Statin Drugs – What You Are Not Being Told About Statin Drugs

Statins are used to reduce cholesterol levels in your body and has become the norm in present day medicine. Though it is a well-known fact that statin medication gives rise to so many adverse side effects, prescribing this dangerous drug is being projected as the only way to bring down your cholesterol numbers. But is this true? Do you really have to take statin drugs for lowering your cholesterol? You have many options that are less invasive and do not cause detrimental effects to your health.

Statin drugs are extremely dangerous for people with severe cardiovascular disease. Many studies have shown that the side effects caused by statin medication are far worse than the high cholesterol itself. Medical professionals that claim that these drugs are safe are really causing serious damage to the overall health of thousands of people every year.

With the availability of so many great alternatives, there is really no need to put yourself at risk by taking statin drugs. There are many sources available, both online and offline, to inform you of the ill-effects of statin medication, and once you do the research, you will be convinced that your doctor does not have your best interest at heart by not seeking alternatives.

In fact, a cholesterol level of 200 is not very dangerous to your health. It can cause serious health implications only when it rises above 400. But modern health professionals blindly make you a “good” candidate for statin drugs as soon as your cholesterol level goes above 200. Why is this? Is done for bureaucratic reasons not tied to your health? Money? We do know.

Your baseline cholesterol level is tied to the genetic structure of your body. This of course varies widely from person to person. Often times, this is not taken into account before prescribing statin medication. Your elevated cholesterol may be easily controlled by putting you on a low glycemic diet. This combined with a hormone optimization process can bring down your triglyceride levels. You can totally avoid statin drugs by engaging in regular exercise and adding more fiber to your diet.

Statin drugs may be necessary only for those people with high cardiovascular risks such as:

Low HDL cholesterol
Insulin resistance
High triglycerides
But we see that statin medication is being prescribed for healthy people having none of these risks. People are being made to suffer from the long term adverse side effects like rhabdomyolysis and other types of life crippling deformities. Why?

Statin drugs are really not necessary for everyone with high cholesterol levels. It is good only for those with serious cardiovascular risks. Statin drugs do not add to your overall health, and you must avoid them as much as possible. Even if prescribed by your doctor.

Brandon Barclow is the owner and founder of the Barclow Health Group. He has helped many people manage and control their cholesterol naturally without the use of statin medication.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

A Prescription For the Health Care Crisis

With all the shouting going on about America’s health care crisis, many are probably finding it difficult to concentrate, much less understand the cause of the problems confronting us. I find myself dismayed at the tone of the discussion (though I understand it—people are scared) as well as bemused that anyone would presume themselves sufficiently qualified to know how to best improve our health care system simply because they’ve encountered it, when people who’ve spent entire careers studying it (and I don’t mean politicians) aren’t sure what to do themselves.

Albert Einstein is reputed to have said that if he had an hour to save the world he’d spend 55 minutes defining the problem and only 5 minutes solving it. Our health care system is far more complex than most who are offering solutions admit or recognize, and unless we focus most of our efforts on defining its problems and thoroughly understanding their causes, any changes we make are just likely to make them worse as they are better.

Though I’ve worked in the American health care system as a physician since 1992 and have seven year’s worth of experience as an administrative director of primary care, I don’t consider myself qualified to thoroughly evaluate the viability of most of the suggestions I’ve heard for improving our health care system. I do think, however, I can at least contribute to the discussion by describing some of its troubles, taking reasonable guesses at their causes, and outlining some general principles that should be applied in attempting to solve them.


No one disputes that health care spending in the U.S. has been rising dramatically. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), health care spending is projected to reach $8,160 per person per year by the end of 2009 compared to the $356 per person per year it was in 1970. This increase occurred roughly 2.4% faster than the increase in GDP over the same period. Though GDP varies from year-to-year and is therefore an imperfect way to assess a rise in health care costs in comparison to other expenditures from one year to the next, we can still conclude from this data that over the last 40 years the percentage of our national income (personal, business, and governmental) we’ve spent on health care has been rising.

Despite what most assume, this may or may not be bad. It all depends on two things: the reasons why spending on health care has been increasing relative to our GDP and how much value we’ve been getting for each dollar we spend.


This is a harder question to answer than many would believe. The rise in the cost of health care (on average 8.1% per year from 1970 to 2009, calculated from the data above) has exceeded the rise in inflation (4.4% on average over that same period), so we can’t attribute the increased cost to inflation alone. Health care expenditures are known to be closely associated with a country’s GDP (the wealthier the nation, the more it spends on health care), yet even in this the United States remains an outlier (figure 3).

Is it because of spending on health care for people over the age of 75 (five times what we spend on people between the ages of 25 and 34)? In a word, no. Studies show this demographic trend explains only a small percentage of health expenditure growth.

Is it because of monstrous profits the health insurance companies are raking in? Probably not. It’s admittedly difficult to know for certain as not all insurance companies are publicly traded and therefore have balance sheets available for public review. But Aetna, one of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies in North America, reported a 2009 second quarter profit of $346.7 million, which, if projected out, predicts a yearly profit of around $1.3 billion from the approximately 19 million people they insure. If we assume their profit margin is average for their industry (even if untrue, it’s unlikely to be orders of magnitude different from the average), the total profit for all private health insurance companies in America, which insured 202 million people (2nd bullet point) in 2007, would come to approximately $13 billion per year. Total health care expenditures in 2007 were $2.2 trillion (see Table 1, page 3), which yields a private health care industry profit approximately 0.6% of total health care costs (though this analysis mixes data from different years, it can perhaps be permitted as the numbers aren’t likely different by any order of magnitude).

Is it because of health care fraud? Estimates of losses due to fraud range as high as 10% of all health care expenditures, but it’s hard to find hard data to back this up. Though some percentage of fraud almost certainly goes undetected, perhaps the best way to estimate how much money is lost due to fraud is by looking at how much the government actually recovers. In 2006, this was $2.2 billion, only 0.1% of $2.1 trillion (see Table 1, page 3) in total health care expenditures for that year.

Is it due to pharmaceutical costs? In 2006, total expenditures on prescription drugs was approximately $216 billion (see Table 2, page 4). Though this amounted to 10% of the $2.1 trillion (see Table 1, page 3) in total health care expenditures for that year and must therefore be considered significant, it still remains only a small percentage of total health care costs.

Is it from administrative costs? In 1999, total administrative costs were estimated to be $294 billion, a full 25% of the $1.2 trillion (Table 1) in total health care expenditures that year. This was a significant percentage in 1999 and it’s hard to imagine it’s shrunk to any significant degree since then.

In the end, though, what probably has contributed the greatest amount to the increase in health care spending in the U.S. are two things:

1. Technological innovation.

2. Overutilization of health care resources by both patients and health care providers themselves.

Technological innovation. Data that proves increasing health care costs are due mostly to technological innovation is surprisingly difficult to obtain, but estimates of the contribution to the rise in health care costs due to technological innovation range anywhere from 40% to 65% (Table 2, page 8). Though we mostly only have empirical data for this, several examples illustrate the principle. Heart attacks used to be treated with aspirin and prayer. Now they’re treated with drugs to control shock, pulmonary edema, and arrhythmias as well as thrombolytic therapy, cardiac catheterization with angioplasty or stenting, and coronary artery bypass grafting. You don’t have to be an economist to figure out which scenario ends up being more expensive. We may learn to perform these same procedures more cheaply over time (the same way we’ve figured out how to make computers cheaper) but as the cost per procedure decreases, the total amount spent on each procedure goes up because the number of procedures performed goes up. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is 25% less than the price of an open cholecystectomy, but the rates of both have increased by 60%. As technological advances become more widely available they become more widely used, and one thing we’re great at doing in the United States is making technology available.

Overutilization of health care resources by both patients and health care providers themselves. We can easily define overutilization as the unnecessary consumption of health care resources. What’s not so easy is recognizing it. Every year from October through February the majority of patients who come into the Urgent Care Clinic at my hospital are, in my view, doing so unnecessarily. What are they coming in for? Colds. I can offer support, reassurance that nothing is seriously wrong, and advice about over-the-counter remedies—but none of these things will make them better faster (though I often am able to reduce their level of concern). Further, patients have a hard time believing the key to arriving at a correct diagnosis lies in history gathering and careful physical examination rather than technologically-based testing (not that the latter isn’t important—just less so than most patients believe). Just how much patient-driven overutilization costs the health care system is hard to pin down as we have mostly only anecdotal evidence as above.

Further, doctors often disagree among themselves about what constitutes unnecessary health care consumption. In his excellent article, “The Cost Conundrum,” Atul Gawande argues that regional variation in overutilization of health care resources by doctors best accounts for the regional variation in Medicare spending per person. He goes on to argue that if doctors could be motivated to rein in their overutilization in high-cost areas of the country, it would save Medicare enough money to keep it solvent for 50 years.

A reasonable approach. To get that to happen, however, we need to understand why doctors are overutilizing health care resources in the first place:

1. Judgment varies in cases where the medical literature is vague or unhelpful. When faced with diagnostic dilemmas or diseases for which standard treatments haven’t been established, a variation in practice invariably occurs. If a primary care doctor suspects her patient has an ulcer, does she treat herself empirically or refer to a gastroenterologist for an endoscopy? If certain “red flag” symptoms are present, most doctors would refer. If not, some would and some wouldn’t depending on their training and the intangible exercise of judgment.

2. Inexperience or poor judgment. More experienced physicians tend to rely on histories and physicals more than less experienced physicians and consequently order fewer and less expensive tests. Studies suggest primary care physicians spend less money on tests and procedures than their sub-specialty colleagues but obtain similar and sometimes even better outcomes.

3. Fear of being sued. This is especially common in Emergency Room settings, but extends to almost every area of medicine.

4. Patients tend to demand more testing rather than less. As noted above. And physicians often have difficulty refusing patient requests for many reasons (eg, wanting to please them, fear of missing a diagnosis and being sued, etc).

5. In many settings, overutilization makes doctors more money. There exists no reliable incentive for doctors to limit their spending unless their pay is capitated or they’re receiving a straight salary.

Gawande’s article implies there exists some level of utilization of health care resources that’s optimal: use too little and you get mistakes and missed diagnoses; use too much and excess money gets spent without improving outcomes, paradoxically sometimes resulting in outcomes that are actually worse (likely as a result of complications from all the extra testing and treatments).

How then can we get doctors to employ uniformly good judgment to order the right number of tests and treatments for each patient—the “sweet spot”—in order to yield the best outcomes with the lowest risk of complications? Not easily. There is, fortunately or unfortunately, an art to good health care resource utilization. Some doctors are more gifted at it than others. Some are more diligent about keeping current. Some care more about their patients. An explosion of studies of medical tests and treatments has occurred in the last several decades to help guide doctors in choosing the most effective, safest, and even cheapest ways to practice medicine, but the diffusion of this evidence-based medicine is a tricky business. Just because beta blockers, for example, have been shown to improve survival after heart attacks doesn’t mean every physician knows it or provides them. Data clearly show many don’t. How information spreads from the medical literature into medical practice is a subject worthy of an entire post unto itself. Getting it to happen uniformly has proven extremely difficult.

In summary, then, most of the increase in spending on health care seems to have come from technological innovation coupled with its overuse by doctors working in systems that motivate them to practice more medicine rather than better medicine, as well as patients who demand the former thinking it yields the latter.

But even if we could snap our fingers and magically eliminate all overutilization today, health care in the U.S. would still remain among the most expensive in the world, requiring us to ask next—


According to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled The Burden of Health Care Costs for Working Families—Implications for Reform, growth in health care spending “can be defined as affordable as long as the rising percentage of income devoted to health care does not reduce standards of living. When absolute increases in income cannot keep up with absolute increases in health care spending, health care growth can be paid for only by sacrificing consumption of goods and services not related to health care.” When would this ever be an acceptable state of affairs? Only when the incremental cost of health care buys equal or greater incremental value. If, for example, you were told that in the near future you’d be spending 60% of your income on health care but that as a result you’d enjoy, say, a 30% chance of living to the age of 250, perhaps you’d judge that 60% a small price to pay.

This, it seems to me, is what the debate on health care spending really needs to be about. Certainly we should work on ways to eliminate overutilization. But the real question isn’t what absolute amount of money is too much to spend on health care. The real question is what are we getting for the money we spend and is it worth what we have to give up?

People alarmed by the notion that as health care costs increase policymakers may decide to ration health care don’t realize that we’re already rationing at least some of it. It just doesn’t appear as if we are because we’re rationing it on a first-come-first-serve basis—leaving it at least partially up to chance rather than to policy, which we’re uncomfortable defining and enforcing. Thus we don’t realize the reason our 90 year-old father in Illinois can’t have the liver he needs is because a 14 year-old girl in Alaska got in line first (or maybe our father was in line first and gets it while the 14 year-old girl doesn’t). Given that most of us remain uncomfortable with the notion of rationing health care based on criteria like age or utility to society, as technological innovation continues to drive up health care spending, we very well may at some point have to make critical judgments about which medical innovations are worth our entire society sacrificing access to other goods and services (unless we’re so foolish as to repeat the critical mistake of believing we can keep borrowing money forever without ever having to pay it back).

So what value are we getting? It varies. The risk of dying from a heart attack has declined by 66% since 1950 as a result of technological innovation. Because cardiovascular disease ranks as the number one cause of death in the U.S. this would seem to rank high on the scale of value as it benefits a huge proportion of the population in an important way. As a result of advances in pharmacology, we can now treat depression, anxiety, and even psychosis far better than anyone could have imagined even as recently as the mid-1980’s (when Prozac was first released). Clearly, then, some increases in health care costs have yielded enormous value we wouldn’t want to give up.

But how do we decide whether we’re getting good value from new innovations? Scientific studies must prove the innovation (whether a new test or treatment) actually provides clinically significant benefit (Aricept is a good example of a drug that works but doesn’t provide great clinical benefit—demented patients score higher on tests of cognitive ability while on it but probably aren’t significantly more functional or significantly better able to remember their children compared to when they’re not). But comparative effectiveness studies are extremely costly, take a long time to complete, and can never be perfectly applied to every individual patient, all of which means some health care provider always has to apply good medical judgment to every patient problem.

Who’s best positioned to judge the value to society of the benefit of an innovation—that is, to decide if an innovation’s benefit justifies its cost? I would argue the group that ultimately pays for it: the American public. How the public’s views could be reconciled and then effectively communicated to policy makers efficiently enough to affect actual policy, however, lies far beyond the scope of this post (and perhaps anyone’s imagination).


A significant proportion of the population is uninsured or underinsured, limiting or eliminating their access to health care. As a result, this group finds the path of least (and cheapest) resistance—emergency rooms—which has significantly impaired the ability of our nation’s ER physicians to actually render timely emergency care. In addition, surveys suggest a looming primary care physician shortage relative to the demand for their services. In my view, this imbalance between supply and demand explains most of the poor customer service patients face in our system every day: long wait times for doctors’ appointments, long wait times in doctors’ offices once their appointment day arrives, then short times spent with doctors inside exam rooms, followed by difficulty reaching their doctors in between office visits, and finally delays in getting test results. This imbalance would likely only partially be alleviated by less health care overutilization by patients.


As Freaknomics authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner state, “If morality represents how people would like the world to work, then economics represents how it actually does work.” Capitalism is based on the principle of enlightened self-interest, a system that creates incentives to yield behavior that benefits both suppliers and consumers and thus society as a whole. But when incentives get out of whack, people begin to behave in ways that continue to benefit them often at the expense of others or even at their own expense down the road. Whatever changes we make to our health care system (and there’s always more than one way to skin a cat), we must be sure to align incentives so that the behavior that results in each part of the system contributes to its sustainability rather than its ruin.

Here then is a summary of what I consider the best recommendations I’ve come across to address the problems I’ve outlined above:

1. Change the way insurance companies think about doing business. Insurance companies have the same goal as all other businesses: maximize profits. And if a health insurance company is publicly traded and in your 401k portfolio, you want them to maximize profits, too. Unfortunately, the best way for them to do this is to deny their services to the very customers who pay for them. It’s harder for them to spread risk (the function of any insurance company) relative to say, a car insurance company, because far more people make health insurance claims than car insurance claims. It would seem, therefore, from a consumer perspective, the private health insurance model is fundamentally flawed. We need to create a disincentive for health insurance companies to deny claims (or, conversely, an extra incentive for them to pay them). Allowing and encouraging aross-state insurance competition would at least partially engage free market forces to drive down insurance premiums as well as open up new markets to local insurance companies, benefiting both insurance consumers and providers. With their customers now armed with the all-important power to go elsewhere, health insurance companies might come to view the quality with which they actually provide service to their customers (ie, the paying out of claims) as a way to retain and grow their business. For this to work, monopolies or near-monopolies must be disbanded or at the very least discouraged. Even if it does work, however, government will probably still have to tighten regulation of the health insurance industry to ensure some of the heinous abuses that are going on now stop (for example, insurance companies shouldn’t be allowed to stratify consumers into sub-groups based on age and increase premiums based on an older group’s higher average risk of illness because healthy older consumers then end up being penalized for their age rather than their behaviors). Karl Denninger suggests some intriguing ideas in a post on his blog about requiring insurance companies to offer identical rates to businesses and individuals as well as creating a mandatory “open enrollment” period in which participants could only opt in or out of a plan on a yearly basis. This would prevent individuals from only buying insurance when they got sick, eliminating the adverse selection problem that’s driven insurance companies to deny payment for pre-existing conditions. I would add that, however reimbursement rates to health care providers are determined in the future (again, an entire post unto itself), all health insurance plans, whether private or public, must reimburse health care providers by an equal percentage to eliminate the existence of “good” and “bad” insurance that’s currently responsible for motivating hospitals and doctors to limit or even deny service to the poor and which may be responsible for the same thing occurring to the elderly in the future (Medicare reimburses only slightly better than Medicaid). Finally, regarding the idea of a “public option” insurance plan open to all, I worry that if it’s significantly cheaper than private options while providing near-equal benefits the entire country will rush to it en masse, driving private insurance companies out of business and forcing us all to subsidize one another’s health care with higher taxes and fewer choices; yet at the same time if the cost to the consumer of a “public option” remains comparable to private options, the very people it’s meant to help won’t be able to afford it.

2. Motivate the population to engage in healthier lifestyles that have been proven to prevent disease. Prevention of disease probably saves money, though some have argued that living longer increases the likelihood of developing diseases that wouldn’t have otherwise occurred, leading to the overall consumption of more health care dollars (though even if that’s true, those extra years of life would be judged by most valuable enough to justify the extra cost. After all, the whole purpose of health care is to improve the quality and quantity of life, not save society money. Let’s not put the cart before the horse). However, the idea of preventing a potentially bad outcome sometime in the future is only weakly motivating psychologically, explaining why so many people have so much trouble getting themselves to exercise, eat right, lose weight, stop smoking, etc. The idea of financially rewarding desirable behavior and/or financially punishing undesirable behavior is highly controversial. Though I worry this kind of strategy risks the enacting of policies that may impinge on basic freedoms if taken too far, I’m not against thinking creatively about how we could leverage stronger motivational forces to help people achieve health goals they themselves want to achieve. After all, most obese people want to lose weight. Most smokers want to quit. They might be more successful if they could find more powerful motivation.

3. Decrease overutilization of health care resources by doctors. I’m in agreement with Gawande that finding ways to get doctors to stop overutilizing health care resources is a worthy goal that will significantly rein in costs, that it will require a willingness to experiment, and that it will take time. Further, I agree that focusing only on who pays for our health care (whether the public or private sectors) will fail to address the issue adequately. But how exactly can we motivate doctors, whose pens are responsible for most of the money spent on health care in this country, to focus on what’s truly best for their patients? The idea that external bodies—whether insurance companies or government panels—could be used to set standards of care doctors must follow in order to control costs strikes me as ludicrous. Such bodies have neither the training nor overriding concern for patients’ welfare to be trusted to make those judgments. Why else do we have doctors if not to employ their expertise to apply nuanced approaches to complex situations? As long as they work in a system free of incentives that compete with their duty to their patients, they remain in the best position to make decisions about what tests and treatments are worth a given patient’s consideration, as long as they’re careful to avoid overconfident paternalism (refusing to obtain a head CT for a headache might be overconfidently paternalistic; refusing to offer chemotherapy for a cold isn’t). So perhaps we should eliminate any financial incentive doctors have to care about anything but their patients’ welfare, meaning doctors’ salaries should be disconnected from the number of surgeries they perform and the number of tests they order, and should instead be set by market forces. This model already exists in academic health care centers and hasn’t seemed to promote shoddy care when doctors feel they’re being paid fairly. Doctors need to earn a good living to compensate for the years of training and massive amounts of debt they amass, but no financial incentive for practicing more medicine should be allowed to attach itself to that good living.

4. Decrease overutilization of health care resources by patients. This, it seems to me, requires at least three interventions:

* Making available the right resources for the right problems (so that patients aren’t going to the ER for colds, for example, but rather to their primary care physicians). This would require hitting the “sweet spot” with respect to the number of primary care physicians, best at front-line gatekeeping, not of health care spending as in the old HMO model, but of triage and treatment. It would also require a recalculating of reimbursement levels for primary care services relative to specialty services to encourage more medical students to go into primary care (the reverse of the alarming trend we’ve been seeing for the last decade).

* A massive effort to increase the health literacy of the general public to improve its ability to triage its own complaints (so patients don’t actually go anywhere for colds or demand MRIs of their backs when their trusted physicians tells them it’s just a strain). This might be best accomplished through a series of educational programs (though given that no one in the private sector has an incentive to fund such programs, it might actually be one of the few things the government should—we’d just need to study and compare different educational programs and methods to see which, if any, reduce unnecessary patient utilization without worsening outcomes and result in more health care savings than they cost).

* Redesigning insurance plans to make patients in some way more financially liable for their health care choices. We can’t have people going bankrupt due to illness, nor do we want people to underutilize health care resources (avoiding the ER when they have chest pain, for example), but neither can we continue to support a system in which patients are actually motivated to overutilize resources, as the current “pre-pay for everything” model does.


Given the enormous complexity of the health care system, no single post could possibly address every problem that needs to be fixed. Significant issues not raised in this article include the challenges associated with rising drug costs, direct-to-consumer marketing of drugs, end-of-life care, sky-rocketing malpractice insurance costs, the lack of cost transparency that enables hospitals to paradoxically charge the uninsured more than the insured for the same care, extending health care insurance coverage to those who still don’t have it, improving administrative efficiency to reduce costs, the implementation of electronic medical records to reduce medical error, the financial burden of businesses being required to provide their employees with health insurance, and tort reform. All are profoundly interdependent, standing together like the proverbial house of cards. To attend to any one is to affect them all, which is why rushing through health care reform without careful contemplation risks unintended and potentially devastating consequences. Change does need to come, but if we don’t allow ourselves time to think through the problems clearly and cleverly and to implement solutions in a measured fashion, we risk bringing down that house of cards rather than cementing it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Drugs in Tap Water – The Sad Truth Revealed

Drugs in tap water are not a new issue. In fact back in 1999 it took a high school student named Ashley Mulroy then 17 from West Virginia to bring the issue to the forefront. While reading a science report Ashley saw an article about how European scientists had found that “drugs of all kinds, including antibiotics, were flowing in rivers, streams, ground water and even in tap water”.

Ashley decided to start her own science project to see if drugs in tap water were a problem in her area. For the next two and a half month Ashley and her mother drove many miles along the Ohio River getting samples from different locations. When Ashley got back to her home she had the water samples tested for penicillin, tetracycline and vancomycin which are three common antibiotics.

The test results revealed trace amounts of all three antibiotics in the samples taken. Not quite finished Ashley took three more samples from close by cities, and a sample from a drinking fountain at her high school. Again drugs in tap water were found in the three samples and in the water from the drinking fountain in her high school!

Ashley caught the attention of many scientists in the United States with her drugs in tap water project. By the way she also received several science project awards. Unfortunately the sad truth is that this occurrence is not an isolated incident.

If you take the drugs mentioned plus other prescription drugs such as growth hormones, birth control, and various over the counter medicines and you have a real drug soup. Drugs in tap water are showing up all over the country, and could be devastating.

These drugs end up in our water supply when people flush outdated or unused drugs and medications down the toilet. Also medications and drugs that are not absorbed in the body end up as waste matter which finds its way back into the water supply.

Large quantities of drugs enter the water supply from animal farming. Animals are pumped full of hormones and other drugs which eventually enter the water supply as waste material. The bottom line is they are there. So what can you do about it? You have to take action now and protect yourself, and that doesn’t mean bottled water. For the most part bottled water is really tap water. A fact many people are not aware of.

Water purifiers and water filters don’t always do the job either. You need a quality water filter that features a dual filter system using a combination of carbon filtration, ion exchange and sub micron filtration to give you the best results. Anything else could literally be dangerous to your health.

In conclusion, drugs in tap water are everywhere. It’s not a marketing ploy to get you to buy filtration products, but a very real health concern. Take matters into your own hands. The government can not possibly act fast enough to clear up the problem.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Health Care – Managing Disease For Profit

A press release recently announced the findings of a study on the projected future cost of caring for diabetics in America. The headline is a real shocker: “Diabetes Population to Double, Diabetes Costs to Nearly Triple in 25 Years, New Study Shows.”

“Finding ways to reduce the number of people who develop diabetes is both a national public health priority and a fiscal imperative,” said Dr. Elbert Huang, the lead author of the paper and an assistant professor of medicine in the Department of Medicine at the University of Chicago. “The best way to stem the dramatic rise in diabetes is to implement proven preventive care programs on a national level.”

This study was published in the December issue of the Journal of the American Diabetes Association, “Diabetes Care.”

The study’s findings are shocking, as they are intended to be — and I believe they are generally accurate — but there is a hidden agenda here that tells a curious story about how the medical profession defines “preventive care programs.”

Key Point #1: The study was commissioned by Novo Nordisk, a Danish drug manufacturer specializing in diabetes medicines and devices for treating diabetes.

Key Point #2: The general gist of the study results are intended to drive Congressional legislation for allocating more funding for diabetes “preventive treatments,” and agency coordination of services for the diabetic and pre-diabetic population, intended to reduce the crushing costs of managing the fullblown complications of diabetes, including amputation, kidney disease, and blindness.

Key Point #3: Nowhere is it mentioned that diabetes may be prevented and even reversed by persuading the public to adopt better diet and exercise habits, essentially for free. (Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Ray Strand and Dr. John McDougall all proclaim this message in their books.)

It would not serve the interests of the drug maker which funded the study to point out a simpler and nobler approach to making the public aware of the dangers of the excesses of the “Standard American Diet” of sugar-frosted cereals, processed meats, and Cheez Doodles, with a diet soda chaser. The whole study, and the press release with its shocking title are about finding more funds in the federal budget for making an “investment” in managing the projected increase in diabetes, due to the growing numbers of the obese population.

Managing Disease in this Context Is All About Money, Not Health

This press release, the academic study, and the supporting National Changing Diabetes Program, dedicated to “driving federal policy change” and “raising diabetes on the national agenda” really don’t get to the heart of the matter. At its heart is a clear picture of how corporations create urgency in the minds of the taxpayers and legislators so that more money is available from the federal trough to pay for their particular drugs and services.

Most of Congress amiably goes along with this charade because they recognize the pharmaceutical companies as “good citizens” and allies in milking more tax money out of the U.S. public. Milking the public and passing out favors to wealthy industry groups are what Congress does best.

This Is One More Reason Why American Health Care Is So Expensive

Cloaked in the dense verbage of policy wonks is one of the keys to understanding why American health care costs are going through the roof: “The best way to stem the dramatic rise in diabetes is to implement proven preventive care programs on a national level.”

But what exactly are “preventive care programs”? I’d be willing to bet they involve drugs and services, just like the ones that Novo Nordisk sells. And the doctor who said it leaves it unclear. I suspect the language is purposefully hazy so that we may think it means what we’d like it to mean. (I visited Novo Nordisk’s Web site and found nothing I would call preventive care programs, only lots of drugs. No mention of using exercise and diet changes to make drugs unnecessary. But then, what did I expect?)

There is an unspoken assumption that the American public cannot be expected to make intelligent changes in their diet and exercise habits. This assumption becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if physicians don’t observe the “first steps care” protocol — as many doctors don’t — of informing the patient of changes in diet and exercise regimens that would make drugs unnecessary — and be healthier for the patient in the long run.

It is a well-documented fact that diabetes, Type 2, can be prevented and even reversed by changes in the patients’ diet and level of exercise. Without the counseling and insistence by their physician, many patients wouldn’t know where to look for this information of if they could trust the source. [See Dr. Neal Barnard’s Program for Reversing Diabetes ]

Dr. Barnard’s book also reveals the fallacy in Dr. Huang’s statement about preventive care programs(no doubt involving drugs). According to Dr. Barnard, drug treatments for diabetes do not stop the progression of the disease and thus, could not lower costs, but would just start the “meter running” earlier. (But when a pharmaceutical company funds a study, do you think it would ever see the light of day if it didn’t recommend a need for more drug-based therapy?)

Only informed and motivated patients can change their habits which have brought on the disease. Drugs cannot do so by themselves.

Starting a national educational campaign to alert the public to the dangers of their unhealthy diet would cause great distress among the “farm vote” and the Processed Foods Industry, which would put their lobbying muscle and election funding contributions to work to prevent any program from revealing the true source of our obesity epidemic.

Expecting Public Health Education From Those Who Sell Drugs — About Ways To Achieve Health Without Drugs — is Unrealistic

It is interesting how obesity has been turned into a disease that requires drugs and surgical interventions to manage it, so it won’t cost the public even more in the long run.

To sum it all up: Intelligent personal strategies that prevent diseases like diabetes are not likely to gain traction because there are too many agencies, foundations, fundraisers, and industry groups that are feeding off the sick-but-not-terminal American public. There is little push to prevent diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc., because there is no money in it for the key players…unless we define prevention to mean starting drug therapies sooner.

Our health care system is all about keeping us sick. There is no incentive to cure us, because then the cashflow for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals would dry up. The money is in keeping us alive and somehow able to pay their bills. (This is where Congress can help.)

Health care, (which should be called sickness care) is dedicated to extracting more money from the public to fund more studies, to pay more lobbyists to make sure our most feared disease is high on the agenda of Congress, who will declare a National Diabetes Awareness Day and try to find more tax money to support more round-about medical/pharmaceutical interventions to protect us from overindulging on the products of other fine campaign contributors — say, those in the Processed Foods Industry.

But tell us how to cure our disease? No, that’s not on their business agenda. Doctors, for the most part, are simply doing what they were taught in medical schools largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry: how to prescribe drugs for various conditions, order tests, and refer patients for surgery.

Smart Americans will need to find their own answers to preventing diabetes. There is only token funding for showing the public how they can solve their obesity problem for free — the Center for Disease Control puts out some fairly accurate pamphlets encouraging better eating habits and more exercise, for example. That’s step in the right direction, but that’s not where the real money is going.

Follow the money trail to find out the real agenda of the medical/pharmaceutical complex. The big money is in keeping us sick and collecting payments for managing our disease, not curing or preventing it. Read between the lines of doublespeak to find the truth why our approach to health care is so expensive.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Fighting Drug Misuse – Educating People, and Raising Funds

So here you are. You are the head of a business department or club leader, an officer of the chamber of commerce, your Optimist Club or Masonic or KC group, a women’s club leader, a youth leader such as the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, a 4-H or Boys and Girls Club leader, or a church officer and you have been put in charge of finding a new and vital way to raise funds. You want to go beyond just the usual: Selling candy, magazines, putting up a food stand, etc. And you don’t know what to do. You want to do a good job and you want to help in a cause that is vital and important in the lives of your fellow man.

Consider strongly the challenge of educating people of all ages on the subject of drug misuse and prevention of its accompanying misery. The negative impact of drug abuse and addiction needs to be slowed down by each and every one of us so that society can repair itself and regain lost health, general welfare, intelligence, and the happiness it once had prior to the unfortunate growth of the drug culture in our lives. And fund-raising is relatively easy with this project. Here are just a handful of facts about how drugs are negatively impacting upon our lives now:

While you are busy working to make a living and your children are at school, they are daily being tempted by some of their peers and drug-pushers to “just try it once. It won’t hurt you.” Fact: Unfortunately, there are cases in which youngsters have died during their first drug use.

Fact: Children are exposed to drugs earlier and earlier in their lives. By survey, 45% of the children in public schools in the U.S. have tried drugs or alcohol, or are using them, by the 8th grade.

Fact: Parents believe that their son or daughter would never take drugs, only to find out too late that their son or daughter already has a drug problem. Unfortunately, parents are often the last to know.There are many other unfortunate facts too numerous to list here. Fact: Drug abuse is an epidemic.

But you can do something to put the brakes on and get the druggies’ influence out of your life. Just take up the challenge and run with it.

Imagine the respect you will generate for your business, profession, your department, or community by taking a leadership role in the war against drugs. You will have possibly the greatest public relations project imaginable by distributing educational facts about drug abuse that will interest and astound those who read about the drug facts that you are sponsoring. Moreover, you can raise funds for your organization as well. It’s easy. Just imagine the influence your group would generate by distributing anti-drug education materials throughout your community.

Your project would begin a dialogue between parents and grandchildren and the children in their family. It would create communication between adults who know of someone seeking help but doesn’t understand what is happening as he or she falls prey to drug addiction and its accompanying misery. The road to drug abuse is fraught with poor health in mind and body, poor school and other performance skills, lack of motivation, rebellion, poverty, domestic violence, and even jail time and crime.

To slow down the influence of druggies, each and every one of us needs to take ownership of the drug problem and not cop out by saying, “It’s not my problem. It’s the school’s problem, the police problem, the medical community’s problem. Not so. It is our problem. There’s an easy way to do something about it by starting a fund-raising project that fights drugs.The information that follows will get you started. Start Now.

By the way, do you want to learn more about starting a fund-raiser that promotes anti-drug education? Open my Home page, the Mission page, the About Us page, and the Order page and learn all about how we can help you fight drugs. Just go to my website and open it at []. You can buy one or two sample booklets that educate your readers about the dangers of drugs. The booklets are titled, “10 Things Your Friends May Not Know About Drugs,” and “How To Talk To Kids About Drugs.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Health Care Reform Bill = Windfall For Retiree Insurers

SO HEALTH CARE REFORM HAS FINALLY PASSED! Yet, missed amongst the clamor surrounding, “political partisanship”, “the funding of abortion” or “the Cadillac tax” there is a significant subsidy that may provide relief to plan sponsors struggling to reign in retiree healthcare costs. This provision, referenced as the “Reinsurance Program”, creates a “reinsurance” subsidy for plan sponsors of retiree health plans providing coverage for pre- Medicare retirees over the age of 55.

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 created an employer subsidy program (“Retiree Drug Subsidy” or “RDS”) for plan sponsors as an incentive to maintain their retiree drug plans in lieu of dropping the coverage and forcing retirees to a Medicare Part D plan. The Reinsurance Program appears to provide employers a similar incentive. The incentive under this program would be for employer groups to maintain the medical plans for their pre- Medicare eligible retirees in return for a significant subsidy.

The Reinsurance Program clearly benefits employers and industries that are union-dominated and saddled with rich and expensive retiree medical plans. Ironically, as the health care reform bills have been touched by so many special interests and tainted by the political reality of compromise, one of the remaining provisions, the “Cadillac tax”, may be neutralized by the subsidy (although at print, labor presumably has worked out a deal with the White House to exempt groups with collective bargaining agreements until 2018). The “Cadillac tax”, which imposes a 40% excise tax on plans with premium costs exceeding pre-established “threshold amounts”, would increase plan costs for many of the same plans eligible for the reinsurance subsidy. For plan sponsors with a considerable retiree population the effect is that every dollar of the retiree plan premium subject to the excise tax could be significantly offset by a corresponding subsidy.

What are the Potential Savings?

The proposed program would establish a “temporary” Reinsurance Program for employers who provide health insurance coverage to retirees over the age of 55 and who are NOT yet eligible for Medicare. The program would reimburse employers or insurers for 80% of retiree claims between $15,000 and $90,000.

For an employer group with 700 employees and 500 retirees that spends $10,000,000 a year on health insurance plans, the subsidy could be as much as $720,000, effectively reducing its retiree plan costs by 14.4%.

How Will This Reinsurance Program Work?

If we can learn any lessons from the Retiree Drug Subsidy (“RDS”) program, where initially the drug subsidy was to be calculated as a percentage on ALL prescription drug claims incurred by plan sponsors, there will likely be a segment within the government that will push to dilute and reduce the category of “eligible” claims in the final calculation. The RDS formula was initially relatively simple until there was a bureaucratic decision to create “excluded” drug classes from subsidy eligibility. CMS’ rationale behind this change was to NOT pay subsidy on drugs that were excluded under the government sponsored Part D drug plan formulary. There could be a similar rationale used to create “excluded” medical expenses to align subsidy eligibility with only medical procedures approved and part of the government’s baseline plans as defined within the final bill.

Moreover, the language within the two bills is unclear as to “who” gets the subsidy. The Senate bill states “….the program will reimburse employers or insurers” whereas the House bill only references “employers.” Moreover, the language in both bills state explicitly that “payments from the Reinsurance Program will be used to lower the costs for enrollees in the employer plan”. What can we interpret from this language? Will the employer not be eligible for subsidy? Will insurance carriers be able to create insurance plans for employer groups and keep the subsidy and then lower premium costs just as they do now under Medicare Advantage?

How Long Will This Program Last?

The subsidy is “temporary”, as the Bill appropriates only $5 billion to fund this program through January 1, 2014.

Quick math shows that the monies earmarked for this program could run out quickly. The 2006 PEW Center1 Study reported significant un-funded retiree healthcare liabilities for state and local governments alone. State systems are projected to payout $9.7 billion for “other post employment benefits”. The 30 year retiree healthcare liability was projected to be $381 billion; a conservative estimate since these figures do not include obligations for teachers or local government workers. The State of California, combined with all local governments within California, was projected to have a $6 billion retiree healthcare bill in 2009. Add to this all the large Taft Hartley plans, independent VEBA plans (i.e. the UAW VEBA) and the remaining large private sector retiree plans, one can see this earmark evaporating in a short period of time.

This begs the question. How will priority be established if the government agency in charge of managing this program is inundated with applications? Will it be first come, first serve? Will there be some level of “need” established to assign priority or create qualification? Or will this program, once Health Care Reform passes, become another entitlement program that is legislated into permanency?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Aloe Vera Juice For Good Health

Aloe Vera is a commonly found plant, this is not any ordinary plant, but it is loaded with exceptional medicinal qualities. The fleshy leaves of this plant contain pulp, which is rich in nutrients and fibers, which are helpful for the body. The regular intake of the Aloe Vera heals the body both internally as well as externally, due to its exceptional qualities this plant was regarded as the �Plant of Immorality’ by the Egyptians. The Best Aloe Vera Juice can give you surprising health benefits. It can heal old diseases and can prevent you from the new ones. It increases immunity and is does wonders for a diabetic patient, it makes skin smooth as well as prevents hair fall so its advantages are just numerous.

Richness of the Aloe Vera

The plant is certainly full of rich ingredients the Aloe Vera juice is rich in antibiotic, antioxidants, helps too removes scars and pain and also stimulates cell growth. This is a rich source of all nutrients and is a remedy to lot of problems. Aloe Vera can also be used as an energy drink and can give instant energy to anyone who has deficiency of minerals and vitamins. The Aloe Vera juice can also relieve you from minor infections and chronic pain. Some of the minerals found in the Aloe Vera are Calcium, Sodium, Iron, Potassium, Manganese, Zinc, Folic acid, Vitamins A, B1, B2, B6, C, and Amino acids. All this together work towards strengthening the body of the user.

Lose Weight Naturally with the Aloe Vera Juice

Aloe Vera juice weight loss can be done effectively and naturally, the anti-oxidants present in its juice help you lose weight quickly by slowing down the growth of free radicals. Aloe Vera juice is also known to increase the metabolism of the body thus reducing the Body Mass Index (BMI) this turns the fats and carbohydrates into energy. This juice also helps in the production of collagen, the protein that leads to development of muscles. Collagen also leads to speeding up metabolism and it makes sure that the food is stored in the lower intestine just for short period of time. The richness of minerals and proteins present in this juice helps to burn calories and reduce the body fat.

Use Aloe Vera to Cure Different Ailments

Aloe Vera Juice with fiber benefits and it can be consumed readily. It can be taken in combination with various things like lemons, strawberries, cucumber, green tea, pineapple, ginger etc. This is a powerful moisturizer and it heals scars and marks and also relieves pain. Aloe Vera Juice being natural laxative forces out food of the colon faster, it prevents constipation, improves digestion, and detoxifies the body. It also produces insulin in the body, controls the blood sugar level, and promotes gradual absorption of sugar.

Posted in Health-and-Fitness | Comments Off

5 Simple Yet Best Tips To Gain Weight After 25

Gaining weight is as difficult a task as shedding excess weight. Not only does it require lots of effort, commitment, focus and a will to achieve the goal, but also requires the help of mother nature to grow a well-toned body with normal weight.

Improper weight can be the result of many factors or even one factor in some cases. From poor feeding habits to bad diet intake, prolonged meal time gaps and increased physical activity without increased proper food diet intake, they all lead to energy deficit and cause you to be underweight. There are other factors as well like prolonged illness, diseases like cancer, TB, hormonal imbalance, and eating disorders like bulimia or anorexia nervosa.


Here are a few essential tips that help bring about the requisite weight-gain after you have passed 25 years of age.

EXERCISES : In discussion with your fitness instructor, chart out a proper exercise regimen that is a good mix of cardio, weight training, and flexibility exercises every day. Weight lifting, extremely important to help acquire a lean mass, should include dips, snatches, squats, deadlifts, presses (bench and overhead), push-ups / pull-ups, etc. If followed with commitment daily, they will help build up strong muscles while triggering hormonal response systems.

HEALTHY DIET : A balanced diet rich with the right amount of proteins, carbs and fats are an essential for proper weight gain. The diet should essentially include milk, fresh green vegetables and fruits, cheese, steak / chicken, and assorted type of nuts. It’s recommended to eat four to six pieces of fresh fruits daily with four glasses of low-fat milk. To make it better, plan your meals (a gap of 3 hours is recommended between each eating session) and stick to them without let-up.

LOTS OF FRESH WATER : 8-9 glasses of fresh pure water are recommended every day. They not only provide the requisite energy but also help prevent dehydration issues which lead to all sorts of health problems.

ADEQUATE SLEEP : Get lots of sound sleep 7 to 8 hours at the maximum every night for they will help your body to rest and later function properly.

KEEPING TRACK : You need to track your weight and waist measurements every week. This will help you know how far you have come and how far you have to go to bring about the desired results. In case, you find that your waist measurement is increasing too fast, just lower your intake of calories.

When following the above tips, ensure that you should stick to them come what may and never back down. The results may take some time to fortify, but they are bound to come if the tips are adhered to with commitment and focus.

When it comes to weight-gain supplements, they should be taken only in consultation with a specialist doctor or dietician. Supplements associated with weight-gain are usually carb-enriched supplements that are recommended for those who suffer from nutrient deficiencies.

For better height and normal weight, there are few better supplements than Step-Up Height Increaser from GTM Teleshopping that can work wonders.


Step-Up Height Increase is 100% Ayurvedic body growth supplement that offers amazing results if taken as per prescribed guidelines. Hailed as a revolutionary step-by-step total growth system, it provides the body the requisite nutrients that help increase height and also bring about proper weight gain.

Posted in Health-and-Fitness | Comments Off

Cleanliness Drinking With Water Purifiers

With shortage of drinking water nowadays, believing any brand for clean water is even an assignment. Water Purifiers are big helps, and now it is especially vital to know about filtration methods and water purifiers that are accessible in the market to ensure that we are drinking clean water.

What does a water purifier do?

A water purifier evacuates overabundance salts; suspend particles and jam fundamental minerals and vitamins. To start with it retains the crude water that is sullied and channels all contaminations and afterward apportions unadulterated water. A few purifiers utilize chemicals and utilize electrostatic charge to murder infections.

With such a large number of water purifiers in the market it gets hard to choose which is great and which is definitely not. Considering every one of these elements, you should search for some direction. Here we let you know how to purchase a water purifier. Perused on.

Sorts of water purifiers

Water purifiers come in 2 classifications, similar to electric and nonelectric that suits your necessities. The non-electric purifiers are moderate and don’t utilizes any UV strategy.

1) Electric water purifier

These water purifiers are associated with pipelines with a mix of residue channels and initiated carbon. They utilize pipeline water and can’t store water. These are costly than the non-electric ones yet they are advantageous to utilize and guarantees safe drinking water.

oActivated carbon channels: The water in this purifier is ignored the enacted carbon surface, while the pollutions are attracted to the surface of carbon channel. It helps in expelling natural mixes, chlorine and change the essence of water.Electricity is not the necessity for this sort of channel but rather this should be traded for better water decontamination.

oCandle channels: In this water purifier, water is filtered through a flame with every moment pore, any polluting influence that is bigger than pores get shut out. This is the least expensive purifier and does not require power.

What you have to deal with is that the candles should be tidied up to abstain from stopping up of pores created because of polluting influences. This purifier likewise should be supplanted regularly.

oUV water purifier:In this innovation, water is presented to UV beams that slaughter 99% of living beings display in it. It pulverizes every one of the pathogens however it doesn’t change the essence of water. Most channels utilize UV innovation with actuated carbon that evacuates chemicals.

oReverse Osmosis (RO) Filters:The RO framework offers the multi-arrange filtration that joins the dynamic carbon and molecule filtration. In this framework, the faucet water is made to go through little measured pores that different minerals and small scale organisms.It enhances the essence of water and they are generally utilized where the issue with water is the high measure of broke up minerals.

2) Non-electric water purifiers

oOnline: These purifiers are versatile and require no power. It is made of plastic, while the channel light has a gum channel that ought to be changed each month.

oOffline: These are known as water channels and needn’t bother with power. These refines are a blend of dregs channels and actuated carbon channels. Generally utilized where there are odds of water deficiency.

Elements to consider

1) Body:

The body of the water purifier ought to be tough and appealing so it suits your kitchen. The diverse sorts of material utilized are aluminum and ABS. You ought to likewise consider components like nature of water and relying upon the variable where you will gather the water.

2) Convenience: Depending from where you will gather the water, select an on the web and disconnected framework.

3) Life Span

Numerous sorts of water purifiers, basically carbon channels contain cartridges that should be supplanted. A cartridge’s life expectancy is known as its ability that implies the measure of water that can course through it should be supplanted. The RO water purifiers have an extraordinary film that ought to be supplanted from each 2-3 years.

4) Budget

A water purifier can cost you as less as Rs.1800 and as high as 60000. Highlights like show board, rechargeable batteries and a high stream rate are accessible as you pay more. Best purifiers are from driving brands like Aqua watch, LG and Eureka Forbes.

Primary concern

Water is vital forever, however it can contain debasements like microscopic organisms which if ingested can bring about waterborne illness. The perfect water purifier ought to pulverize all pathogens and channel all polluting influences like over the top minerals. In this way, pick a water purifier guarantees safe drinking water for you and your family. Drink clean water and remain solid.

Posted in Food-and-Drink | Comments Off

Try The Best Vegetarian Caterers This Wedding Season

Although vegetarian is the first choice of many people in the country we do have a lavish list of non-vegetarian dishes as well. While it is fairly easy to scout for a vegetarian catering service in India, but you might struggle with finding one in UK. But there is hardly any reason to get worked up.Read on further to find out some swiggy wedding catering in London.
Vegetarian food is hands down very healthy for your body. More and more people are choosing a vegetarian lifestyle over non-vegetarian life. There are some epic Indian catering in London which can serve you vegetarian food on your special day. Although most of the meat eating community dislike green food the Indian vegetarian food is not to be underestimated . Well with the innovative vegetarian catering houses you will scoff your entire assorted veggies. The Indian caterers in UK can arrange for you all sorts of cuisines. Be it North-Indian, South-Indian, Punjabi, Gujarati, Jain food or even Continental food, you will find a variety to chose from for your special day.
Besides Indian food from the Asian sub-continent, oriental food also has serious fan following. The spices, method of cooking, ingredients are all different from Indian food. Due to it’s fan following all over the world especially in UK you will find some of the best Asian Catering London. Enjoy a savoring meal of oriental food in UK. The high quality standards maintained by the Asian caterers in London will keep you wanting more and more.
Besides providing sumptuous cuisines the vegetarian caterers can also aid you with arranging all sorts of events. Be it your wedding day or a corporate event or a product launch or a birthday party you can absolutely rely on them. Wedding is a surely a very important day of your life. Similar to vegetarian catering Jain catering in London has authentic Jain food to offer you and satiate your hunger.
With decades of experience in providing Jain food in London you can be rest assured to get only the best service on your big day. When it comes to corporate events it is all about perfection.
Are you wondering where to get some awesome Gujarati food in London? Well the Indian caterers can provide you with not just Gujarati food but also Punjabi!

Whether it’s a small event comprising of a 100 people or a huge gathering of 1000 people the well trained and experienced staff will give you only the taste of best. Awesome food, lovely service, and over a dozen of cuisine options to choose from!

Healthy food choice has become pivotal to a maintain a good health. Scoops of people are getting exposed to a healthy food lifestyle which is leading to an increase in the demand of low calorie caterer services. Who does not relish the food at weddings and parties. But usually the food at such events is laced in butter and oil especially if it’s Indian food. And you can’t help but hog it all because it tastes so freaking good. But the health freaks need not worry anymore about the cuisine at celebrations anymore.

Posted in Food-and-Drink | Comments Off