I am not sure the Coke Dress Red thing has anything to do with American Heart Association. It actually looks like a rip-off campaign by another group. This is what the footer of the site says. “The Heart Truth and Red Dress are trademarks of DHHS. Participation by Coca-Cola does not imply endorsement by DHHS/NIH/NHLBI. Contribution by Diet Coke is made to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, and will be used to further the efforts of women’s heart health awareness and research.

No mention of American Heart Association anywhere. Strange. AHA’s website for Go Red for Women is Here:
http://www.goredforwomen.org/

Diet Coke is advertising on Google for “Go Red for Women”, trying to get people to go here instead:
http://www.dietcoke.com/reddress/

Similar logo to AHA and everything. This just looks nasty to me. Does not speak well of Coke. But I think you are safe to assume that AHA is not promoting Coke products.

Let me know if I am missing something.

Uh, just to let you know, the American Heart Association has nothing to do with that Diet Coke commercial. The Department of Health and Human Services created a women’s heart health campaign called The Heart Truth. It actually pre-dates the Go Red For Women movement. The Heart Truth logo appears on the Diet Coke cans, not the Go Red For Women logo. Yes, they are both Red Dress logos, but the Red Dress is the symbol of the battle against heart disease in women…much like the pink ribbons symbolizes the fight against breast cancer and the red ribbon- AIDS. In fact, the Red Dress symbol is trademarked by the DHHS. So, your consternation should be directed at the DHHS, not the AHA.

I have to imagine that Women’s Heart Disease wants to steal some of Breast Cancer’s thunder. Breast Cancer gets all the “women’s health” attention, but doesn’t kill nearly so many women as Heart Disease. Heart Disease kills more women than all cancers combined.

For some reason, as a culture we are more worried about the things on the outside of the chest than on the inside.

This is the first I’ve heard of iridology. Sounds a bit like phrenology to me at first glance. I’d welcome a follow-up post on the subject if there is a defense to be made.

I remember seeing that commercial when it aired and wondering why we have to genderize heart health.

“Iridology makes no anatomic or physiologic sense. It is not merely worthless. Incorrect diagnoses can unnecessarily frighten people, cause them to waste money seeking medical care for nonexistent conditions, or steer them away from necessary medical care when a real problem is overlooked.

Some multilevel distributors are using iridology as a basis for recommending dietary supplements and/or herbs. Anyone who does this and is not a licensed health professional would be guilty of practicing medicine without a license, which is a violation of state law.”

-http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/iridology.html

I am surprised that someone that seems to have an interest in health as you still considers hypnotherapy and iridology “quackery”. Iridology shows information from the body via the direct connection of the surface layers of the iris with the sympathetic nervous system’s cervical ganglion (nerve tissue composed primarily of nerve cell bodies outside the spinal cord). This connection is called the neuro-optic reflex. Some public hospitals in Germany and other European countries have iridologists on staff that see patients before the MD so that they can get first a picture of the genetic tendencies and potentialities, weak areas, etc.

As to Hypnotherapy or clinical hypnosis, it is something very different from stage hypnosis shows. It is a very efficient medical tool. The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis trains MDs, dentists and nurses. Mayo Clinic cites hypnotherapy as one of the most useful tools in conditions like ulcerative colitis, IBS, and others.

Now, are there some iridologists that are quacks? Probably. Are there hypnotists that are charlatans? Sure, some take a week-end course and call themselves hypnotists. Does that invalidate all iridology and hypnotherapy practitioners? Most certainly not. There are also MD’s that have poor training, make horrible mistakes, and do much harm…and that doesn’t eliminate the medical proffession, does it? There are many others that are good and knowledgeable. In allopathic as well as alternative medicine there is good and bad.

Now moving to aspartame. Of course the FDA will say it’s safe. They approved it. It took almost 9 years to get it approved because it was considered unsafe, but they finally did, mostly through a loop in the rules. Some scientists and doctors like John Olney, a physician in faculty on Washington University School of medicine believe aspartame is a player associated with seizures, brain tumors and other conditions. it contains an excitotoxin, aspartic acid, that together with another acid found in MSG, are the two primary nerve stimulators. It also contains phenylalanine, which some people just can’t metabolize. As to high fructose corn syrup, although appealing to food manufactures because since it’s very concentrated it’s less expensive and increases shelf life, it quickly boosts blood sugar to high levels. There are 12 teaspoons in a can of soda. The average american eats 83 pounds of corn syrup a year, plus 66 pounds of sucrose. And we wonder why diabetes and insuline resistance are getting epidemic proportions…

To finalize, I agree with you in one thing, it is very sad that there are some naturopathic practitioners that are not serious. But for all the rest that indeed are serious and are in the health business, there are many mainstream doctors in the sicknes business.

You profess to understand things biological whilst advocating the quackery of iridology and hypnotherapy?

You call high-fructose corn syrup a poison without any evidence. You claim numerous studies linking Coke to bad health without citing any sources.

In 1999, FDA scientists described the safety of aspartame as “clear cut” and stated that the product is “one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_sugar.html

You have the credibility of a man in a tinfoil hat.

Good for you! If we care about others, We NEED to be annoying regarding these poisons. Otherwise, having their arteries blocked with that sticky stuff or their hormones get crazy will be far more annoying…
Health and Peace,
Patricia

This post makes a lot of sense. I, for one, do my best to impart my hatred for high-fructose corn syrup to everyone I eat with. Yes, I’m very annoying, but also very concerned for everyone’s health.