While several factors contribute to the intricacies of human relationships, there is one very important biochemical factor that must not be overlooked. Oxytocin is a mammalian hormone produced in the hypothalamus. Research done on this hormone suggests that oxytocin is largely responsible for the development of human bonding behavior and the positive loving emotions that we feel in our relationships. Oxytocin may also be responsible for our tendency as humans to desire and establish long-term monogamous relationships.
The “Love Hormone”
Of all mammals only three percent have a tendency toward monogamy. In the animal kingdom, the prairie vole and its cousin, the montane vole, have been studied for their monogamous versus polygamous nature. It seems that these small mice like species are the same in most respects but interestingly, the oxytocin hormone is substantially higher in the prairie vole. Oxytocin has been linked, not only to the prairie vole’s monogamous nature, but to its social behavior such as grooming, defending its nest and the fact that both father and mother care for the young.
What Does Oxytocin Do?
Oxytocin is best known for its functions related to childbirth and the establishment of a mother/child bond. In addition to stimulating the uterus at childbirth, oxytocin promotes the “let down” reflex associated with breastfeeding. In fact, it induces such sensitivity in women that the cry of a baby, even if it is not their own, can cause lactating mothers to release milk. Additionally this hormone invokes maternal behavior and emotions characteristic of nurturing mothers.
Many facets of romantic relationships are affected and, to an extent, determined by oxytocin levels. Engagement in both foreplay and sexual intercourse elevate oxytocin activity which, in turn, often produces an intense emotional feeling of connectedness and attachment. Oxytocin is an essential element for these types of long-term relationship building functions.
Childbirth and romantic interludes are not the only way to increase oxytocin levels. Simply holding hands, nurturing a child or elderly person, or grooming a pet will also raise the level of this powerful hormone. In fact, oxytocin may be one of the reasons that people get physical health benefits from healing processes like massage or psychological benefits from support groups.
Oxytocin seems to be a common ingredient in monogamous relationships as well as the hormone that establishes other emotional connections. From prairie voles to humans, hormones have always played a large part in everything from social to sexual behavior. In humans, oxytocin functions as the natural “love hormone” that has many far-reaching health benefits.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Redefining Success
There is a radical transformation taking place in the U.S. as people from all walks of life are crumbling from stress, fatigue and burnout. Why? They trade time for money and never have enough money, so they attempt to trade more time for more money and so the cycle goes. "More for Less" seems to be the corporate cry issued from a conference call somewhere in a high-rise by a prematurely balding executive in a black, rolling chair. He symbolizes success of a waning generation, while his once faithful and hopeful proteges are increasingly reluctant to climb the ladder, choosing to keep their families instead of their "office with a view". Yes, the monetary rewards are still there waiting for the exchange - time for money - but another commodity is ever diminishing -happiness, purpose and satisfaction. Laborers and middle management - even executives - are asking the question: "How can I be happy and satisfied?"
We've proved as a society over and over again that money alone is not the answer. Look at Hollywood, Nashville, and New York. Noted celebrities are repeatedly headlined for their miserable behavior. Lack of money is not their problem. Screaming fans elevate them to God-like status convincing them of their invincibility. Lack of fame is not their problem. As they sit in a hotel room all alone in Somewhere, America, they ask themselves a question: "How can I be happy and satisfied?"
A growing population of people are answering that question in simple form: "I will be happy with what I have!" What a concept! The Andy Griffith Show comes to mind. With a sense of community, a guitar and a fishing pole, this little unconventional family flowed through life with gratitude, intention and purpose. Their meals were taken together and together they partook of life-happy and satisfied.
Can life really be that way? Voluntarily simplifying your life is not a "pollyanna" concept limited to the charmed life of television characters, nor is it a glamorized form of "doing without". It is a way to live that points to having only what you need and being happy with those things. It also emphasizes taking the time to take care of what you have. It is about saving and re-using. It is a long overdue step away from consumerism.
A general positive attitude and a sense of community and connection lead to happiness as well as fulfilling other basic human needs. Without connectivity, life takes on a meaningless quality and becomes a hopeless endeavor.
Other people and our relationships to them are the measure of success. We will undoubtedly refer back to how well we fostered our relationship with our spouses, children and others in our neighborhoods and communities at the end of our lives when the inventory is taken. What can we do now? Work less. Be happy with what we have. Laugh, love and be extraordinarily conscious of the blessings we already possess, not in real estate titles and deeds, but in human commodities: son, daughter, friend.
We've proved as a society over and over again that money alone is not the answer. Look at Hollywood, Nashville, and New York. Noted celebrities are repeatedly headlined for their miserable behavior. Lack of money is not their problem. Screaming fans elevate them to God-like status convincing them of their invincibility. Lack of fame is not their problem. As they sit in a hotel room all alone in Somewhere, America, they ask themselves a question: "How can I be happy and satisfied?"
A growing population of people are answering that question in simple form: "I will be happy with what I have!" What a concept! The Andy Griffith Show comes to mind. With a sense of community, a guitar and a fishing pole, this little unconventional family flowed through life with gratitude, intention and purpose. Their meals were taken together and together they partook of life-happy and satisfied.
Can life really be that way? Voluntarily simplifying your life is not a "pollyanna" concept limited to the charmed life of television characters, nor is it a glamorized form of "doing without". It is a way to live that points to having only what you need and being happy with those things. It also emphasizes taking the time to take care of what you have. It is about saving and re-using. It is a long overdue step away from consumerism.
A general positive attitude and a sense of community and connection lead to happiness as well as fulfilling other basic human needs. Without connectivity, life takes on a meaningless quality and becomes a hopeless endeavor.
Other people and our relationships to them are the measure of success. We will undoubtedly refer back to how well we fostered our relationship with our spouses, children and others in our neighborhoods and communities at the end of our lives when the inventory is taken. What can we do now? Work less. Be happy with what we have. Laugh, love and be extraordinarily conscious of the blessings we already possess, not in real estate titles and deeds, but in human commodities: son, daughter, friend.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Is Cancer too Profitable to Cure?
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, a Polish born physician and biochemist, has spent his life researching cancer and developing treatment options that have been phenomenally successful.
In the 1970's, Dr. Burzynski made an exciting discovery that had the potential to change the way doctors everywhere treat cancer. He discovered that people who suffer from cancer lacked a certain peptide which was in plentiful supply in the bodies of people who didn't have cancer. Based on this new discovery, Dr Burzynski developed a drug, referred to as antineoplastons, which worked within the biological system of human beings to switch on cancer-suppressing genes, while at the same time, turning off the genes that promote the growth of cancer cells. Best of all, these experimental antineoplastons were completely non-toxic with no side effects '" unlike conventional chemotherapy and radiation. In the simplest terms, Dr. Burzynski invented a drug that, a large percentage of the time, worked to eradicate the most aggressive and fatal forms of cancer the way that strong antibiotics work on bacterial infections.
Naturally, Burzynski's next step was to get FDA consent in order to be able to make the new drug more widely available, but curiously, the FDA would not give him their stamp of approval. Oddly enough, even with their $5.2 billion annual budget, the National Cancer Institute refused to help him fund his research. Undaunted and self-funded, Burzynski continued his antineoplaston research, as well as the practice of administering them to ailing patients, making sure that he was well within the state laws of Texas, which stated he could treat his patients with experimental drugs, but he could not ship out of state, or engage in any form of interstate commerce. He had no need to ship them because, as word got out, people began coming to Houston from all areas of the country to get in on this ground-breaking medical miracle. In 1984, Burzynski was shocked to find out that agents from the Texas board of medical examiners, fueled by pressure from the Food and Drug Administration, had been contacting his patients and trying to coerce them into filing a complaint on him, which none of them were willing to do. The FDA's mission was to strip him of his license, even though no laws had been broken. It became clear that they wanted to stop him from curing cancer patients, even though his drugs had been proven to be safe and were more effective than anything available, thus far.
Following the Money
Does the FDA really have the welfare of the citizens in mind? Why would any agency want to stifle such a revolutionary new treatment that was proven to be exponentially more successful at treating the worst kinds of cancer than traditional therapies? To answer the second question we have consider the role of another big player '" the pharmaceutical companies. The FDA realized that an effective cancer medication -- which Dr. Burzynsky holds the patent on -- would deal a crushing blow to the pharmaceutical industry that make untold billions from ineffective and toxic chemotherapy and radiation drugs. And what about those billions in yearly donations that would no longer go to the large cancer organizations to "find a cure", but would go directly to furthering Dr. Burzynski's research? Sadly, it seems that cancer has become a profitable industry and cancer patients, a coveted commodity. And, therein lies the answer to the first question.
To date, the federal government has spent more than $60 million of taxpayer money in a failed attempt to get rid of Dr. Burzynski and his ingenious invention that has cured many of cancer altogether and extended the lives of many more. Dr. Burzynski has not received any federal funding nor has he received any money from organizations that allegedly fund relevant cancer research. You can be the judge as to what comes first on the bureaucratic priority list-- the price of pharmaceutical stocks or the price of a life devastated by cancer.
References:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/11/burzynski-the-movie.aspx
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/
In the 1970's, Dr. Burzynski made an exciting discovery that had the potential to change the way doctors everywhere treat cancer. He discovered that people who suffer from cancer lacked a certain peptide which was in plentiful supply in the bodies of people who didn't have cancer. Based on this new discovery, Dr Burzynski developed a drug, referred to as antineoplastons, which worked within the biological system of human beings to switch on cancer-suppressing genes, while at the same time, turning off the genes that promote the growth of cancer cells. Best of all, these experimental antineoplastons were completely non-toxic with no side effects '" unlike conventional chemotherapy and radiation. In the simplest terms, Dr. Burzynski invented a drug that, a large percentage of the time, worked to eradicate the most aggressive and fatal forms of cancer the way that strong antibiotics work on bacterial infections.
Naturally, Burzynski's next step was to get FDA consent in order to be able to make the new drug more widely available, but curiously, the FDA would not give him their stamp of approval. Oddly enough, even with their $5.2 billion annual budget, the National Cancer Institute refused to help him fund his research. Undaunted and self-funded, Burzynski continued his antineoplaston research, as well as the practice of administering them to ailing patients, making sure that he was well within the state laws of Texas, which stated he could treat his patients with experimental drugs, but he could not ship out of state, or engage in any form of interstate commerce. He had no need to ship them because, as word got out, people began coming to Houston from all areas of the country to get in on this ground-breaking medical miracle. In 1984, Burzynski was shocked to find out that agents from the Texas board of medical examiners, fueled by pressure from the Food and Drug Administration, had been contacting his patients and trying to coerce them into filing a complaint on him, which none of them were willing to do. The FDA's mission was to strip him of his license, even though no laws had been broken. It became clear that they wanted to stop him from curing cancer patients, even though his drugs had been proven to be safe and were more effective than anything available, thus far.
Following the Money
Does the FDA really have the welfare of the citizens in mind? Why would any agency want to stifle such a revolutionary new treatment that was proven to be exponentially more successful at treating the worst kinds of cancer than traditional therapies? To answer the second question we have consider the role of another big player '" the pharmaceutical companies. The FDA realized that an effective cancer medication -- which Dr. Burzynsky holds the patent on -- would deal a crushing blow to the pharmaceutical industry that make untold billions from ineffective and toxic chemotherapy and radiation drugs. And what about those billions in yearly donations that would no longer go to the large cancer organizations to "find a cure", but would go directly to furthering Dr. Burzynski's research? Sadly, it seems that cancer has become a profitable industry and cancer patients, a coveted commodity. And, therein lies the answer to the first question.
To date, the federal government has spent more than $60 million of taxpayer money in a failed attempt to get rid of Dr. Burzynski and his ingenious invention that has cured many of cancer altogether and extended the lives of many more. Dr. Burzynski has not received any federal funding nor has he received any money from organizations that allegedly fund relevant cancer research. You can be the judge as to what comes first on the bureaucratic priority list-- the price of pharmaceutical stocks or the price of a life devastated by cancer.
References:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/11/burzynski-the-movie.aspx
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)