Connect with us


1, 2, and 4 and Here’s to Your Good Health Without BPA – "Bisphenol A"



This article was originally submitted for publication on August 9, 2010 and has since been updated and revised as additional information on BPA could be verified.

Take the number one and double it. Now take the number two and double it. And with the number four you now have the easy to remember formula to your “possible” good health. But not so fast. These three numbers, one, two and four, so-called “resin identification code” numbers found within the ubiquitous triangle on most, not all, plastic pieces were the brainchild of the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) in 1988 for the environmental purpose of recycling. They stand in contrast to the numbers three, five, six and seven and what makes these three numbers “safe numbers” is their lack of the toxic chemical Bisphenol A, (BPA for short), which is inherent in the remaining four numbers.

BPA, a synthetic estrogen having industrial and dental applications, is the chemical that has been shown to leach into food including baby foods and formulas from BPA plastics and cans that are lined with BPA. This writer will not pretend to offer expertise on the subject. I have none. However, the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as of this writing, each post online over 300 technical entries on BPA. I’m sure other federal agencies may also address this serious matter of public health concern. The most comprehensive non-technical reporting on Bisphenol A is provided by the donation funded Environmental Working Group ( and the search engine of the Center For Science In the Public Interest ( also provides topics of concern on Bisphenol A while maverick physicians like Joseph Mercola, D.O. ( openly discuss online the hazards posed by BPA.

In a random, non-scientific inquiry I inventoried my own home only to discover shocking results. Naturally my first inclination was to inventory any type of plastic that was even remotely connected to foods and beverages. Real old plastic containers used for food leftovers, like Rubbermaid for instance, understandably lack the numbered triangle. Instead, some pieces may have a number within a circle, the meaning of which is unknown. On to the post 1988 products and my first, and somewhat surprising item, is a Styrofoam carton housing a dozen eggs which bears the number six (6), a BPA-containing carton. I can’t help but wonder if somehow this toxic chemical can permeate a porous eggshell barrier over a given period of time so my egg purchases today come in sturdy cardboard cartons that have no possible adverse effects on eggs and are very safe to recycle.

From an egg carton I move on to the colorless plastic bottles used for juices such as Tropicana. I have several of these, different brands and sizes. I routinely use them to refrigerate filtered tap water and they all seem to have the number one (1), but I’m dismayed when, under magnification, I examine their hard, colored plastic bottle caps but find no resin identification codes. I force myself to avoid speculation.

I have two food containing tubs in the fridge, a Kraft Philadelphia Whipped Cream Cheese, a must for my customary lox and bagel breakfast, and Stonyfield’s Oikos Organic Greek (nonfat) Yogurt, my occasional health food lunch. They bear the numbers seven (7) and five (5) respectively and I’m too miffed to check the lids!

Over the years I somehow managed to accumulate those hard plastic water bottles with company logos that conveniently rest in automobile cup holders and often contain hot beverages. Now alarm sets in. All but two “safe” bottles, from the National Medical Association and G. H. Bass Clothing, bear the number five (5), but two findings compound the problem. None of the plastic caps have resin identification codes and all were manufactured in China, which notoriously manufactures merchandise having lead based paint. Add hot coffee, tea or other hot beverage to these vessels and the resulting chemical interaction could conceivably be harmful, even toxic, to a chemical sensitive person.

So it’s off to the fast food joints but only to check the take-out beverage fountain cups, not the Styrofoam food containing dishes. None of these cups can be used for hot beverages. They’re strictly cold beverage containers, some are of the Styrofoam variety, the others are the more rigid type. It makes no difference. The numbers I encounter are either five (5) or Styrofoam Six (6). I don’t bother to check the lids. At this point I’m so disgusted the lids could be made of bazoonga for all I care. At home I come across two rigid plastic 64 ounce advertising cups, one from the major Cola manufacturer, the other from 7 Eleven and their respective numbers are five (5) and two (2) which, thanks to 7 Eleven, proves that each and every one of these cups can and should be made of BPA free plastic. I can’t help but wonder if sodas are harmful to teeth enamel what sort of reaction occurs between BPA plastic and soda and then what is that resulting effect on teeth and the body? Could it also be that the plastics industry charges the food industry less money for BPA-coated plastic containers than for BPA-free products?

Chemical reactions between BPA, the foods and beverages they contact and any alleged health risks need to become an investigative priority as well as the financial incentives between these industries. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that canned tomato products lined with BPA increase the potency of the toxin and yet these cans show no markings of their BPA content. WHY NOT? This also begs the question should the toxin BPA now be listed as an ingredient or additive to affected foods and beverages? At the very least manufacturers of BPA lined cans and plastics should be required to spell out that their packaging contains BPA to preserve the product so that consumers can decide whether or not to purchase the product. Precedent for this requirement has already been established with health risk warnings on tobacco and alcohol products. Only when health risk warnings on plastics and metal cans appear on these products will consumers have the right to know for certain if foods and beverages they contain will be at risk for BPA contamination.

With less than two weeks to the Thanksgiving 2011 holiday, scientists at the Breast Cancer Fund found inconsistent levels of BPA in several named canned foods traditionally found at the dinner table. The study, “BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food — a product-testing report by the Breast Cancer Fund” was reported in the online Business section of the November 15th. Los Angeles Times edition in the article “Study finds chemical BPA in popular Thanksgiving canned foods” by Rosanna Xia. The one positive finding in the study noted that no BPA levels could be detected in cans of Ocean Spray Jellied Cranberry Sauce.

Here’s where the tragedy and fun really begins. I’m in the bathroom where I notice a plastic bottle used to mist water on plants and two different plastics containing the shampoo brands Pert and Finesse. I decide to check these out as well as the various plastic cleaning product containers. They include large refill plastics of Tilex, Simple Green, Drain Care, as well as pump and pour plastics of Scrub Free, Tilex, Zep Mildew and Mold Stain Remover, Liquid Plumr and Kaboom. In the kitchen I come across a large plastic container of Heinz Distilled Vinegar. With the exception of Kaboom which bears the Safe number one (1) and Finesse Shampoo which bears BPA number three (3) every other plastic just named bears the SAFE number two (2) resin identification code!! I’m flabbergasted!! Every plastic used for harsh and caustic chemical solutions is BPA free while cans and most plastics intended to contain food or beverages for human consumption are laced with toxic BPA!! To make matters worse a BPA plastic is used to contain Finesse Shampoo, and in a store I find no resin identification code whatsoever on any plastic container of Fructis Shampoo. There must exist explanations for these abuses and it’s time to demand those answers. Could it be the food industry conspired with packaging manufacturers to add BPA to their packaging so that they (the food manufacturers) wouldn’t have to declare BPA as an additive or ingredient to preserve food? Food manufacturers must be held accountable for everything affecting food and beverages. Would it be feasible to convince Kraft and Stonyfield to sell their otherwise nutritious products in Zep and Scrub Free plastics for the sake of public health, or require Finesse Shampoo to use a number two (2) plastic container like its Pert competitor or demand that Fructis Shampoo reveal the resin identification codes on all its many different plastic containers? I would be quite satisfied with these corrections. I dare not check the resin identification codes for pesticide plastics. The very thought of BPA free plastic pesticide containers is unnerving.

Often overlooked in medicine cabinets are the clear orange colored plastic bottles used for prescription medications. They are made of resin identification code number five (5), BPA, which, should leaching occur, could contaminate prescribed medications with synthetic estrogen. For a number of patients estrogen in any form is a contraindication and for this reason medicines and nutritional supplements should be contained in glass bottles at time of manufacture or transferred immediately to a glass container at home. Certain dental appliances have a BPA plastic composition and these must be evaluated to determine the possibility of synthetic estrogen leakage.

PEDIATRICS, the “Official Journal Of The American Academy Of Pediatrics,” in a widely publicized study on October 24, 2011 entitled, “Impact of Early-Life Bisphenol A Exposure on Behavior and Executive Function in Children” cited in its abstract, “Conclusions: In this study, gestational BPA exposure affected behavioral and emotional regulation domains at 3 years of age, especially among girls. Clinicians may advise concerned patients to reduce their exposure to certain consumer products, but the benefits of such reductions are unclear.”

On a recent Sunday morning I head over to Costco where I find a set of plastic BPA-laced cutting boards (WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR COATING CUTTING BOARDS WITH BPA?) and an interesting on sale product named, “Snapware Glasslock 18-Piece Food Storage Set” whose box claims the product is BPA FREE. And indeed the Glassware by definition is BPA free and definitely microwave safe and definitely safe to recycle, BUT its plastic lid (intended for microwave cooking) has an inconspicuous resin identification code number five (5), another BPA containing plastic and certainly unsafe for microwave cooking or recycling. So many questions can and must be raised about this and any obvious intrusion by the plastic and BPA manufacturers regarding the obscene exploit of BPA into and on everything dealing with our food supply. No lid should ever contain the toxin BPA and WHY CUTTING BOARDS? While in Costco a demonstration for the blender VITAMIX is taking place. I’ve always been intrigued by the presentation but never got around to making the actual purchase. On the box of each unit is a statement that says the container is BPA-free which also piques my curiosity. During the break I ask the salesperson if I could examine the container and at the bottom of the container I notice a BARELY VISIBLE resin identification code number seven (7), a known BPA laced plastic. I ask the salesperson about this and the reply astounds me. I’m told that the container is not a plastic at all but a copolyester which means it is neither plastic nor does it contain BPA. WHOA! I say nothing further as a new group of onlookers begins to gather, but can’t help but wonder about any chemical reaction with BPA code number seven (7) or IF new copolyester products could leak their chemicals when the unit is used for any purpose but especially to microwave soup or other hot beverage.

When I return home I fire off an e-mail to Vitamix HQ requesting an explanation for what seems to be an obvious discrepancy. I’m impressed by the near immediate Sunday afternoon reply but not impressed by its substance from a company representative which reads in part, “…#7 includes both non-bpa and BPA containers (copolyester and polycarbonate). The containers used are the new copolyester BPA-free containers.” Could this be true and if so has the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) changed the rules to mean “an all inclusive umbrella” under which anything goes? I set about to find answers and with the thought that regardless of the response numerous independent laboratories must identify all copolyester chemicals and confirm that this new copolyester container is indeed BPA free as advertised and ascertain that copolyester plastics do not leach their chemicals or have other harmful effects on foods or beverages especially at high temperatures including microwave heating.

That said, I e-mail my inquiry to the Society of the Plastics Industry and receive a prompt and courteous reply from someone I believe to be a secretary advising me to e-mail my queries to ASTM.ORG which I do, but before sending the e-mail I enter the word “copolyester” in its search engine which returns three inconsequential replies. My next step is to send the actual e-mail but incredibly my e-mail goes unanswered. In frustration I Google “Bisphenol A” where I find websites galore praising or condemning BPA, but nothing from the plastics industry that would allow me to explore questions about the role of resin identification code number seven (7). I can’t help but think that some form of regulations governing resin identification codes are justified to curb what appears to be industry abuses that satisfy the needs of its membership, without any accountability, and at the health expense of the consumer. So I decide to investigate other country’s dealings with the BPA issue.

The year 2008 became the pivotal year for the disposition of BPA. Canada banned BPA from baby bottles and although the debate rages on whether or not to ban the toxin entirely, on October 14, 2010 the government became the first government to officially declare BPA toxic. Denmark restricted the use of BPA. The Washington Post reported on June 12, 2008, “The new laws in the European Union requires companies to demonstrate that a chemical is safe before it enters commerce — the opposite of policies in the United States, where regulators must prove that a chemical is harmful before it can be restricted or removed from the market.” WHAT A MARVELOUS, SENSIBLE AND COST EFFECTIVE CONCEPT FOR EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS!!. In this country New York State and California led the fight to ban BPA from baby bottles but California legislators failed to pass the bill. I cannot say whether or not politics plays any role in the future of BPA, it shouldn’t, but in April, 2008 Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and fellow Senate Democrats proposed legislation to ban BPA from all children’s products. Then, a disturbing article in the December 15, 2008 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel entitled, “FDA maintains bisphenol A is safe” quotes Laura Tarantino, chief of the FDA’s Office of Food Additive Safety saying, “At the moment, with all information in front of us, we do not believe we have the data on which we could base a regulatory ban,” (HUH? 300+ entries on your own website not to mention confidential reports that aren’t made public!) which makes this writer facetiously suggest to the “Powers That Be” at FDA that BPA should be reclassified as a nutrient so that the FDA could ban it once and for all! The above newspaper articles are “Must Reads” in their entirety and appear on the EWG.ORG website. As late as March 29, 2010 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared BPA a “chemical of concern.” That same year Maryland legislators banned BPA from baby bottles and is actively pursuing additional restrictions on the chemical.

If additional documentation is needed for Laura Tarantino and the FDA to justify banning BPA the chief of the Office of Food Additive Safety is directed to the Editorial section of the September 17, 2008 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and a strongly worded review of a preliminary study entitled, “Bisphenol A and Risk of Metabolic Disorders” by Frederick S. vom Saal, PhD, and John Peterson Myers, PhD. In it the authors cite the following, “…Lang et al report a significant relationship between urine concentrations of BPA and cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and liver-enzyme abnormalities in a representative sample of the adult US population.” JAMA also published a Harvard School of Public Health research letter in its November 23, 2011 issue entitled, “Canned Soup Consumption and Urinary Bisphenol A: A Randomized Crossover Trial.” In it the authors “hypothesized that canned soup consumption would increase urinary BPA concentrations relative to fresh soup consumption.” They emphasized the relationship between BPA concentrations to cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Regrettably, this writer finds it necessary to remind and advise the FDA that its mission, its integrity, is to protect the U.S. population not the food industry, not the drug industry.

On the subject of safe microwave cooking with plastic Clair Hicks, PhD, professor of food science, University of Kentucky at Lexington maintains that resin identification code numbers one (1) and five (5) are safe and that number six (6) “may be microwaved only if it is covered with a barrier film, such as a microwave-safe plastic wrap.” Here it must be emphasized that only the number one (1) resin identification code is free from BPA contamination making it the only safe plastic for the microwave and then only if glass cookware isn’t available.

Until the federal government, plastics industry, metal can industry and food industry sort out this mess we consumers must exercise our own awareness and vigilance, a kind of civil protest, in our food purchases, preparation and recycling practices to limit our exposure to BPA as with any dangerous toxin. Until the use of known BPA plastics and unidentified metal cans containing BPA intended for food and beverage consumption is either eliminated or advertised with a warning notice, consumers would do well to buy similar products in glass jars which have no known toxins or deleterious health effects, are safe to microwave and safe to recycle. Metal and/or plastic caps should be certified BPA FREE. I intentionally avoid replacing BPA plastics with any plastic since the chemistry of so-called “safe plastics” could possibly result in other health issues particularly where microwave heating is employed. The ultimate purpose of resin identification codes is to recycle same type plastics and cans for future use. Are we then recycling BPA coated products to once again contact and contaminate our food supply?? I suspect we are and for this reason I no longer recycle any remaining BPA-laced plastic or can but instead trash them with other garbage or with hazardous waste material. It’s time to send urgent messages to our legislators to resolve BPA issues and to the food industry that we will no longer buy your food products packaged in unidentified cans that may be lined with BPA or in plastics bearing the numbers three (3), five (5) six (6) or seven (7). I look forward to the day when food manufacturers proudly advertise their products to be safe in BPA FREE packaging (including lids) that only have the numbers 1, 2, or 4 (prominently visible) resin identification codes and no “slight of hand” switcheroos courtesy of the Society of the Plastics Industry.

It seems ironic that the day before the 2010 Earth Day rally in Washington, D.C. a contingent of the SPI Bioplastics Council flew to the nation’s capital to lobby members of Congress. Their agenda, a call “for increased bioplastics funding through grants and other programs such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s BioPreferred program.” Only In America could such audacity prosper unbridled. Corporate influence in government, especially that which adversely affects public health, is a corruption that must be exposed and legislatively eliminated. This means overhauling the exploitative effects of lobbying OUR legislators for commercial gain.

This original limerick is intended to drive home the point that the continued use and intimacy of BPA with food or beverage is a case of Americans Poisoning Americans LEGALLY:

Imagine from a country named Reggert
We imported the delicacy Weggert
‘Twas laced with the toxin
Known simply as Poxin
And our government simply did nuthin’ provides informative reports and newspaper articles and readers are encouraged to explore their search engine, “find something” and also enter the following term: “Bisphenol A In Plastic Containers” to consider the many sides of this issue.

Similarly, NPR ( has reported on the plastic and Bisphenol A controversy, as noted in its search engine, and two March, 2011 broadcasts by Jon Hamilton “Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals” ( ) and “Plastic’s New Frontier: No Scary Chemicals” ( ) discuss the estrogen problem related to plastics and the future of possible harmless plastics. The New York Times followed these broadcasts with a Special Report by Erica Gies on April 18, 2011 entitled, “The Business of Green: Substitutes for Bisphenol A Could Be More Harmful.”

The online article, “The Price of Environmental Stewardship” by this writer adds further commentary on BPA.

Writer: Allan R. Marshall, D.C.

google news


A Patient Guide To Get Medical Marijuana in Oklahoma



download 11
How To Get Medical Marijuana in Oklahoma

 Even though medical marijuana is legal in many states, there are set laws on how to obtain it legally. Read along to learn how to get medical marijuana in Oklahoma.

On May 18, 2021, the Gov. of Oklahoma, Kevin Stitt, House Bill 2272 into law. The law changed a few things in the medical marijuana sector in Oklahoma. The changes that took effect were meant to address the following concerns in the medical cannabis sector:

  • How foreigners should operate cannabis businesses in Oklahoma. 
  • How the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority (OMMA) should conduct compliance checks online 
  • Inspections to confirm if the licenses were operating actively or not

Since these changes are meant to remove a couple of bad actors in the Oklahoma medical marijuana sector, it is clear that the Oklahoma medical sector is taking the right path. The law was also put in place to ensure that all competitors get a fair deal regardless of where they came from. 

The Previous Version of the Act 

An earlier version of the law that the House passed in March. Looking carefully at how it was drafted, it was pretty different from the final version. The artificial caps in the law were more stringent as an oversight, and the number of business licenses was limited. The final version was meant to scrutinize the licenses issued by OMMA and how they were all maintained. Limits are now put in place to control the oversaturated market. That said, let’s look at what a patient needs to do to obtain medical marijuana in Oklahoma. 

How to Get Medical Marijuana in Oklahoma 

The procedure of acquiring medical marijuana in Oklahoma is almost the same in other states in America that have legalized medical marijuana. 

  • Get recommended by a licensed practicing doctor

The first thing you need to do as a patient seeking to get medical marijuana is looking for a physician in the state of Oklahoma who advocates for medical marijuana. The doctors need to confirm that you are suffering from any of the qualifying medical conditions. To do this, you need to present your medical history and other medical information that the doctor may need to recommend to you. 

Once the doctor has confirmed that you are suffering from any qualifying medical conditions, they will have to present the document himself in the Department of Health together with the patient’s filled out forms. The patient is not allowed to present the recommendation to the DOH. 

  • Application of the Medical Marijuana Card 

The second step in obtaining a medical marijuana card is sending an application to the State Department of Health. Once they have received your application, they will have to review it for a couple of days. After a few days, you will get feedback on whether they accepted or denied your application. If the application is accepted, you will be issued a medical marijuana card. 

Learning how to get medical marijuana in Oklahoma offers you a legal way to acquire cannabis. You can do this by providing copies of a state-issued identification card. You also need to present several documents that prove that you are a resident of Oklahoma. Once you are approved and have gotten the medical marijuana card, you can start going to medical marijuana dispensaries to purchase medical cannabis. 


Getting a medical marijuana card in Oklahoma is as easy as that, and you don’t need to struggle so much. Remember that medical marijuana is legal in many states; you need to follow due process. You don’t need to suffer in silence while you can get medical cannabis to relieve the pain that comes with these dilapidating medical conditions. 

google news
Continue Reading


What is the Best Air Purifier for Cough Symptoms?



Best Air Purifier
Best Air Purifiers

The rapid industrial growth brought many conveniences to our urban lives. But, along with those comforts, it also brought morbid health issues. The primary and most persistent problem in our modern lives is the problem of air pollution. Air contaminants and allergens are the main reason for our allergy, which causes cough problems in an allergic individual. If you live in an urban environment where you get surrounded by allergens, viruses and other pathogens, the chances are that you may be looking for the best air purifier to get help with your cough. Coughing can severely slow down you and your kids and hinder productivity. We will provide you with some best air purifier models and tips to choose a Daikin air purifier yourself. 

How do Air Purifiers Help with Coughs?

If you are coughing uncontrollably, you must look for the best air purifier because it surely can help you with your cough problem. But the question is how? Air purifiers use a HEPA (High-Efficiency Particulate Absorbing) filter to isolate the contaminants suspended in the air and keep them trapped in the system until you clean and change filters.

What Should You Look for When Buying an Air Purifier?

  • Filters: Filters are the primary organ of any best air purifier. Know which filters are there on your device. Here are some of the generally used filters for you to check:
  1. Pure HEPA filter
  2. Activated Charcoal Filter
  3. UV-C filter
  4. Pre-filter and
  5. Ozone free Ionizer 
  • Warranty period: Most air purifier models come with 1 to 2 years of warranty. Know which parts the company covers in the warranty paper.
  • Easy set-up: Modern air purifier models are mostly touch-controlled and have a simple button layout. Avoid any complications in the set-up, and filter changing process.
  • Room size: Check the rated size for an air purifier to know if it suits your room size.

What is the Number One Air Purifier?

These brands produce one of the top-selling air purifier models available in the Indian market.

  1. Daikin
  2. LG
  3. Eureka Forbes
  4. Panasonic
  5. Phillips
  6. BlueStar

Among them, Daikin is making one of the most affordable air purifiers.

Top Three Best Air Purifier Models are – 

  1. Daikin MC55XVM6 Air Purifier:
  • Streamer Discharge: This Daikin air purifier, besides the HEPA filter, uses the streamer discharge function to quickly remove odours and allergens with high-speed electrons with the oxidizing property.
  • Turbo mode: The Turbo mode in the Daikin air purifier provides a high-power operation to clean the air fast.
  • Deodorising Filter: Some Daikin air purifier models, including the MC55 model, utilize streamers to decompose the foul odours and assist the filter.


  1. Eureka Forbes 56-watt AeroGuard mist Air Purifier: 
  • HEPA filter: It uses advanced HEPA technology to remove 99% of suspended particles of 0.3 microns. 
  • UV Lamp: A UV lamp helps reduce volatile organic compounds, parasites and mites in the indoor air.
  • 10X filter technology: It uses the Active 10X filter technology to purify the air in your house and eliminate dust, dander and germs.
  1. Daikin MC40XVM6 Air Purifier:
  • Electrostatic HEPA filter: This Daikin air purifier has a high-performance filter that catches 99.97% of 0.3μm* fine particles.
  • Anti-pollen mode: When you switch between “standard” and “low” modes in this Daikin air purifier, it creates a gentle whirlwind to catch suspended pollen in the air.
  • Deodorising Filter: Odours are caught on this Daikin air purifier using the deodorizing filter. 

Shop from the Bajaj Finserv EMI Store for affordable pricing and enjoy pre-approved offers. Get hold of your Bajaj Finserv EMI Network Card to purchase eureka forbes air purifier on No-cost EMI.


In times of the global pandemic, your home is the only place where you spend the most time in the day. Although, it is no more a haven for you with a plethora of allergens, pathogens, viruses and other invisible germs floating in the indoor air. The Daikin air purifier uses the streamer discharge method, active plasma Ion and cutting-edge Electrostatic HEPA Filter to protect you against many dangerous disease-causing pathogens and improve the overall air quality. Do not compromise on the health of your family, and buy the best air purifier today. Enjoy a no-cost EMI using the Bajaj Finserv EMI network card for your purchases.


google news
Continue Reading


Neurological Symptoms You Shouldn’t Ignore



pexels andrea piacquadio 3812745

In 2017, almost half of the Australian population was prevalent for neurological disorders. This is a worrying piece of information. Neurological disorders can sneak up and they can take a toll on your health without you even noticing it. You may have a headache from time to time and think it’s not a big deal. However, it can be a pretty big deal. Some of these symptoms may seem harmless or irrelevant, but the trust is that they can damage your well-being in many ways. Here are the symptoms that should alert you that it’s time you saw a neurologist. 

Chronic headaches 

We all experience headaches – nothing new about that. However, it’s not the same when you have a headache once in four months and when you have one-two times a week. The latter should be a reason for concern. Especially if the headaches are strong and disruptive, you shouldn’t ignore them. Chronic migraines are also worrisome. 

A good way to determine whether you see a neurologist is by measuring the times you take pain relievers for headaches in a month. If the number goes over five, you should definitely consult a professional. When fever, stiff neck, and light sensitivity accompany a headache, they might point to an underlying issue such as meningitis. 

Frequent dizziness 

While dizziness is usually something benign, it can also become a sign of a serious health problem. If you feel dizzy once in six months due to fatigue, you shouldn’t worry too much – you should get some rest. On the other hand, if you experience bouts of dizziness all of the time, you shouldn’t just wait for the next one to start. 

There are several types of dizziness. For instance, syncope causes light-headedness and makes you feel like you’re going to faint while vertigo makes you feel like you’re spinning or swaying even when you’re standing still. Recognising this as a potential problem could help you treat a neurological disorder on time (if you have one).

Persistent pain 

Another thing that accompanies underlying neurological conditions is persistent pain. If you’ve suffered from constant pain for over six months, you should make an appointment with a neurologist as soon as possible. This is especially important if the pain is followed by sensations such as numbness, weakness, and tingling. You could also experience bladder or bowel control issues. 

All of these could be the symptoms of conditions such as neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, and other diseases. Luckily, you could get a life-changing brain surgery in Brisbane and improve your health and life significantly. You could even prevent a stroke. Sudden numbness affecting only one side of your body could be a sign of stroke. 

Sleep problems

Sleep is an essential part of the life of any functional being. You simply cannot go on with your life properly if you’re experiencing some serious trouble sleeping well. Insomnia and hypersomnia are just two of the sleep-related diseases you might have in this case. You could have narcolepsy, sleep apnea, or restless leg syndrome. 

All of these can make it difficult for you to remain focused and present at the moment. Furthermore, they could make it difficult for you to stay sane. If you’re unable to get a good night sleep for any reason, you should definitely head to a neurologist. Even if the problem isn’t neurological in nature, solving it will improve your life in many ways. 

Memory loss 

Finally, if you have trouble remembering things, you should check your neurological health. Of course, you could forget to switch off the lights sometimes – that isn’t a cause for concern. However, if you’re unable to focus on what people are telling you if you have trouble processing information, and if you can’t recall important pieces of information, you might have an issue. 

Especially if this becomes a constant in your life, you should seek help. Even if you constantly feel confused, you could be experiencing some symptoms of dementia. If that’s true, you could slow down this disease simply because you’ve noticed it on time. Once the treatment begins, you could improve the quality of your life in numerous ways.


Some of the things we consider ordinary or normal might be signs of serious health conditions. If you experience any of this often, make sure to check your health with a professional. Most health issues can be treated as long as they are noticed on time!

google news
Continue Reading