Corn-Sweetened Sodas:

high-fructose-corn-syrupCan we at least save our kids? Cane sugar doesn’t produce the harmful carbonyl compounds; the antioxidant from green tea (EGCG) reduces levels of reactive carbonyls

 Many public health advocates and researchers believe that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) – a synthetically produced sweetener – promotes diabetes and obesity, because of differences in the way it’s metabolized compared with the sucrose in cane sugar.Corn

However, Spanish researchers found that liquid fructose affects a genetic switch called PPAR-alpha in ways that impair the ability of rodents’ livers to break down the sweetener.

As the Spaniards reported, “Because PPAR-alpha activity is lower in humans than in rodent livers, fructose ingestion in humans should cause even worse effects, which would partly explain the link between increased consumption of fructose and widening epidemics of obesity and metabolic syndrome.” (Rogans N et al 2007).

Pro-aging compounds abound in corn syrup-sweetened sodas

 cornsyrupResearchers at Rutgers University add fuel to the fire with a report that carbonated soft drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contain very high levels of a chemical that may contribute to the development of diabetes, particularly in children.

 The scientists found that carbonated drinks containing HFCS had uniquely high levels of reactive “carbonyl” compounds.

Beverages sweetened with cane sugar (sucrose) are free of reactive carbonyls, because its fructose and glucose components are “bound” into chemically stable sucrose molecules.12-10-24banksysoda2

And carbonation seems to fuel formation of reactive-carbonyls in beverages containing HFCS.  The Rutgers group found only one-third the amount of reactive carbonyl species in non-carbonated drinks containing comparable concentrations of HFCS.

These pro-aging chemicals occur at very high levels in the blood of diabetics, and are linked to complications of the disease.

Rutgers researcher Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D. tested 11 popular sodas containing HFCS and found “astonishingly high” levels of reactive carbonyls: a single can contained about 5 times more carbonyls than the blood of an adult with diabetes.

High reactive carbonyl compounds are associated with the “unbound” fructose and glucose molecules in HFCS, and bear a relationship to the advanced glycation end product (AGEs) found in many breads baked goods, and browned meats.sweetsoda
This is how the author of a recent scientific review expressed the state of the evidence, and I so agree.

“Considerable evidence is now accumulating that… reactive carbonyl products are… involved in the progression of diseases, including neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, atherosclerosis, diabetic complications, reperfusion after ischemic surgery, hypertension, and inflammation” ((Ellis EM 2007).

AGES and carbonyls both induce “Glycation” reactions, which form compounds containing chemical bonds that generate cell-damaging free radicals.

diet-soda-2All this to say and perhaps at this point in our society ‘beg’ you to not purchase regular or even worse diet sodas, in particular if you have children that you love.  Poison is poison, is poison!

Let’s save our kids – even if the parents are addicted.  Help me help them……….

This is a plan for all to start –

Planning for Tomorrow’s Good Health –   TODAY!

Dr. Rhonda




Office:        702-269-8120



mental-illnessThe first comprehensive examination of childhood mental health by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that mental illness is increasing in children younger than 18 years.

“A total of 13% to 20% of children living in the United States experience a mental disorder in a given year,” according to CDC investigators, who published the findings May 16 in a supplement of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The most prevalent of parent-reported current diagnoses among children aged 3 to 17 years was attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD at 6.8%.  Depending on the surveillance system used, ADHD prevalence ranged from 7.6% to 8.9% in 2007 to approximately 8.5% in 2010 and 2011.

 ADHD prevalence was highest among white and black non-Hispanic children.

 Behavioral or conduct disorders, at 3.5%, were the next most common parent-reported current diagnosis in children in the same age group, followed by anxiety, at 3%; depression, at 2.1% and autism spectrum disorder (ASD)  at 1.1%.

 The prevalence of behavioral and conduct disorders was twice as high among boys as among girls.physical-or-mental-illness

 Some 0.2% of children between 6 and 17 years of age had a parent-reported current diagnosis of Tourette syndrome.

In contrast to other childhood mental disorders, recent survey findings indicate that the prevalence of substance use disorders among adolescents between 17 and 17 years of age has decreased over time, to 6.9% in 2011, down from 5.9% in 2002.  Illicit drug use was also higher in 2002 than in 2011.

On the basis of self-reported data, 8.3% of adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age reported 14 or more unhealthy days in the past month.  This affected nearly 2 million US adolescents.

Mental boy Finally, suicide was the second leading cause of death among children between 12 and 17 years of age in 2010.

 Estimates also indicate that the prevalence of having seriously considered attempting suicide among students was 15.8% nationwide.  Some 12.8% of students had made a plan about how they would attempt suicide, and 7.8% of students had attempted suicide 1 or more times during the year prior to a 2011 national survey.

“Surveillance is a critical first step in the public health approach to mental health among children,” MMWR authors write.  “As intervention and prevention strategies are implemented, surveillance is needed to continually monitor progress in reducing the impact of mental disorders and improving mental health.”

My personal comments:

It’s amazing when we increase the strength of the immune system by eating whole foods rather than junk – that means feeding our children properly – you will see miraculous changes, that is if you’re really serious.  This ought to be a family affair.

Never eat the following, if you intend to exhibit optimal good health:

1.      Processed foods – such as bacon, sausage, packaged meats, etc.  They contain sodium nitrate and rodents hair – really!  And yes, the USDA is well aware of this situation.

2.      Artificial sweeteners – affect your brain, cancer, diabetes, etc.  This means staying away from all the so-called diet foods and drinks.  Stevia is what I use and there are coconut sugar.  Fructose – affects your liver, diabetes, cancer and others.

3.      Margarine – affects heart, diabetes, cancer and others.  Use only real (organic) butter, and/or what I use is 100% Spanish Organic Extra Virgin Olive Oil on anything uncooked. Many are still cooking with olive oil and when it gets too hot, the molecules break down and that’s not good.  I use Organic Coconut Oil.Child-Mental

4.      Statin drugs – which cause cancer.  Know that when cholesterol goes below 200 – it’s inviting cancer and really lowers testosterone levels.

5.      Shell fish – like lobster, shrimp, crab, etc., it’s like you are eating cockroaches.  I guess that’s why if you read your bible you know that in Leviticus, we’re told not to eat these foods and others, and today we know that they have many parasites. Japan has put so much radioactivity into the ocean that everything that comes out of it has health issues. Canned tuna – full of mercury.  The only fish you ought to consume is wild.  Wild organic tuna and other wild fish are fine and important to your overall health needs.

6.      GMO foods – they are poison, without doubt.  The sprays that Monsanto now controls and every farmer (other than organic) have changed the DNA in crops.  These poisons are fed to the animals, the water is poisoned, and it’s a big mess.

If you’re interested in learning more about GMO – take the time to check out my online radio show entitled: “The GMO Disaster Warning” you will learn more than you probably want to know which is the case with all of my shows which are educational, often controversial, but always the truth, as I see it daily.

And let me not warn all parents – ADD and ADHD has become a national epidemic because we’re feeding and allowing our kids to eat poison daily.  So – don’t say you didn’t know this or that.  If you want to know what’s what – keep reading and listening to my shows – they are FREE – and the best gift I share with the world because of my difficult journey.

punished-child7.      Aluminum salts – this and fluoride is found in our all of our crops which affects the brain, lowers IQ in kids and let’s not forget the newest epidemic – Alzheimers’s Disease.

8.      High Fat dairy products – animals are fed corn based products containing genetically modified (GMO), give antibiotics, hormones, etc.  Use only organic dairy products.

9.      Coffee products – a moderate amount is fine, but several each day will have deleterious affects to your system.  Instead use cereal coffee, green tea extract tea (organic).

10.     Alcohol – increased risks of pancreatic cancer, liver, kidney and osteoporosis, etc.  However, in small amounts you should have no issues, unless you’re susceptible (allergies) to the ingredients.

I know I’ve ruined some of your day with this important information, but if you don’t change you’re ways you can’t expect to stay well and when something hits you, don’t think running to the doctor for a drug is the answer.  Did you know that 100,000 people die each year from taking prescription drugs?Mother-Child

So, get smart and start implementing healthy lifestyle living in your homes as soon as today.  Your children are our future and due to the fact that they probably didn’t have a start in life with parents who were no doubt nutrient deficient, then given processed, junk food and water, how would you expect them to have developed a strong immune system?  Not possible – it’s only time when you will become aware of the fact that our children will be dying earlier then their parents and that, to me, is a very sobering thought and reality!

So, as I like to leave you each day we meet – isn’t it time for your to start –

Planning for Tomorrow’s Good Health – TODAY!

Dr. Rhonda




Office:                   702-269-8120

What’s in YOUR Kitchen?

Is your kitchen making your Sick … or Fat?


So you try to choose mostly organic, natural, healthful, locally produced foods.

That’s great … but the kitchen you prepare them in could be making you sick or putting on extra pounds.   Really!

With obesity rates continuing to rise at an alarming rate, scientists have started to ask if something aside from diet, exercise, and junk is to blame.  Finally!

ObesogensAs Robert H. Lustig, a professor of clinical pediatrics a t the University
of California, San Francisco said: “Even those at the lower end of the BMI (body mass index) curve are gaining weight.  Whatever is happening is happening to everyone, suggesting an environmental trigger.”

What researchers like Lustig are discovering is that certain chemicals in food, drugs, and industrial products alter metabolic processes in ways that promote weight gain or worse.

groves tonic

These insidious enemies – called obesogens – are endocrine disruptors, meaning that they mimic human hormones and thereby can make you sick, fat, or both.

Let’s Find the Obesogens in Your Home:

Obesogens (1)About 20 obesogens have been identified … and that list is growing.

These are the best-documented obesogens and their most common sources:

   *       Alkylphenols are surfactants (detergents) used in many industrial, household, and person care products.

   *       Pesticides like DE (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) are linked to bigger BMIs (body mass indices) in children.

   *       Parabens are used as preservatives in cosmetics due to their bactericide or fungicide properties.

   *       Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as PCBs and dioxins work their way up the food chain and accumulate in animal fats.  They’ve been banned for decades but as the name implies, traces are still found in meats, dairy products, and some fish (farmed fish have higher levels than wild fish).

   *       Phthalates are used in plastics and as solvents, and are found in vinyl bpa8flooring, adhesives, detergents, lubricating oils, automotive plastics, plastic clothes (raincoats), personal-care products (soaps, shampoos, hair sprays, and nail polishes), plastic packaging film and sheets, garden hoses, inflatable toys, blood-storage containers, medical tubing, some children’s toys.  People are exposed to phthalates by eating and drinking foods that have  been in contact with phthalates.

   *       Organotins are tin-based pesticides also found in PVC (a type of plastic), in some lubricating oils, hydrogen peroxide, and the coatings of some food packages and reusable glass bottles.

What About BPA?

bpa (1)


Because it’s the best known endocrine-disruptor and potential obesogen, BPA deserves special attention.

BPA is primarily used in polycarbonate plastics, epoxy resins, and most cash register tapes.

This means that BPA is often used in food and drink packaging (e.g., some water and infant bottles), medical devices, food cans, bottle tops, water supply pipes, and some dental sealants and composites.

When BPA concerns first arose in 2007, many legitimate, in particular organic supplier asked all of their suppliers whether any of their food cans or packages contain BPA, and all certified they didn’t.

However, most have since refused to renew their certification, because they don’t control every part of their supply chain and fear liability for an erroneous certification.waterbottle

By now, BPA is everywhere in the environment, and like virtually every canned food in the world.

This happened even though Consumer Reports agreed that the type of lining used in cans does not contain BPA, and the can makers even certified that BPA was not used.

In February 23, 2010 Washington Post article, “Alternatives to BPA containers not easy for U.S. Food makers to find”.

BPAOn of the companies I buy from spends about $10,000 on lab tests trying to pinpoint the source of BPA in their canned tuna, and Consumers Union also found BPA in baked beans made by Eden Foods, which were packed in “BPA-free” cans.

Importantly, legitimate concern over BPA distracts from the fact that – according to recent research – BPA-free plastics contain compounds that also exert endocrine-disruptive effects.

Toxins in the Kitchen:

bpa9You also need to keep an eye on toxins that affect the nerve, hormone, and immune systems, whose close interactions and mutual influences have led scientists to consider them one “neuro-endocrine-immunologic” system.

These are the most common offenders:

   *       Ethanol, lead, and hexane.

   *       Pesticides – Any food or beverage not labeled organic may contain pesticides.

   *       Perfluoroctanoic acid (PFOA) – PROAs can be found in non-stick pots and pans.


Look for “PFOA free” on the label.  The biggest danger is in overheating or scratching a non-stick pan that contains PFOAs.
Clearly, we can’t identify and avoid all of the potential obesogens and toxins in our lives.  But we can be smart and mitigate our exposure, starting with our kitchens.

Bruce Blumberg, a biology professor at the University of California, Irvine, who coined the term obesogen in 2006, sums it up pretty well: “Eat organic, filter water, minimize plastic in your life.  If there’s no benefit and some degree of risk, why expose yourself and your family?”

 Get Back to Great-Grandma’s Kitchen:

Think old school.  Chemicals have been omnipresent in home and personal care products since the 1920’s, so referencing grandma’s kitchen probably isn’t going back far enough in time – but you get the point, I hope!

Instead ask, “Would my great-grandmother recognize it?”  I use this same question when teaching folks about food.  Today we all know that the name like tomato can be the same today – but it doesn’t taste anything like when we were growing up – and most of us know why!muffin-top


   *       Glass is a clean and cheap way to store nearly anything.

*       Steel boxes and stoneware offer another option – and they look fantastic.

Cooking Utensils

*       Stainless steel is sleek, cleans easily, and can be run through the dishwasher – better yet is surgical steel.

   *       Wood is a great choice.  Bamboo, rosewood, and cherry are good options.

  Pots & Pans

   *       Stainless steel is the first choice of serious chefs, and the lightest of all.

   *       Cast iron is durable, beautiful, a pro at even heat distribution, and it lasts forever.

Enameled cast iron is handsome and works in the oven as well as on the stove top.

*       Copper will cost you and require a learning curve, bit it will also impress your friends.

   *       Glass is the way to go when baking.  The idea that you need risky non-stick coatings to make a cake turn out right is pure baloney.  Just grease the pan with organic butter or oil (I use only organic coconut oil).

*       Stoneware is naturally non-stick, ages beautifully, and comes in a variety of forms from muffin pans to cookie sheets.

pcb To say these tips remove all hazards from your kitchen would be an exaggeration.  But a bit of awareness could help protect your health, your family’s health … and your waistline!

Remember, I’m all about helping you all –

Plan for Tomorrow’s Good Health – TODAY!

Dr. Rhonda




Office:     702-269-8120




Do you think infants should sleep with their parents?

The following letter appeared in the November issue of The Archives of Adolescent and Pediatric Medicine, which is a publication of the American Medical Association.  I have included the entire text, as it contains lots of interesting information and many good references.

“Don’t sleep with your baby or put the baby down to sleep in an adult bed.”  Ann Brown, chair of the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Voiced this statement in the 9/30/99, New York Times through a CPSC press release.

The release previewed data from an October 1999 Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine study entitled “Review of Hazards Associated with Children Placed in Adult Beds.”  The news flew over the associated Press wires, and emotionally charged commentaries were printed in newspapers and magazines nationwide, a clear indication of the public interest on this issue.  Numerous websites espouse the benefits of co-sleeping, also reflecting current interest in the family bed concept.

Historically, co-sleeping in this country was the normal practice.

Today, the practice of co-sleeping is standard for most non-Western cultures and is common in the US, yet  it’s probable that many pediatricians in this country, like the CPSC chairperson, counsel new parents to sleep separately from their infants.  This is one of many areas where physicians may counsel families based on few, or anecdotal data, in contrast to the recent trend toward evidence-based medicine.AA032577

What are the potential risks and benefits of co-sleeping?

Are there enough data to support encouraging or discouraging this common practice?  This commentary will review the relevant literature on this subject, enabling pediatricians to more knowledgeably counsel families about co-sleeping.

And because professionals in the field of health often receive information that isn’t shared with the general public, unfortunately, I like to do what I think is best, after all, who cares more for their babies then the parents?

Potential Benefits of Co-sleeping

From a biological perspective, co-sleeping is a natural extension of infant care practice.  Among mammals, human infants are born the most neurologically immature, needing close human contact for basic survival.  Mammals need close physical contact for more than just nutritional needs.  Harlow’s work demonstrated that newborn monkeys separated from their mothers spent significantly more time in contact with a cloth surrogate mother than a wire one, even if th wire surrogate provided all of the infant’s nutrition.

Recent work by Mosko et al has shown that the sleep architecture of infants who co-sleep is qualitatively different.  Healthy mother-infant pairs were studied in the sleep laboratory sleeping either alone or together.  While bed sharing, infants had significantly longer total sleep time, a greater duration and percentage of stage – half sleep, shorter duration and lower percentage of stage – three-quarters sleep (quiet sleep).

The authors postulate that if sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is caused by an arousal deficiency, then less time spent in quiet sleep through co-sleeping may be protective.

This same group observed patterns of breast-feeding in the sleep laboratory between those who routinely co-slept and those who did not.  For infants who routinely bed shared, the number and duration of breast-feeding episodes were significantly greater on the bed-sharing night.  The authors concluded that bed sharing promotes breast-feeding.

There are many professionals and parents who strongly advocate co-sleeping as the optimal way to raise a child.  Sears, author of Nighttime Parenting, advocates “attachment parenting,” a concept that includes the possibility of various sleeping arrangements, depending on the needs of the family.

Co-sleeping and SIDS

momwbabybAccording to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (Atlanta, Ga) surveillance data between 1980 and 1994, SIDS was the leading cause of death among infants aged 28 to 364 days, accounting for 33% of all post-neonatal deaths.  The annual rate of decline of SIDS deaths in the U.S. was more than 3 times faster from 1990 to 1994 than from 1083 to 1989; the latter dates coincide with national efforts placed on educating families about the risks of prone sleeping.

Does co-sleeping increase the risk of SIDS?  Several studies have attempted to answer this question.  Results from the 3 most recent and comprehensive investigations.  These studies drew similar conclusions; there is no detectable increase risk of SIDS from co-sleeping unless the mother smokes.  Recall bias and residual confounding many have disforested results from these studies.  However, point estimates for the relative risk of SIDS while co-sleeping (and smoke free) were remarkably similar and close to unity in all 3 studies.

Co-sleeping and Suffocation


Another major concern involving the practice of co-sleeping is the risk of
suffocation, a fear dating back to biblical times.  (In 1 Kings, chapter 3, one woman accused another of having “overlaid” her newborn.)

Drago and Dannenberg reviewed 2178 case summaries from the CPSC Death Certificate Files from 1980 to 1997, for infants younger than 13 months, whose deaths were attributed to mechanical suffocation.

The leading pattern (40% of cases) of suffocation was wedging (infant is trapped between 2 products or parts of a product).  More than half of the wedgings involved a bed; 22% occurred in a crib.  Further investigation revealed that many of these cribs didn’t meet current federal crib standards.  The second leading cause (24% of cases) of suffocation death was due to nasal obstruction from bedding, pillows, and plastic bags.  The third cause (8% of cases) was from infants being overlain by another person.

Another article, published in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, reviewed the CPSC’s databases from 1990 to 1997 for deaths of children aged younger than 2 years who were placed in adult beds, day beds, and waterbeds.  There were 515 deaths in children younger than 2 years who were placed to sleep in an adult bed, with 394 of these deaths attributed to entrapment in the bed.

A total of 121 deaths were attributed to overlying by a parent, sibling, or other adult.  During the same period, there were 17 deaths of children older than 2 years sleeping in adult beds, 8 of which occurred in severely disabled children.  Although the authors did not investigate deaths of children placed in cribs, they did cite another CPSC study from 1989 t0 1991, which found an average of 50 accidental deaths per year in cribs, compared with an average of 64 deaths per day in adult beds.

The authors maintain that mothers should be encouraged to breast-feed, but recommend they be “alerted to the hazard of overlying” if the mother and infant fall asleep together after feeding, which is likely to be a common occurrence.

Unfortunately, the CPSC data only represent a case series and aren’t denominator-based, making it impossible to ascertain the relative risk of death for infants who co-sleep.  There is also no possibility of ascertaining the accuracy of the information derived from the databases.  Last, how many infants were sleeping with parents impaired by alcohol or other drugs?  How many were sleeping with a sibling vs a parent (another potential risk factor)?

To put the risk of suffocation into perspective, the post-neonatal injury death rate per 100,000 live births of white infants in 1994 was 22, of which nearly a third were due to suffocation.  This is less than one tenth of the mortality rate from SIDS for the same cohort.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a statement on this topic.  Although co-sleeping is not encouraged, it’s not discouraged either, assuming that the sleep environment is otherwise safe, the infant is supine, and co-sleepers do not smoke or use other drugs that impair arousal.


momwbabyTo my knowledge, to date, the literature offers insufficient data to recommend or discourage babies and parents from co-sleeping.  Meanwhile, many parents and healthcare professionals believe that co-sleeping is the best way to raise a baby physiologically, psychologically, and emotionally.

Therefore, are pediatricians justified in condemning the family bed, making parents feel guilty about harming their baby?  Clearly, pediatricians must counsel families about the dangerous of smoking, drinking alcohol, or taking drugs that impair arousal, and the potential for infant suffocation in beds, cribs, and bedding.  However, until there is more compelling evidence, the decision to co-sleep, like many other child rearing practices, should be left to the family.

Catherine Kelley, MD, University Hospital, Department of Pediatrics. I couldn’t agree more with Dr. Kelley that physicians should keep their noses out of the business of parents’ person child rearing practices, particularly when there is insufficient evidence to back up their claims.  The co-sleeping arrangement may not be suitable for all families, but parents should not be scared away from it unnecessarily.

What doctor’s should do however, is discuss the issue or provide information to parents concerning how to keep such a sleeping arrangement as safe as possible.  Some of these recommendations would be as follows: 


   *       The safest arrangement, according to William Sears, MD, is for the infant to sleep between the breast-feeding mother and the edge of the bed, with an adequate barrier to prevent the baby from falling off.  This removes any risk of suffocation from the father.  Many experts have noted that there is a connection or awareness of the baby between mother and child that does not exist with the father.  I would stress that this in no way means the father loves the baby any less.  The mother’s special bond is simply a protective biological mechanism.

*       If the baby is to sleep between mother and father in the middle of the bed, extra care and precautions should be taken, particularly concerning the father.

*       Co-sleeping mothers particularly should try to breast-feed their babies, as that special biological bond discussed previously will be much more acute and in tune with the baby.

*       Do not sleep with the baby if you have had any alcoholic beverages.

*      Do not sleep with the baby if you’re very overtired or fatigued enough to impair your ability to awaken during the night.

If the father has gone out and had a few alcoholic drinks or is overtired for whatever reason, it would be much safer for him to sleep on the couch, than to sleep next to a newborn baby.

Most of the risks associated with co-sleeping tend to decline rapidly as the baby grows, but care should still be exercised with children of all ages.

Hope this is information that some of you can use today, or may have family and friends that should read this article.  Remember, that knowing is the first step in making wise decisions for you and those you love.  OK?

Dr. Rhonda – helping you to –

Plan for Tomorrow’s Good Health – TODAY




Office:                   702-269-8120

Infant DIE…t

May Raise Adult Obesity Risk!

breast feedingNew mothers with newborn babies, and sometimes even women who are not first-time mothers, often find themselves at a loss when a baby is still fussy despite being fed and dry-bottomed.  Unfortunately, the first inclination is to feed more, which is often not the answer at all.  In fact, what we feed our babies is very important, and the early introduction of cereals and juices and giving babies high carbohydrate infant formulas may cause an increased risk for obesity in later years.


Feeding our babies in this manner is called “metabolic programming,” and the risks associated with it may carry over into future generations, according to the findings of a recent study.
The study, the results revealed that rats fed with high-carbohydrate diets as infants or early in life exhibited over-production of insulin and permanent changes in their pancreatic cells.  The insulin abnormality is a contributor to human adult obesity.  The children of the high-carbohydrate female rats became obese with high insulin levels as they matured.


“Overfeeding of formula and

early introduction of

supplemental weaning foods …

May be the culprits.”

Mother feeding baby food to baby

We are always looking at what happens later in life.  Maybe we should be looking at the role of early metabolic programming.  Metabolic signals in the body reset in response to high carbohydrate diets, this induces the permanent changes in the rats.

Overfeeding of formula and early introduction of supplemental weaning foods such as cereals, fruits, and juices that are high in carbohydrates may be the culprits.

So what does this mean to us?  Obviously, it means that mothers have to fight the urge to feed fussy infants cereal to get them to sleep.
Instead, try giving them more formula, or changing formulas.  Ask your natural-oriented doctor for solutions before deciding it’s time to add foods and juices to your baby’s diet – if you don’t, you just might be making a fat adult.

Father Watching


It’s every mother or caretakers responsibility to feed your child properly – when you start them off with junk – their bodies become a garbage full of chemicals, toxins, pesticides, etc.  They deserve better – don’t you agree?

Besides, you don’t want to make your child a food addict – let your mistakes be their blessing.

Dr. Rhonda


If you need assistance, here’s my contact information:


Email inquiries:       

Las Vegas Office:              702-269–8120


Health is Wealth so start

Planning for Tomorrow’s Good Health – TODAY!

For YOU and YOURS!

Walk or Pay…

walk3If you were paid to exercise, would you engage in more healthy physical activity?  When a health insurance company tried out that kind of program, the results were pretty striking.

Obese people enrolled in Blue Cross in Michigan were given a choice.  Do more walking (measured with pedometers that tracked their steps) or pay 20% more for health insurance.  Some people were unhappy with the program, but 87% of the people complied and took an average of 5,000 steps a day.

“There are ethical debates around the idea of forcing someone to be personally responsible for health care costs related to not exercising, but we expect to see more of these approaches to financially motivate healthier behaviors,” says researcher Caroline R. Richardson.  “Our evaluation of Blue Care’s incentivized program showed a surprisingly high rate of people who enrolled in the Internet-mediated walking program and stuck with it-even among those who were initially hostile to the idea.  Wellness interventions like this clearly hold significant promise for encouraging physical activity among adults who are obese.”

Many people in the program saved about $2,000 a year

So, let me ask my readers – what do you think of this approach?  I sincerely want you to drop me a line and let me know how you feel about this controversial approach to helping the obese (and remember, as an ex-311 pounder) – The leading causes of illness, disease and ultimately early death is the food we put in our mouths – then we as a society pay.  Now it’s your turn!

dog-walkingAnd that’s why with every blog, I try to remind you of how important you should be to you, and that’s why I close with: Plan for Tomorrow’s Good Health – TODAY!

Dr. Rhonda

Temporary website:    

Email inquiries:           

Las Vegas Office:                  702-269-8120 for appointments, or…


flame retardants

The link below could help us save many lives by educating everyone we know regarding toxins in our homes.  Please make this a MUST see for anyone you love.  Until now there have been only a few documentaries on the dangers from chemicals in our lives.

Check this out NOW:

I think this will open of many to now understanding why were seeing so much illness.  It doesn’t mention that the Bromine and Chlorine in these flame retardants act just like Fluorine, as all of these halogens will compete with Iodine.  They all act to increase our relative deficiency of iodine and thus all lead to more thyroid problems and obesity but in addition PBDE’s also contribute to low energy levels, low fertility, cancer, auto immune disease, etc.

Know that this is just the tip of the iceberg but it’s very heavily documented or HBO would be sued. Chemical flame retardants are everywhere.  Our furniture.  Our homes.  Our bodies.  But do they work as promised?  And are they making us sick?

The 3 chemical companies producing flame retardants would prefer that we not ask these questions, and they’ve spent millions of dollars on lobbyists, publicists and influencers to ensure that we don’t.  It might remind you of the Big Tobacco cover-up.  Which makes sense, since Bit Tobacco has had a hand in this, too.

Set against the backdrop of the awards-winning 2012 Chicago Tribune investigative series “Playing with Fire,” TOXIC HOT SEAT threads together an intricate story of manipulation that details how Big Tobacco skillfully convinced fire safety officials to back a standard that, in effect, requires all furniture to be filled with toxic flame retardants.  The film continues to untangle how the chemical companies obscure the risks to public health and misrepresent chemical safety data by paying “experts” to alarm legislators and the public about the deadly risk of removing chemical flame retardants from our homes.

Through the personal stories of a cancer-surviving firefighter, a renowned chemist whose work helped remove fire retardants from kid’s pajamas in the 1970s, and a brave and determined young Maine legislator and mom, TOXIC HOT SEAT reveals the courage of brave citizens willing to fight for the truth against a shadowy nexus of money and politics.

Make sure you share this with everyone you know – we each have to take responsibility by saving our own lives and those we know and love.  Let’s stop the secretes.

Dr. Rhonda


Email inquiries:       

Las Vegas Office:              702-269-8120

What about Nutella?

Answer to Nut Butters


Q: Are some nut butters more nutritious than others?

     What about Nutella?


For those of you who follow my blogs you know I normally answer questions directly to the person who has left me a message, but, I guess the mass advertisement has caused a couple of folks to bring this up.

A: All nut butters – from almond and cashew to macadamia and walnut – have something healthful to offer.  But go easy on Nutella.

Nut butters provide healthful fats, protein, a little fiber, and an array of vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals.  Their specific nutrients vary somewhat, though, depending on the type of nut.  Walnut butter, for instance, is richest in alpha-linolenic acid an omega-3 fat, while almond butter provides a small amount of calcium (60 milligrams per tablespoon) and the most fiber (2 grams).

Nutella-recipesStudies have shown that all kinds of nuts help improve cholesterol levels and have other heart-healthy effects.  There’s no reason to think that plain nut butters wouldn’t have the same benefits.  One study linked peanut butter consumption in women (a tablespoon most days of the week) to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

Many nut butters contain just ground-up nuts.  But some have added salt and sugar.  Some also contain small amounts of partially hydrogenated oil, a source of unhealthful trans fats, to keep them from separating; others use palm oil, whose health effects are unclear (but I wouldn’t consume).  All nut butters have about 100 calories per tablespoon.

Soy nut butter is another option.  It tastes somewhat like peanut butter but is lower in fat and calories and higher in protein.  However, recent research has shown that soy may be in question and I will deal with this in another blog.

Nutella, a chocolate-hazelnut spread, is a different story.  The original recipe was developed in Italy during World War 11 when cocoa supplies were low and hazelnuts were plentiful.  But its main ingredients today are sugar (11 grams per tablespoon, providing about 40% of the calories) and palm oil, followed by hazelnuts, cocoa solids, and skin milk.  If I had a child, I certainly would not give then this and as the commercial is proud to say that mother has sent her children off with a good breakfast.  I can tell you honestly, my cats eat healthier.images

For those of you who follow my online radio shows, you know I say it as it is and even tell what some would be the negative of me, but if it helps just one person – I’m happy.  All this to say, I love peanut butter, but I only buy organic, and I’m grateful to know the difference and share it with all of you.


plasticstatsTo date, their dream hasn’t been realized, but it’s certainly not from lack of trying.  In fact, one of the most recent attempts to ban the plastic bags was via Assembly Bill (AB) 298, which was a bill to ban single-use plastic bags statewide at supermarkets, retail pharmacies and convenience stores in California starting in 2014.  AB 298 would have also required retailers to provide reusable bags for sale and to charge a fee for recycled paper bags – all to give incentives to people to remember to use their reusable bags. Unfortunately, AB 298 failed to pass the California State Senate.

But that won’t stop Californians from their bag-ban mission.  In fact, in a little over the past two years, over 50 California cities or counties have voted to ban single-use plastic bags.  When all of those ordinances go into effect, then nearly one-third, or approximately 38 million, of Californians will reside in plastic bag-free communities.  That in itself is a win, but Californians won’t stop until they accomplish the dream.plasticrecycle

Banning the plastic bags is not just a trendy bandwagon to jump on, either.  Plastic bags have serious consequences for beaches and other waters, marine life and other wildlife, and even for the land-based taxpayers.  Truth be told, single-use plastic bags are one of the most common forms of waste found on beaches that make their way into the ocean, becoming a part of what’s called the “Great Floating Garbage Patch” or the “Pacific Gyre.”  (By the way, there’s also one in the Atlantic Ocean – a similar story, but a different location.)

In fact, over the last 25 years, 7,825,319 plastic bags were collected from beaches around the world.  Plastic bags can also clog drains and create mosquito breeding grounds during warmer months, resulting in other health consequences.

tortisebagAdding to the plastic-bag nemesis is that plastic bags nearly indefinitely – since they’re not biodegradable – to continually work their damage.  What’s more is that of the 115 billion plastic bags used nationally each year, only a dismal 5% are recycled.  (California alone uses a whopping 12 billion plastic bags a year.)

Likewise, pollution from those plastic bags directly affects 267 animal species annually, including whales, fish, birds and turtles.  Speaking of turtles … the Pacific Leatherback sea turtle, which consumed jellyfish, can mistake plastic bags for jellyfish.  Unfortunately, one-third of adult turtles have consumed the plastic, which undoubtedly adds to the reason why the Leatherback sea turtle population has declined by 95% in the last 20 years.  Additionally, plastic bags make their way into wilderness areas where they can choke and kill animals.plasticsign

Marine life and wildlife are not the only ones who pay the cost of plastic bags, however.  California taxpayers spend approximately $25 million each year to landfill used plastic bags – money which could certainly be used for better purposed.  L.A. County alone spends $24 million on litter prevention, cleanup efforts and enforcement, with plastic bags weighing in significantly on those costs.

plastictreeGetting rid of those plastic bags could also result in Green jobs in California, as there are currently 15 reusable bag companies based in California.  One of those companies, Green Vets, could see more jobs created for disabled veterans if there could be a statewide plastic-bag ban law.  The bottom line is that there is so much good that can come from getting rid of those plastic bags.

Unfortunately, Californians haven’t seen the plastic bag ban realized – yet!  They will keep trying, however, while the rest of the nation watch expectantly.plastic man

So I have a suggestion that would really help our environment and that is that each month we buy at least one reusable shopping bag, in this way, we are all responsible Americans.  Second, recycle all plastic so that you’re not part of the problem, but part of the solution.

plasticlandWe can’t continue to complain and not do anything.  It’s up to each one to start doing what is right – don’t worry about others – you and your household is all you have to concern yourself with – the others, one way or another, they will catch on.

Do realize that every time we do something like this we’re saving the world for our kids and their kids.  Understand, every small effort becomes really big down the road – so let’s all get started being good citizens.plasticstork

Dr. Rhonda

Temporary website:

Email inquiries:       

Las Vegas Office:              702-269-8120