they were eventually eradicated from the property. I needed a more personalized approach.

Luckily for me (not so much so for the wasps), I came upon a device known as a Fun Zapper. Fun Zappers are battery-powered, electronic tennis racquet bug zappers that can be swung like a tennis racquet in the pursuit of killing bugs. Within moments of laying eyes upon the device, I knew the Fun Zapper was the solution to my wasp problem.

One lazy Saturday I made it a point to kill as many of the flying, stinging insects as I possible could. Between myself and a friend who was there assisting, we killed at least 44 hornets and wasps, and largely rid the place of the pesky flies. Now, my apartment is peaceful again.

I can finally step outside on my balcony without being greeted by angry wasps who get up in my face and demand to know who I am and what my business is inside of their territory. My apartment is now my territory, and I owe it all to this convenient and fun electric tennis racquet bug zapper.

Build Your Own Website in Minutes