One of the most popular asthma/allergy drugs used by millions here in the US and around the world may cause mental and emotional changes in some patients that could lead to suicide. Already fraught with admitted side-effects such as anxiety and depression, the FDA is taking a closer look at Singulair, a drug that produces billions in annual sales for Big Pharma giant Merck.
Many of the drugs prescribed for asthma are potentially very toxic, especially to children. They often contain steroids and other dangerous substances that will cause long-term damage to patients. Now it appears that suicide must be added to the list of potentially harmful side effects as well. There are many natural remedies for the treatment of asthma, such as a diet that eliminates food allergens, plenty of fresh air, and exercise (swimming is especially good for asthmatics as long as the water is not chlorinated). If you or a loved one suffers from asthma, please do your research before agreeing to the use of medications. Your physician may not be telling you the whole story when it comes to the risks involved.
FDA Investigates Merck Drug-Suicide Link
By MATTHEW PERRONE - 3 days ago
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday it is investigating a possible link between Merck's best-selling Singulair and suicide.
FDA said it is reviewing a handful of reports involving mood changes, suicidal behavior and suicide in patients who have taken the popular allergy and asthma drug.
Merck has updated the drug's labeling four times in the past year to include information on a range of reported side effects: tremors, anxiousness, depression and suicidal behavior.
FDA said it asked the Whitehouse, N.J.-based company to dig deeper into its data on Singulair for evidence of possible links to suicide. The agency said it has not established a "causal relationship" between Merck's drug and suicidal behavior. An agency spokeswoman said the review was prompted by three to four suicide reports it received since last October.
It could take up to nine months before agency scientists can draw any conclusions, FDA said in a posting to its Web site.
The agency recently began notifying the public earlier about possible safety issues. The policy change came after the FDA was criticized for acting too slowly on information about the risks of Merck's painkiller Vioxx and, GlaxoSmithKline plc's diabetes pill Avandia.
Merck officials stressed that the FDA's inquiry is based on reports, not clinical studies - which are the standard tool for evaluating drug safety. The company said none of the 11,000 patients enrolled in 40 Singulair trials has committed suicide.
"We have no indication that anything about the mechanism of Singulair is consistent with these events," said George Philip, director of research and product development. "But because suicide is a life-threatening event we thought it was important to provide this information in the product label."
Merck said it recently added reports of suicide to Singulair's label, which already listed suicidal thinking and behavior as reported side effects.
In clinical trials of asthma patients, the most common side effects were headache, flu, abdominal pain and cough.
With sales of $4.3 billion last year, Singulair is used by millions of patients in the U.S, according to Merck. First approved in 1998, it's part of a class of asthma and allergy drugs that includes AstraZeneca's Accolate and Critical Therapeutics's Zyflo.
FDA said it is also reviewing reports of side effects with those drugs. Their labeling does not contain language about suicide.
"Patients should not stop taking Singulair before talking to their doctor," FDA said in its statement, adding that doctors should monitor patients for suicidal behavior and mood changes.
Shares of Merck & Co. Inc. rose 8 cents to close at $44.78.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ism9h1KwfQYjFxJVMYhupl8FOU-gD8VMA2F00
Monday, March 31, 2008
Money Trail Leads to Big Tobacco
The story posted below brings several disturbing issues to light. It involves a research study regarding the use of lung scans on smokers, and the involvement of money from tobacco companies and CT scan manufacturers as sources of funding for the study. The most obvious conflict of interest is the disclosure of monies supplied by a major tobacco company, but perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that the lung scans being studied are being presented as a benefit for smokers, when the truth is that these types of CT scans expose individuals to toxic amounts of radiation in and of themselves.
It is sad indeed that we cannot trust many scientists and be certain that they have the best interests of the public at heart. The legacy of questionable relationships involving many public health groups like the American Cancer Society and government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health is scandalous, and it makes it very difficult for informed people to trust advice given to them by their physicians regarding health and treatment options. This is why it is so important to be proactive and educated about the choices available to you should you become ill, or more crucially, the options you can exercise on your own initiative to pursue wellness and prevent disease.
Tobacco Cash in Lung Study Stirs Flap
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE and STEPHANIE NANO - 1 day ago
The disclosure of hidden tobacco money behind a big study suggesting that lung scans might help save smokers from cancer has shocked the research community and raised fresh concern about industry influence in important science.
Two medical journals that published studies by Weill Cornell Medical College researchers in 2006 are looking into tobacco cash and other financial ties that weren't revealed. The studies reported benefits from lung scans, which the Cornell team has long touted.
It's a crucial public health issue: Dozens of groups, including such anti-smoking crusaders as the American Cancer Society, have given the Cornell team money to see if routinely screening smokers with CT scans can spot the world's most lethal cancer in time to prevent deaths.
The federal government also has given money even though scientists have criticized the Cornell study's design and the government has its own more rigorous study under way.
Many were stunned to learn that a foundation Cornell set up and listed in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2006 as a sponsor of the study actually got $3.6 million from a parent company of cigarette maker Liggett Group Inc. The tobacco source was reported in a New York Times story Wednesday.
Liggett, whose owner was the first to break with other tobacco companies and say that tobacco was addictive and deadly, announced its donation to the Cornell foundation in 2000 in a press release. But the foundation's funding source wasn't disclosed to the journal.
On Wednesday, company spokeswoman Carrie Bloom noted in a statement that the company "had no control or influence over the research."
Scientists must maintain the trust of patients in research studies, and "any breach of that trust is not simply disappointing but, I believe, unacceptable," Dr. John Niederhuber, director of the National Cancer Institute, said in a statement.
Any findings from a study tainted by hidden industry ties "will be much less believable," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. The problem is avoidable, he added. "There are plenty of people around who are bright and knowledgeable and don't have conflicts of interest. We need to look harder to find these people."
The cancer society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said the society would not have contributed to the study if it knew "Big Tobacco" was co-funding the work. Still, there is no sign that the study's findings are tainted, and "it is my belief that something can be learned that can be useful," he said.
The chief Cornell researcher, Dr. Claudia Henschke, did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment. Cornell's dean, Dr. Antonio Gotto, said: "The claim that we set this foundation up in order to cover up the money just isn't true. We made a public announcement that we were taking the money from the tobacco company."
In retrospect, Gotto said perhaps the tobacco cash and patents that Cornell researchers hold on related technology should have been disclosed in Henschke's journal articles. Instead, one listed only the Cornell foundation.
Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, said she contacted Henschke months ago after others pointed out patents not disclosed in a July 2006 study. DeAngelis said Henschke didn't believe the patents were relevant to the research and resisted disclosing them.
"We'd been working with Dr. Henschke trying to get her to write a letter of apology - which is our policy - and to take responsibility," DeAngelis said. "It was not easy to get her to do anything."
Asked whether she would have published the research if the tobacco funding had been known, DeAngelis said: "Absolutely not. I would have turned down the paper."
A spokeswoman for the New England Journal, which published the Henschke paper listing the Cornell foundation as a sponsor, one of about 30, said only that the journal was investigating the matter.
Smokers are in dire need of good science on the risk and benefits of lung scans, which are being marketed directly to the public in shopping centers and similar settings. About 1 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year, and most will die because it is found too late for treatment to do much good.
Advanced X-rays called spiral CT scans have been touted as a way to find tumors earlier. But doctors fear that screening could lead to too many false alarms and unnecessary biopsies without saving lives. The cancer society does not currently recommend them, and most insurers don't pay for them.
Interest in the scans soared after Henschke published a key study in 1999 saying they found more tumors than conventional X-rays. Her ongoing study aims to prove the value of these scans but has been criticized because it lacks a comparison group.
The National Cancer Institute's study now under way has several comparison groups. It, too, has been criticized because two of its leaders were paid by tobacco companies as expert witnesses in lawsuits. Brawley says these were small amounts and one researcher gave the money back. Results of the federal study are expected in 2009 or 2010.
Laurie Fenton Ambrose, president of the patient advocacy group, the Lung Cancer Alliance, has complained about the government study conflicts, and says attacks on Henschke are "mudslinging."
"There is a difference between money that is provided independent of any tobacco control that would help fund research that would advance better patient outcomes and money that tobacco (companies) pay researchers for their testimony against screening in class action lawsuits," she said.
However, her group has taken industry money, too - from a maker of CT scanning equipment.
Niederhuber said the government "takes conflict of interest very seriously" and is committed to finishing its study with integrity.
An independent safety monitoring board is in place, and "investigators involved in the study do not have access to the data collected and cannot influence the data in any way that might affect the outcome of the trial," he added.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOTY8-blA7pr_lwIlOGBqZVqLH8AD8VLD38O0
It is sad indeed that we cannot trust many scientists and be certain that they have the best interests of the public at heart. The legacy of questionable relationships involving many public health groups like the American Cancer Society and government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health is scandalous, and it makes it very difficult for informed people to trust advice given to them by their physicians regarding health and treatment options. This is why it is so important to be proactive and educated about the choices available to you should you become ill, or more crucially, the options you can exercise on your own initiative to pursue wellness and prevent disease.
Tobacco Cash in Lung Study Stirs Flap
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE and STEPHANIE NANO - 1 day ago
The disclosure of hidden tobacco money behind a big study suggesting that lung scans might help save smokers from cancer has shocked the research community and raised fresh concern about industry influence in important science.
Two medical journals that published studies by Weill Cornell Medical College researchers in 2006 are looking into tobacco cash and other financial ties that weren't revealed. The studies reported benefits from lung scans, which the Cornell team has long touted.
It's a crucial public health issue: Dozens of groups, including such anti-smoking crusaders as the American Cancer Society, have given the Cornell team money to see if routinely screening smokers with CT scans can spot the world's most lethal cancer in time to prevent deaths.
The federal government also has given money even though scientists have criticized the Cornell study's design and the government has its own more rigorous study under way.
Many were stunned to learn that a foundation Cornell set up and listed in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2006 as a sponsor of the study actually got $3.6 million from a parent company of cigarette maker Liggett Group Inc. The tobacco source was reported in a New York Times story Wednesday.
Liggett, whose owner was the first to break with other tobacco companies and say that tobacco was addictive and deadly, announced its donation to the Cornell foundation in 2000 in a press release. But the foundation's funding source wasn't disclosed to the journal.
On Wednesday, company spokeswoman Carrie Bloom noted in a statement that the company "had no control or influence over the research."
Scientists must maintain the trust of patients in research studies, and "any breach of that trust is not simply disappointing but, I believe, unacceptable," Dr. John Niederhuber, director of the National Cancer Institute, said in a statement.
Any findings from a study tainted by hidden industry ties "will be much less believable," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. The problem is avoidable, he added. "There are plenty of people around who are bright and knowledgeable and don't have conflicts of interest. We need to look harder to find these people."
The cancer society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said the society would not have contributed to the study if it knew "Big Tobacco" was co-funding the work. Still, there is no sign that the study's findings are tainted, and "it is my belief that something can be learned that can be useful," he said.
The chief Cornell researcher, Dr. Claudia Henschke, did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment. Cornell's dean, Dr. Antonio Gotto, said: "The claim that we set this foundation up in order to cover up the money just isn't true. We made a public announcement that we were taking the money from the tobacco company."
In retrospect, Gotto said perhaps the tobacco cash and patents that Cornell researchers hold on related technology should have been disclosed in Henschke's journal articles. Instead, one listed only the Cornell foundation.
Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, said she contacted Henschke months ago after others pointed out patents not disclosed in a July 2006 study. DeAngelis said Henschke didn't believe the patents were relevant to the research and resisted disclosing them.
"We'd been working with Dr. Henschke trying to get her to write a letter of apology - which is our policy - and to take responsibility," DeAngelis said. "It was not easy to get her to do anything."
Asked whether she would have published the research if the tobacco funding had been known, DeAngelis said: "Absolutely not. I would have turned down the paper."
A spokeswoman for the New England Journal, which published the Henschke paper listing the Cornell foundation as a sponsor, one of about 30, said only that the journal was investigating the matter.
Smokers are in dire need of good science on the risk and benefits of lung scans, which are being marketed directly to the public in shopping centers and similar settings. About 1 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year, and most will die because it is found too late for treatment to do much good.
Advanced X-rays called spiral CT scans have been touted as a way to find tumors earlier. But doctors fear that screening could lead to too many false alarms and unnecessary biopsies without saving lives. The cancer society does not currently recommend them, and most insurers don't pay for them.
Interest in the scans soared after Henschke published a key study in 1999 saying they found more tumors than conventional X-rays. Her ongoing study aims to prove the value of these scans but has been criticized because it lacks a comparison group.
The National Cancer Institute's study now under way has several comparison groups. It, too, has been criticized because two of its leaders were paid by tobacco companies as expert witnesses in lawsuits. Brawley says these were small amounts and one researcher gave the money back. Results of the federal study are expected in 2009 or 2010.
Laurie Fenton Ambrose, president of the patient advocacy group, the Lung Cancer Alliance, has complained about the government study conflicts, and says attacks on Henschke are "mudslinging."
"There is a difference between money that is provided independent of any tobacco control that would help fund research that would advance better patient outcomes and money that tobacco (companies) pay researchers for their testimony against screening in class action lawsuits," she said.
However, her group has taken industry money, too - from a maker of CT scanning equipment.
Niederhuber said the government "takes conflict of interest very seriously" and is committed to finishing its study with integrity.
An independent safety monitoring board is in place, and "investigators involved in the study do not have access to the data collected and cannot influence the data in any way that might affect the outcome of the trial," he added.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOTY8-blA7pr_lwIlOGBqZVqLH8AD8VLD38O0
Friday, March 28, 2008
Many Benefits to Eating Organic
The news has been filled lately with outbreaks of disease related to both contaminated meat as well as fruits and vegetables. As more and more of our food is produced corporately, both here in the US and those imported from around the world, the chances of poor food safety and excessive exposure to legalized toxins such as growth hormones and pesticides only increases. It is clear that the only alternative that makes sense as far as gaining maximum nutrition and avoiding dangerous substances in our food is to grow our own or buy locally what we cannot produce ourselves.
Even when buying organic it is important to know your sources. Many corporations have jumped on the organic bandwagon, and the powers that be have allowed them to advertise foods as organic when they are not truly organic at all. I encourage everyone to grow as much of their own food as possible and to make sure that the seeds that are purchased are organic and not genetically engineered. Typing heirloom seeds into a search engine will give you a lot of information as well as places to buy seeds. Growing your own produce can be done even if you reside in an urban setting through the use of alternative gardening techniques such as growing veggies in specialized containers on a deck or porch, or even indoors. One particular company is marketing a growing container for vine vegetables or fruits called the Topsy Turvy Upside-down Tomato Planter which looks very easy to use while taking up a limited amount of space. Growing your own food is a great way to eat well and to get the whole family involved in the agricultural process as well.
Want a Nutritional Edge? Buy Organic
by Stephanie Whited
(NaturalNews) A recent UK government report found that chickens raised in the widespread, non-organic fashion, have a 23.4% chance of being contaminated with salmonella, a bacteria responsible for food poisoning. The chance of an organic flock having salmonella? Only 4.4%.
What's the difference between how the chickens are raised?
Organic chickens must have "access to outdoor ranges and pasture, with an emphasis on enabling the animals to express their natural behaviour." Sounds pretty reasonable.
The non-organic chickens are mostly housed in cages which allow each individual bird the space of a standard sheet of paper. Yes, the 8 1/2" X 11" kind. These birds are also given antibiotics, which not only help to create superbugs and weaken the birds' immune systems, but they potentially have the same effect on you when you eat the chicken or its eggs.
So, non-organic animals are likely to be raised under harsh conditions and administered antibiotics and hormones (the run-off of which create mutated fish), but what about non-organic fruits and vegetables?
Non-organic fruits and vegetables are grown with synthetic pesticides and fertilizer. So what? Well, studies are showing that more than 90% of children in the US "have detectable residues of at least one neurotoxic pesticide in their urine." Something is called neurotoxic when it is poisonous to your brain and nervous system.
Pesticides may also be changing our hormones and reproductive systems. They've been found to change the hormones of animals in tests and in the wild, and a lot of our systems are similar, so aren't they probably hurting us too? Visit Mindfully.org for more details.
How can we avoid them? According to a study outlined in a 2003 Environmental Health Perspectives article, children "eating organic fruits and vegetables had six times lower levels of pesticide byproducts in their blood versus children eating conventional produce."
Anytime that pesticide is found on organic produce, it is either because pesticides have drifted from a nearby non-organic farm or the produce has been contaminated by "long-ago banned pesticides that linger in the environment." So the effects of pesticide use are extremely long term!
Besides helping you to avoid dangerous pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones, choosing organics also supplies you with more nutrients. Those organically raised chickens we just discussed lay eggs which, according to a Mother Earth News, contain:
* 1/3 less cholesterol
* 1/4 less saturated fat
* 2/3 more vitamin A
* 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids
* 3 times more vitamin E
* 7 times more beta carotene
That's a huge difference! Mindfully.org compared over 30 different studies and found that on average, organic food does have more nutrients than inorganic food. Organic food was found to be far superior in three areas: Vitamin C content, a lower content of carcinogenic nitrates and better protein quality. These are key areas to a higher immunity, avoiding cancer, and cell health. Protein is in every cell of the body!
While it is better to eat fruits and vegetables with pesticides instead of processed foods, those who eat organically will have a healthy advantage. Ask your local stores to buy organic!
http://www.naturalnews.com/z022880.html
Even when buying organic it is important to know your sources. Many corporations have jumped on the organic bandwagon, and the powers that be have allowed them to advertise foods as organic when they are not truly organic at all. I encourage everyone to grow as much of their own food as possible and to make sure that the seeds that are purchased are organic and not genetically engineered. Typing heirloom seeds into a search engine will give you a lot of information as well as places to buy seeds. Growing your own produce can be done even if you reside in an urban setting through the use of alternative gardening techniques such as growing veggies in specialized containers on a deck or porch, or even indoors. One particular company is marketing a growing container for vine vegetables or fruits called the Topsy Turvy Upside-down Tomato Planter which looks very easy to use while taking up a limited amount of space. Growing your own food is a great way to eat well and to get the whole family involved in the agricultural process as well.
Want a Nutritional Edge? Buy Organic
by Stephanie Whited
(NaturalNews) A recent UK government report found that chickens raised in the widespread, non-organic fashion, have a 23.4% chance of being contaminated with salmonella, a bacteria responsible for food poisoning. The chance of an organic flock having salmonella? Only 4.4%.
What's the difference between how the chickens are raised?
Organic chickens must have "access to outdoor ranges and pasture, with an emphasis on enabling the animals to express their natural behaviour." Sounds pretty reasonable.
The non-organic chickens are mostly housed in cages which allow each individual bird the space of a standard sheet of paper. Yes, the 8 1/2" X 11" kind. These birds are also given antibiotics, which not only help to create superbugs and weaken the birds' immune systems, but they potentially have the same effect on you when you eat the chicken or its eggs.
So, non-organic animals are likely to be raised under harsh conditions and administered antibiotics and hormones (the run-off of which create mutated fish), but what about non-organic fruits and vegetables?
Non-organic fruits and vegetables are grown with synthetic pesticides and fertilizer. So what? Well, studies are showing that more than 90% of children in the US "have detectable residues of at least one neurotoxic pesticide in their urine." Something is called neurotoxic when it is poisonous to your brain and nervous system.
Pesticides may also be changing our hormones and reproductive systems. They've been found to change the hormones of animals in tests and in the wild, and a lot of our systems are similar, so aren't they probably hurting us too? Visit Mindfully.org for more details.
How can we avoid them? According to a study outlined in a 2003 Environmental Health Perspectives article, children "eating organic fruits and vegetables had six times lower levels of pesticide byproducts in their blood versus children eating conventional produce."
Anytime that pesticide is found on organic produce, it is either because pesticides have drifted from a nearby non-organic farm or the produce has been contaminated by "long-ago banned pesticides that linger in the environment." So the effects of pesticide use are extremely long term!
Besides helping you to avoid dangerous pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones, choosing organics also supplies you with more nutrients. Those organically raised chickens we just discussed lay eggs which, according to a Mother Earth News, contain:
* 1/3 less cholesterol
* 1/4 less saturated fat
* 2/3 more vitamin A
* 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids
* 3 times more vitamin E
* 7 times more beta carotene
That's a huge difference! Mindfully.org compared over 30 different studies and found that on average, organic food does have more nutrients than inorganic food. Organic food was found to be far superior in three areas: Vitamin C content, a lower content of carcinogenic nitrates and better protein quality. These are key areas to a higher immunity, avoiding cancer, and cell health. Protein is in every cell of the body!
While it is better to eat fruits and vegetables with pesticides instead of processed foods, those who eat organically will have a healthy advantage. Ask your local stores to buy organic!
http://www.naturalnews.com/z022880.html
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Britain Cracks Down on Big Pharma
The British equivalent of the FDA has apparently had enough of the shenanigans of the pharmaceutical industry and is seeking to pass legislation that would force them to be totally truthful regarding findings discovered during drug trials. As it now stands, both in England and here in the US, drug companies are allowed by law to play all kinds of games regarding disclosure about potential dangers related to the pharmaceuticals they manufacture and market. The stakes of these cloak and dagger operations are very high, with potentially fatal side effects being withheld in some cases.
These legal drug dealers are a formidable foe, commanding huge amounts of capital and political influence. However, if the Europeans begin to hold them accountable, perhaps there is then hope for us here in the US. The drugs they push are very dangerous substances, and it is criminal that they are allowed to withhold such pertinent information. In addition, as the article points out, even when drugs are approved, the potential long-term effects may not be known for many years. The last few generations have been used as guinea pigs, and there may be a big price to pay regarding the health and welfare of the recipients of such drugs. But as the saying goes, money does not talk, it screams, and the profits keep rolling in for Big Pharma despite the legacy of death and deception that is left behind in the wake.
UK to force drugmakers to share info
By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer
Mon Mar 24, 5:49 PM ET
Britain plans to force pharmaceutical companies to share more information with regulators about clinical trials after an investigation recently concluded that GlaxoSmithKline PLC deliberately withheld information about an antidepressant.
The four-year probe by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, completed earlier this month, said the British company should have revealed more quickly that Seroxat sometimes increased the suicide risk in teenagers - by more than six times.
But without stronger legislation in place, the MHRA admitted there is no chance of prosecuting the company for what the agency perceives as an ethical lapse.
"I remain concerned that GSK could and should have reported this information earlier than they did," MHRA chief executive Kent Woods said in a statement.
GlaxoSmithKline rejected the suggestion that it withheld information.
"We firmly believe we acted properly and responsibly," said Dr. Alastair Benbow, the company's European medical director.
British legislation only obliges companies to report side effects in patients for which drugs are officially recommended.
Because Seroxat was only recommended for adults, GlaxoSmithKline was not required to report on any dangerous side effects it found in adolescents.
But Seroxat can still be given to adolescents if prescribed by a doctor. About half of psychiatric drugs are prescribed "off-label," meaning that doctors give them to patients for whom the drug is not strictly intended.
The MHRA said it sifted through more than 1 million pages of evidence after requesting details of clinical trials held between 1994 and 2002.
In response, Britain's government declared that by the end of the year, it will tighten laws forcing companies to share all their relevant safety research with regulators.
"Companies that conduct clinical trials should not compromise people's health by withholding information," public health minister Dawn Primarolo said. The new laws will require companies to disclose a drug's side effects in all patients tested, Primarolo said.
The GlaxoSmithKline case underlines a growing concern among many health experts that drug companies' tendency to hide damaging data could have disastrous consequences.
"If we make the wrong licensing decisions for whatever reasons, then patients may be put at risk," said Dr. Hans-Georg Eichler, senior medical officer at the European Medicines Agency, which licenses drugs across Europe.
Others warn that without more complete information from drug companies, consumers might see similar unpleasant surprises in the future.
"It would be unwise to assume that this particular case was anomalous," said Dr. Ike Iheanacho, editor of the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, an independent publication of the British Medical Journal that tracks drug treatments.
"It's perfectly reasonable for people to be anxious about what other drugs on the market might be questionable," he said.
Patients could be taking drugs they do not need or do not work, said Irving Kirsch, a professor of psychology at Britain's University of Hull and lead author of a study that concluded antidepressants like Prozac are mostly ineffective.
Kirsch and colleagues analyzed data about popular antidepressants after submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. They found that depressed patients taking drugs did not actually do much better than those taking fake pills.
GlaxoSmithKline, makers of numerous antidepressants, responded in a statement that Kirsch's conclusions were incorrect because they evaluated only "a small subset of the data available."
But Kirsch and colleagues looked at nearly all the research submitted to the FDA. If that was only a small subset, experts wonder what other data might be out there.
"If we don't know what companies are doing, how do we know what's being reported?" said Davina Ghersi, coordinator of the World Health Organization's clinical trials registry platform.
Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the agency responsible for deciding what the health system pays for, issued guidelines on antidepressants in 2004. At the time, it did not have access to all the trial data.
"I shared with them the studies I had, but they did not have sufficient information to do a complete review," said Kirsch, then a consultant to the agency.
In recent years, once-blockbuster drugs, such as the painkiller Vioxx and the diabetes pill Avandia, have revealed worrying side effects, including significantly boosting the risk of a heart attack, years after being on the market.
"If we had seen all of the data in the first place, people might have realized that the claims being made for the drug were overblown and coy to the point of being fraudulent," said Dr. David Healy, a professor of psychiatry at Cardiff University in Wales.
But scapegoating of the drug companies may be too simplistic.
"A drug may turn out to be unsafe not because anyone has done anything wrong, but because new knowledge surfaces," Eichler said. Until a drug has been used by millions of people, the rarest and deadliest side effects may remain unknown.
Licenses are granted for drugs based on limited testing, Eichler said. Post-license monitoring should help sort out which drugs may be particularly risky, he said.
Without more data, people should be wary of what medications they take, experts say.
"If we had an overall picture, we might have a very different view about how good certain drugs are," Healy said. "There's an awful lot of people taking drugs that we don't know everything about."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_he_me/drug_data_laws&printer=1;_ylt=AnZSCZV7dOFgpISGXYAABiFa24cA
These legal drug dealers are a formidable foe, commanding huge amounts of capital and political influence. However, if the Europeans begin to hold them accountable, perhaps there is then hope for us here in the US. The drugs they push are very dangerous substances, and it is criminal that they are allowed to withhold such pertinent information. In addition, as the article points out, even when drugs are approved, the potential long-term effects may not be known for many years. The last few generations have been used as guinea pigs, and there may be a big price to pay regarding the health and welfare of the recipients of such drugs. But as the saying goes, money does not talk, it screams, and the profits keep rolling in for Big Pharma despite the legacy of death and deception that is left behind in the wake.
UK to force drugmakers to share info
By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer
Mon Mar 24, 5:49 PM ET
Britain plans to force pharmaceutical companies to share more information with regulators about clinical trials after an investigation recently concluded that GlaxoSmithKline PLC deliberately withheld information about an antidepressant.
The four-year probe by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, completed earlier this month, said the British company should have revealed more quickly that Seroxat sometimes increased the suicide risk in teenagers - by more than six times.
But without stronger legislation in place, the MHRA admitted there is no chance of prosecuting the company for what the agency perceives as an ethical lapse.
"I remain concerned that GSK could and should have reported this information earlier than they did," MHRA chief executive Kent Woods said in a statement.
GlaxoSmithKline rejected the suggestion that it withheld information.
"We firmly believe we acted properly and responsibly," said Dr. Alastair Benbow, the company's European medical director.
British legislation only obliges companies to report side effects in patients for which drugs are officially recommended.
Because Seroxat was only recommended for adults, GlaxoSmithKline was not required to report on any dangerous side effects it found in adolescents.
But Seroxat can still be given to adolescents if prescribed by a doctor. About half of psychiatric drugs are prescribed "off-label," meaning that doctors give them to patients for whom the drug is not strictly intended.
The MHRA said it sifted through more than 1 million pages of evidence after requesting details of clinical trials held between 1994 and 2002.
In response, Britain's government declared that by the end of the year, it will tighten laws forcing companies to share all their relevant safety research with regulators.
"Companies that conduct clinical trials should not compromise people's health by withholding information," public health minister Dawn Primarolo said. The new laws will require companies to disclose a drug's side effects in all patients tested, Primarolo said.
The GlaxoSmithKline case underlines a growing concern among many health experts that drug companies' tendency to hide damaging data could have disastrous consequences.
"If we make the wrong licensing decisions for whatever reasons, then patients may be put at risk," said Dr. Hans-Georg Eichler, senior medical officer at the European Medicines Agency, which licenses drugs across Europe.
Others warn that without more complete information from drug companies, consumers might see similar unpleasant surprises in the future.
"It would be unwise to assume that this particular case was anomalous," said Dr. Ike Iheanacho, editor of the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, an independent publication of the British Medical Journal that tracks drug treatments.
"It's perfectly reasonable for people to be anxious about what other drugs on the market might be questionable," he said.
Patients could be taking drugs they do not need or do not work, said Irving Kirsch, a professor of psychology at Britain's University of Hull and lead author of a study that concluded antidepressants like Prozac are mostly ineffective.
Kirsch and colleagues analyzed data about popular antidepressants after submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. They found that depressed patients taking drugs did not actually do much better than those taking fake pills.
GlaxoSmithKline, makers of numerous antidepressants, responded in a statement that Kirsch's conclusions were incorrect because they evaluated only "a small subset of the data available."
But Kirsch and colleagues looked at nearly all the research submitted to the FDA. If that was only a small subset, experts wonder what other data might be out there.
"If we don't know what companies are doing, how do we know what's being reported?" said Davina Ghersi, coordinator of the World Health Organization's clinical trials registry platform.
Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the agency responsible for deciding what the health system pays for, issued guidelines on antidepressants in 2004. At the time, it did not have access to all the trial data.
"I shared with them the studies I had, but they did not have sufficient information to do a complete review," said Kirsch, then a consultant to the agency.
In recent years, once-blockbuster drugs, such as the painkiller Vioxx and the diabetes pill Avandia, have revealed worrying side effects, including significantly boosting the risk of a heart attack, years after being on the market.
"If we had seen all of the data in the first place, people might have realized that the claims being made for the drug were overblown and coy to the point of being fraudulent," said Dr. David Healy, a professor of psychiatry at Cardiff University in Wales.
But scapegoating of the drug companies may be too simplistic.
"A drug may turn out to be unsafe not because anyone has done anything wrong, but because new knowledge surfaces," Eichler said. Until a drug has been used by millions of people, the rarest and deadliest side effects may remain unknown.
Licenses are granted for drugs based on limited testing, Eichler said. Post-license monitoring should help sort out which drugs may be particularly risky, he said.
Without more data, people should be wary of what medications they take, experts say.
"If we had an overall picture, we might have a very different view about how good certain drugs are," Healy said. "There's an awful lot of people taking drugs that we don't know everything about."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_he_me/drug_data_laws&printer=1;_ylt=AnZSCZV7dOFgpISGXYAABiFa24cA
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Diabetes: The Preventable Killer
The focus is on diabetes this week, as the 20th annual Diabetes Alert Day is seeking to help individuals prevent the illness, or receive an early diagnosis if it should occur. This debilitating disease is a major health problem in the United States, causing many to become disabled or have a shortened life. It is also on the rise, as the people of this nation become heavier and continue to gorge themselves with junk.
The real tragedy concerning diabetes is that it is a classic example of a condition that is almost totally preventable. This is, of course, both good news and bad. Choosing a lifestyle that includes a healthy, natural diet free from excess sugar, fat, and other substances that are toxic to the body will go a long ways towards preventing diabetes and a host of other debilitating illnesses.
However, diabetes is at epidemic proportions in this country simply because most Americans fail to take the time to eat healthy and exercise, thus making themselves sick rather than being innocent victims of disease. Many strides have been made at educating people about the benefits of a lifestyle that pursues wellness, but the cultural norms that have created the Standard American Diet (SAD) along with the pharmaceutical mantra that presents a false safety net of we have a pill or shot for you if you do develop diabetes will not die easily, so much work is still yet to be done. We can only control what happens in our own homes, and hope that change will spread outward and eventually encompass society.
American Diabetes Risk Test Available Online - Get Tested!
March 25th will mark the 20th anniversary of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Alert Day, a time designed to raise awareness on diabetes and its risks.
Alert Day is a one-day call to action to encourage those at risk for developing type 2 diabetes or those with loved ones at risk to take the Diabetes Risk Test and, if they score high, to schedule an appointment to see their healthcare provider, says a statement on the ADAs Web site.
Diabetes is the fifth leading cause of death in the United States. There are some 21 million Americans living with this disease, with 6.2 million not even knowing that they have it. To make things even worse, an additional 54 million Americans have pre-diabetes, placing them at high risk for developing type 2 diabetes.
The ADA estimates there will be nearly 50.2 million people with diabetes by 2025, especially that obesity epidemic continues to spread. Diabetes is a disease in which the body does not produce or properly use insulin. Insulin is a hormone that is needed to change sugar, starches and other food into energy needed for daily life. There are four types of diabetes: Type 1, type 2, gestational (pregnant women) and pre-diabetes.
People can live with type 2 diabetes for years before they know they have it. The condition does not have visible symptoms from the beginning. That is the reason why, people see a physician only when significant damage is done to their eyesight, heart or kidneys. Visible symptoms are frequent urination, blurred vision and excessive thirst, but people with type 2 diabetes do not show these clear warning signs at the time they develop the disease. That is why some people are not diagnosed with the disease until 7 to 10 years after onset, the American Diabetes Association warns.
Type 2 diabetes is often diagnosed when people develop one of the diseases serious complications, such as heart attack, kidney failure, blindness or nerve damage that can lead to amputations.
Diabetes risk factors include being overweight, sedentary, persons with a family history of diabetes and women who have babies with a birth weight of greater than nine pounds.
Diabetes is more common in African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
American Alert Day is a wakeup call to inform people about the seriousness of the disease and encourage them to get tested by their health care providers to see if they are at risk for developing diabetes.
To be sure you do not have the disease, make sure you get the American Diabetes Risk Test these days, a test that asks seven simple questions about weight, age, lifestyle and family history. This free test is available by calling 1-800-DIABETES or going online at www.diabetes.org/alert. People scoring 10 points or more are at a high risk for type 2 diabetes and are strongly encouraged to see a health care professional for further evaluation.
Discovering diabetes in its early stages means better treatments, better chances of living longer with it and of course better rates of survival.
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_American_Diabetes_Risk_Test_Available_Online_Get_Tested_15548.html
The real tragedy concerning diabetes is that it is a classic example of a condition that is almost totally preventable. This is, of course, both good news and bad. Choosing a lifestyle that includes a healthy, natural diet free from excess sugar, fat, and other substances that are toxic to the body will go a long ways towards preventing diabetes and a host of other debilitating illnesses.
However, diabetes is at epidemic proportions in this country simply because most Americans fail to take the time to eat healthy and exercise, thus making themselves sick rather than being innocent victims of disease. Many strides have been made at educating people about the benefits of a lifestyle that pursues wellness, but the cultural norms that have created the Standard American Diet (SAD) along with the pharmaceutical mantra that presents a false safety net of we have a pill or shot for you if you do develop diabetes will not die easily, so much work is still yet to be done. We can only control what happens in our own homes, and hope that change will spread outward and eventually encompass society.
American Diabetes Risk Test Available Online - Get Tested!
March 25th will mark the 20th anniversary of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Diabetes Alert Day, a time designed to raise awareness on diabetes and its risks.
Alert Day is a one-day call to action to encourage those at risk for developing type 2 diabetes or those with loved ones at risk to take the Diabetes Risk Test and, if they score high, to schedule an appointment to see their healthcare provider, says a statement on the ADAs Web site.
Diabetes is the fifth leading cause of death in the United States. There are some 21 million Americans living with this disease, with 6.2 million not even knowing that they have it. To make things even worse, an additional 54 million Americans have pre-diabetes, placing them at high risk for developing type 2 diabetes.
The ADA estimates there will be nearly 50.2 million people with diabetes by 2025, especially that obesity epidemic continues to spread. Diabetes is a disease in which the body does not produce or properly use insulin. Insulin is a hormone that is needed to change sugar, starches and other food into energy needed for daily life. There are four types of diabetes: Type 1, type 2, gestational (pregnant women) and pre-diabetes.
People can live with type 2 diabetes for years before they know they have it. The condition does not have visible symptoms from the beginning. That is the reason why, people see a physician only when significant damage is done to their eyesight, heart or kidneys. Visible symptoms are frequent urination, blurred vision and excessive thirst, but people with type 2 diabetes do not show these clear warning signs at the time they develop the disease. That is why some people are not diagnosed with the disease until 7 to 10 years after onset, the American Diabetes Association warns.
Type 2 diabetes is often diagnosed when people develop one of the diseases serious complications, such as heart attack, kidney failure, blindness or nerve damage that can lead to amputations.
Diabetes risk factors include being overweight, sedentary, persons with a family history of diabetes and women who have babies with a birth weight of greater than nine pounds.
Diabetes is more common in African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
American Alert Day is a wakeup call to inform people about the seriousness of the disease and encourage them to get tested by their health care providers to see if they are at risk for developing diabetes.
To be sure you do not have the disease, make sure you get the American Diabetes Risk Test these days, a test that asks seven simple questions about weight, age, lifestyle and family history. This free test is available by calling 1-800-DIABETES or going online at www.diabetes.org/alert. People scoring 10 points or more are at a high risk for type 2 diabetes and are strongly encouraged to see a health care professional for further evaluation.
Discovering diabetes in its early stages means better treatments, better chances of living longer with it and of course better rates of survival.
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_American_Diabetes_Risk_Test_Available_Online_Get_Tested_15548.html
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
More Links to Dietary Health Benefits
A Swedish study released last week indicates a relationship between the consumption of certain types of foods and the reduction of inflammation in the body. Even though this study specifically deals with rheumatoid arthritis patients, the results can also be applied to the effects of inflammation in all of us. Research continues to show that the bodys inflammatory response triggered by poor dietary and other lifestyle choices is one of the primary building blocks of all types of disease.
It is interesting that many of the media reports that give a favorable light to lifestyle and dietary health factors come from Europe and other parts of the world, rather than from here in the United States. The controlling influence of the FDA and many in conventional medicine tends to discourage the reporting of research and clinical trials that demonstrate natural health successes, while the benefits of such tactics as pharmaceuticals and immunizations are often the darlings of the press. Some of those behind this bias would have us Americans simply pop our pills whenever we are sick without thinking it through or asking any questions. Just another example of the treatment of disease with hazardous (and profitable) chemicals rather than prevention of disease through a proactive lifestyle that leads to wellness.
Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Display An Anti-Inflammatory Response To The Vegan Diet
18 Mar 2008
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who eat a gluten-free vegan diet could be better protected against heart attacks and stroke. RA is a major risk factor for these cardiovascular diseases, but a gluten-free vegan diet was shown to lower cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and oxidized LDL (OxLDL), as well as raising the levels of natural antibodies against the damaging compounds in the body that cause symptoms of the chronic inflammatory disease rheumatoid arthritis, such as phosphorylcholine. These findings are reported in the open access journal Arthritis Research & Therapy.
The idea that we can influence our health by changing our eating habits has become a fashionable idea among lifestyle and consumer magazines. There is evidence that dietary changes can bring about health benefits but specific results are not widespread.
Now, Johan Frostegard of the Rheumatology Unit at the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm and colleagues divided sixty-six RA patients randomly into two groups. They randomly assigned 38 of the volunteers to eat a gluten-free vegan diet, and the other 28 a well-balanced but non-vegan diet for one year. They analysed the levels of fatty, lipid molecules in blood samples using routine analytical methods at regular periods. They also measured oxLDL and anti-phosphorylcholine (antiPC) factor at the beginning of the experiment, at 3 months and again at 12 months.
The researchers found that the gluten-free vegan diet not only reduced LDL and oxLDL levels and raised antiPC antibodies but lowered the body-mass index (BMI) of the volunteers in that group. Levels of other fatty molecules, including triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) stayed the same. In contrast, none of the indicators differed significantly for the control groups on the conventional healthy diet.
AntiPC antibodies are studied within CVDIMMUNE, an European consortium led by Dr Frostegard with the hypothesis that such antibodies can protect against cardiovascular disease and can be used as diagnostic and therapeutic factors.
Frostegard and colleagues have now shown that diet could be used to improve the long-term health of people with rheumatoid arthritis. They concede that a bigger study group will be needed to discern which particular aspects of the diet help the most.
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/100932.php
It is interesting that many of the media reports that give a favorable light to lifestyle and dietary health factors come from Europe and other parts of the world, rather than from here in the United States. The controlling influence of the FDA and many in conventional medicine tends to discourage the reporting of research and clinical trials that demonstrate natural health successes, while the benefits of such tactics as pharmaceuticals and immunizations are often the darlings of the press. Some of those behind this bias would have us Americans simply pop our pills whenever we are sick without thinking it through or asking any questions. Just another example of the treatment of disease with hazardous (and profitable) chemicals rather than prevention of disease through a proactive lifestyle that leads to wellness.
Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Display An Anti-Inflammatory Response To The Vegan Diet
18 Mar 2008
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who eat a gluten-free vegan diet could be better protected against heart attacks and stroke. RA is a major risk factor for these cardiovascular diseases, but a gluten-free vegan diet was shown to lower cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and oxidized LDL (OxLDL), as well as raising the levels of natural antibodies against the damaging compounds in the body that cause symptoms of the chronic inflammatory disease rheumatoid arthritis, such as phosphorylcholine. These findings are reported in the open access journal Arthritis Research & Therapy.
The idea that we can influence our health by changing our eating habits has become a fashionable idea among lifestyle and consumer magazines. There is evidence that dietary changes can bring about health benefits but specific results are not widespread.
Now, Johan Frostegard of the Rheumatology Unit at the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm and colleagues divided sixty-six RA patients randomly into two groups. They randomly assigned 38 of the volunteers to eat a gluten-free vegan diet, and the other 28 a well-balanced but non-vegan diet for one year. They analysed the levels of fatty, lipid molecules in blood samples using routine analytical methods at regular periods. They also measured oxLDL and anti-phosphorylcholine (antiPC) factor at the beginning of the experiment, at 3 months and again at 12 months.
The researchers found that the gluten-free vegan diet not only reduced LDL and oxLDL levels and raised antiPC antibodies but lowered the body-mass index (BMI) of the volunteers in that group. Levels of other fatty molecules, including triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) stayed the same. In contrast, none of the indicators differed significantly for the control groups on the conventional healthy diet.
AntiPC antibodies are studied within CVDIMMUNE, an European consortium led by Dr Frostegard with the hypothesis that such antibodies can protect against cardiovascular disease and can be used as diagnostic and therapeutic factors.
Frostegard and colleagues have now shown that diet could be used to improve the long-term health of people with rheumatoid arthritis. They concede that a bigger study group will be needed to discern which particular aspects of the diet help the most.
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/100932.php
Monday, March 24, 2008
Relationships Affect Health
It has been common knowledge that married people are generally found to be physically and emotionally healthier than singles, but a new study indicates that the quality of the marriage relationship may play a bigger role than simply being married. Blood pressure rates, one of the major indicators of overall health, were found to be lower in couples who were happily married than in single people. However, singles had better readings than couples who were struggling in their marriages.
Relationships are definitely a major influence in our lives, and the various factors of our lifestyles, including healthy diet, exercise, and stressors are the most critical issues that determine our health and wellness. Many natural health practitioners believe that constant stress and negative emotions play a huge part in the development of cancer. Focusing on emotionally balanced, rewarding relationships and maintaining a lifestyle that pursues wellness in all areas is the most powerful form of disease prevention that has ever existed.
Good marriage equals good blood pressure
A stressed one can be worse than being single, new study suggests
The Associated Press
updated 7:15 a.m. CT, Thurs., March. 20, 2008
NEW YORK - A happy marriage is good for your blood pressure, but a stressed one can be worse than being single, a preliminary study suggests.
That second finding is a surprise because prior studies have shown that married people tend to be healthier than singles, said researcher Julianne Holt-Lunstad.
It would take further study to sort out what the results mean for long-term health, said Holt-Lunstad, an assistant psychology professor at Brigham Young University. Her study was reported online Thursday by the Annals of Behavioral Medicine.
The study involved 204 married people and 99 single adults. Most were white, and it is not clear whether the same results would apply to other ethnic groups, Holt-Lunstad said.
Study volunteers wore devices that recorded their blood pressure at random times over 24 hours. Married participants also filled out questionnaires about their marriage.
Analysis found that the more marital satisfaction and adjustment spouses reported, the lower their average blood pressure was over the 24 hours and during the daytime.
But spouses who scored low in marital satisfaction had higher average blood pressure than single people did. During the daytime, their average was about five points higher, entering a range that is considered a warning sign. (That result is for the top number in a blood pressure reading).
I think this (study) is worth some attention, said Karen Matthews, a professor of psychiatry, psychology and epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh. She studies heart disease and high blood pressure but did not participate in the new work.
Few studies of the risk for high blood pressure have looked at marital quality rather than just marital status, she said.
It makes sense that marital quality is more important than just being married when it comes to affecting blood pressure, said Dr. Brian Baker, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23723385/
Relationships are definitely a major influence in our lives, and the various factors of our lifestyles, including healthy diet, exercise, and stressors are the most critical issues that determine our health and wellness. Many natural health practitioners believe that constant stress and negative emotions play a huge part in the development of cancer. Focusing on emotionally balanced, rewarding relationships and maintaining a lifestyle that pursues wellness in all areas is the most powerful form of disease prevention that has ever existed.
Good marriage equals good blood pressure
A stressed one can be worse than being single, new study suggests
The Associated Press
updated 7:15 a.m. CT, Thurs., March. 20, 2008
NEW YORK - A happy marriage is good for your blood pressure, but a stressed one can be worse than being single, a preliminary study suggests.
That second finding is a surprise because prior studies have shown that married people tend to be healthier than singles, said researcher Julianne Holt-Lunstad.
It would take further study to sort out what the results mean for long-term health, said Holt-Lunstad, an assistant psychology professor at Brigham Young University. Her study was reported online Thursday by the Annals of Behavioral Medicine.
The study involved 204 married people and 99 single adults. Most were white, and it is not clear whether the same results would apply to other ethnic groups, Holt-Lunstad said.
Study volunteers wore devices that recorded their blood pressure at random times over 24 hours. Married participants also filled out questionnaires about their marriage.
Analysis found that the more marital satisfaction and adjustment spouses reported, the lower their average blood pressure was over the 24 hours and during the daytime.
But spouses who scored low in marital satisfaction had higher average blood pressure than single people did. During the daytime, their average was about five points higher, entering a range that is considered a warning sign. (That result is for the top number in a blood pressure reading).
I think this (study) is worth some attention, said Karen Matthews, a professor of psychiatry, psychology and epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh. She studies heart disease and high blood pressure but did not participate in the new work.
Few studies of the risk for high blood pressure have looked at marital quality rather than just marital status, she said.
It makes sense that marital quality is more important than just being married when it comes to affecting blood pressure, said Dr. Brian Baker, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23723385/
Friday, March 21, 2008
Natural Diet in Men Produces Healthier Babies
A newly released study gives encouraging evidence that the diet of potential fathers is a critical factor in the production of healthy sperm, leading to a reduction in birth defects and miscarriages. It seems a no-brainer for those of us who are informed about natural health and wellness, but it is always good to see such common sense nutritional information put forth in the mainstream media. We need all the help we can get in order to spread the word and combat the forces of Big Pharma, and many of those in conventional medicine, who worship drugs and other invasive therapies to the exclusion of nutrition.
I was also glad to see the author of this article mention the clinically proven negative effects of eating meat laced with hormones, preservatives, and other toxins. What we put in our bodies has an enormous effect on our own health and that of succeeding generations as well. Eating a diet rich in whole, organic foods is the best way to get plenty of folate and other needed nutrients. If supplementation is necessary, be sure to choose a high-quality, natural vitamin and mineral product that is produced in a form that is bio-available available to the body.
Low Folate Levels May Harm Sperm
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter
Wednesday, March 19, 2008; 12:00 AM
WEDNESDAY, March 19 (HealthDay News) -- The benefits of folate for women in preventing birth defects are well known, but new research suggests the nutrient also boosts sperm health.
Men with relatively low levels of folate had increased risks for sperm containing either too few or too many chromosomes, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. These types of deficiencies can cause birth defects and miscarriages, the experts noted.
Folate is one of the B vitamins and is found in leafy green vegetables, fruit and beans, chickpeas and lentils. By law, breads and grains sold in the United States are also now specially fortified with added folate to help ward off birth defects.
"We looked at sperm to find different kinds of genetic abnormalities," said lead researcher Brenda Eskenazi, a professor of maternal and child health and epidemiology and director of the Center for Children's Environmental Health at Berkeley's School of Public Health. "The abnormalities we looked at here were having too few or too many chromosomes," she said.
Normally, human sperm have 23 pairs of chromosomes. "In sperm you normally have one of each, but sometimes there are two and sometimes there are none of a particular chromosome," Eskenazi said.
If a normal egg was fertilized with one of these abnormal sperm, it could result in a birth defect, such as Down's syndrome, Eskenazi said. "This can also result in an increase in miscarriage," she said.
The researchers looked at three specific chromosomes: X, Y and 21. "We saw an association between [male] folate intake and how many abnormal sperm there were, in terms of the chromosome number for these three different chromosomes," Eskenazi said.
The study findings are published in the March 20 issue of the journalHuman Reproduction.
In the study, Eskenazi's group analyzed sperm from 89 healthy men. In addition, the researchers asked the men about their daily consumption of zinc, folate, vitamin C, vitamin E and beta-carotene.
The researchers found that men who had the highest intake of folate had the lowest incidence of sperm abnormalities. In fact, men who had the highest intake of folate -- 722 to 1,150 micrograms a day -- had a 20 percent to 30 percent lower frequency of several types of sperm abnormalities, compared with men who consumed less folate.
Up till now, birth-defect researchers have typically focused on women's diet in the period around conception, Eskenazi said. "Based on these data, maybe men, too, need to consider their diet when they are considering fathering a child," she said.
Although this study doesn't conclusively prove a link between folate and chromosomal abnormality, Eskenazi advises men who are thinking of becoming fathers to increase their folate intake, perhaps with a supplement or a multivitamin containing folate.
This isn't the first study to find a link between diet and sperm health. A report published last year in Human Reproduction found that women who ate beef seven or more times per week tended to produce sons with lowered sperm counts, perhaps due to the effects of hormones or pesticides on developing testes.
One expert agrees that healthy eating is linked to having healthy babies -- even for men.
"This is another common-sense article that says good nutrition is associated with a better reproductive outcome," said Dr. Jamie Grifo, director of reproductive endocrinology at New York University Medical Center.
Grifo noted that rates of abnormal sperm seen in the Berkeley study were four to six per 1,000, which means that men with poor nutrition still had more than 99 percent normal sperm.
"Even though this may be the case, don't smoke, drink modestly, eat healthy unprocessed food and take your vitamins," Grifo advised prospective fathers.
SOURCES: Brenda Eskenazi, Ph.D., professor, maternal and child health and epidemiology, director of the Center for Children's Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley; Jamie Grifo, M.D., Ph.D., director of reproductive endocrinology, New York University Medical Center, New York City; March 20, 2008,Human Reproduction
URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903065_pf.html
I was also glad to see the author of this article mention the clinically proven negative effects of eating meat laced with hormones, preservatives, and other toxins. What we put in our bodies has an enormous effect on our own health and that of succeeding generations as well. Eating a diet rich in whole, organic foods is the best way to get plenty of folate and other needed nutrients. If supplementation is necessary, be sure to choose a high-quality, natural vitamin and mineral product that is produced in a form that is bio-available available to the body.
Low Folate Levels May Harm Sperm
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter
Wednesday, March 19, 2008; 12:00 AM
WEDNESDAY, March 19 (HealthDay News) -- The benefits of folate for women in preventing birth defects are well known, but new research suggests the nutrient also boosts sperm health.
Men with relatively low levels of folate had increased risks for sperm containing either too few or too many chromosomes, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. These types of deficiencies can cause birth defects and miscarriages, the experts noted.
Folate is one of the B vitamins and is found in leafy green vegetables, fruit and beans, chickpeas and lentils. By law, breads and grains sold in the United States are also now specially fortified with added folate to help ward off birth defects.
"We looked at sperm to find different kinds of genetic abnormalities," said lead researcher Brenda Eskenazi, a professor of maternal and child health and epidemiology and director of the Center for Children's Environmental Health at Berkeley's School of Public Health. "The abnormalities we looked at here were having too few or too many chromosomes," she said.
Normally, human sperm have 23 pairs of chromosomes. "In sperm you normally have one of each, but sometimes there are two and sometimes there are none of a particular chromosome," Eskenazi said.
If a normal egg was fertilized with one of these abnormal sperm, it could result in a birth defect, such as Down's syndrome, Eskenazi said. "This can also result in an increase in miscarriage," she said.
The researchers looked at three specific chromosomes: X, Y and 21. "We saw an association between [male] folate intake and how many abnormal sperm there were, in terms of the chromosome number for these three different chromosomes," Eskenazi said.
The study findings are published in the March 20 issue of the journalHuman Reproduction.
In the study, Eskenazi's group analyzed sperm from 89 healthy men. In addition, the researchers asked the men about their daily consumption of zinc, folate, vitamin C, vitamin E and beta-carotene.
The researchers found that men who had the highest intake of folate had the lowest incidence of sperm abnormalities. In fact, men who had the highest intake of folate -- 722 to 1,150 micrograms a day -- had a 20 percent to 30 percent lower frequency of several types of sperm abnormalities, compared with men who consumed less folate.
Up till now, birth-defect researchers have typically focused on women's diet in the period around conception, Eskenazi said. "Based on these data, maybe men, too, need to consider their diet when they are considering fathering a child," she said.
Although this study doesn't conclusively prove a link between folate and chromosomal abnormality, Eskenazi advises men who are thinking of becoming fathers to increase their folate intake, perhaps with a supplement or a multivitamin containing folate.
This isn't the first study to find a link between diet and sperm health. A report published last year in Human Reproduction found that women who ate beef seven or more times per week tended to produce sons with lowered sperm counts, perhaps due to the effects of hormones or pesticides on developing testes.
One expert agrees that healthy eating is linked to having healthy babies -- even for men.
"This is another common-sense article that says good nutrition is associated with a better reproductive outcome," said Dr. Jamie Grifo, director of reproductive endocrinology at New York University Medical Center.
Grifo noted that rates of abnormal sperm seen in the Berkeley study were four to six per 1,000, which means that men with poor nutrition still had more than 99 percent normal sperm.
"Even though this may be the case, don't smoke, drink modestly, eat healthy unprocessed food and take your vitamins," Grifo advised prospective fathers.
SOURCES: Brenda Eskenazi, Ph.D., professor, maternal and child health and epidemiology, director of the Center for Children's Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley; Jamie Grifo, M.D., Ph.D., director of reproductive endocrinology, New York University Medical Center, New York City; March 20, 2008,Human Reproduction
URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903065_pf.html
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Dangerous Plans to Medicate Pregnant Women
Just when I thought I had seen it all, Big Pharma and the United States Government have stooped to a new low. There is legislation currently before Congress that, if passed, would authorize the use of antidepressants on mothers-to-be in an attempt to control postpartum depression. The insanity of exposing mothers and unborn children to these toxic and very dangerous drugs is almost beyond belief.
In essence, in the twisted eyes of the drug companies and other sponsors of this legislation, pregnancy has now become a mental illness. The only explanation for this kind of pretzel logic is the profits that stand to be made by the massively increased sales of these drugs, along with a mentality that seeks to control and manipulate the people for the sake of the greater worth, at least according to those who subscribe to this philosophy. There is still time to stop this madness before it becomes law, and the article below gives some practical ways that you can make your voice heard. Have we not lost enough of our health freedoms already?
MOTHERS Act Seeks to Drug Expectant Mothers with Antidepressants to "Treat" Postpartum Depression
by Mike Adams
Originally published March 6 2008
(NaturalNews) A new law being considered in the U.S. Congress would attempt to prevent postpartum depression in new moms by drugging them with SSRI antidepressant drugs while they're still pregnant. This legislation is being aggressively pushed by pro-pharma front groups in an effort to expand the customer base for SSRI drugs by targeting pregnant women as new "customers" for the chemicals. It's an example of the latest insanity from Big Pharma, whose drugs are already killing over 100,000 Americans each year while inciting violence and suicides in teens. Every single shooting massacre we've seen in the last ten years has been carried out by a person taking SSRI antidepressant drugs. The mainstream media pays no attention to this link, and the FDA ignores the reports in order to keep these drugs on the market.
SSRI drugs have never been approved for use on newborns, yet this new MOTHERS Act will effectively drug unborn babies and newborns with drugs like Prozac. This will certainly have an impact on their developing brains, and the bulk of the research available today shows that the impact will be negative. Will these children be more prone to violent thoughts and behavior? Will they contemplate suicide at younger ages? And what will be the impact of the drugs on the mother?
For one mother who was drugged with antidepressants -- Amy Philo -- the drugs caused her to experience thoughts of violence against her own newborn babies. After taking antidepressants prescribed by her doctor, she had visions of killing them (and herself). Upon returning to her doctor, Amy was told to increase the dosage! Eventually, Amy realized the drugs were wrecking her own brain chemistry, and she stopped taking the pills entirely, causing the thoughts of violence and suicide to subside.
Now, Amy is leading a campaign to stop the MOTHERS Act. She's posted a heart-wrenching 5-minute video on YouTube that tells her story (with pictures of her babies, too!):http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQW23XCmOCw
A local news station also covered her story, and that report can be viewed here:http://youtube.com/watch?v=W4B8I_8wz6I
An article explaining more about the effort to stop the MOTHERS Act is found here:http://birthfriend.wordpress.com/2008/0
As you'll learn from these videos and articles, the real purpose of the MOTHERS Act is to drug the mothers. Thus, it should really be called the Drug the MOTHERS Act! It's being pushed by drug companies, of course, and backed by psychiatrists and corrupt government officials who have close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The whole point of this act is not to protect mothers from depression, but to recruit mothers as patients and, by doing so, also expose newborns to psychiatric drugs that will destroy their normal brain function and turn them into lifelong customers requiring ongoing chemical treatment.
We must stop the MOTHERS Act. It is a dangerous law created for marketing purposes, not medical purposes. Treating pregnant women with antidepressant drugs (and thereby exposing their unborn babies to those drugs) is one of the most outrageous pro-pharma ideas to come along in many years. It's not enough to drug the teenagers and children with these dangerous pharmaceuticals, now Big Pharma wants to start drugging children before they're even born!
If this law is passed and implemented, I fear for the future of our babies. Imbalanced by these dangerous pharmaceuticals, mothers are likely to commit acts of extreme violence against their children. Then they will be thrown into the prison system, of course, where they will be drugged with yet more psychiatric drugs (generating yet more profits for Big Pharma). Their children, meanwhile, will be taken away by Child Protective Services and treated with psychiatric drugs under the care of a "psychiatric doctors" who, of course, will poison that child's brain with a never-ending regimen of Big Pharma's chemicals. Do you see the scam here? By "screening" pregnant women for depression, they can create TWO new patients for psychiatric drugs, even though a family is destroyed in the process.
This is precisely the aim of Big Pharma: Sell more drugs, create more markets, and earn more profits regardless of the cost in human suffering. Big Pharma has zero concern for families and zero compassion for human beings. It only seeks to poison the minds of the people through television advertising and psychiatric drugs, all while maximizing its own profits.
What you can do to stop the MOTHERS Act
We must work together to stop this dangerous act that would recruit mothers to be treated with dangerous psychiatric drugs (while exposing their unborn babies to those same drugs).
Sign the petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-t...
Also, see Unite For Life at:http://uniteforlife.org/MOTHERSact.htm#...
By the way, this is not an article about pro-life vs. pro-choice on the issue of unborn babies, and I use the term "unborn babies" in a purely humanitarian sense, because a child that's in the womb and about to be born is clearly an "unborn baby" whose health must be protected. I am opposed to the drugging of mothers during any trimester. Pharmaceuticals simply do not belong in expectant mothers. Those pharmaceuticals pass straight through to the blood of the fetus. Regardless of whether you're pro-life or pro-choice on the issue of abortion, I hope you agree that pregnant women should not be drugged with antidepressants!
Press release from UNITE / CHAADA
UNITE / CHAADA / ICFDA / COPES Foundation Objection to the Proposed MOTHERS Act - Bill before Senate Puts Young Children and Mothers in Serious Danger
To the HELP Committee of the United States Senate:
For years, the March of Dimes has warned not to use meds while pregnant. Why now encourage mothers to take drugs?
Please register this extreme objection to the proposed MOTHERS Act (S. 1375) which is now before you in committee. It is my earnest hope that you will immediately defeat this bill in committee. The bill has been brought to you under the guise of ensuring safety or support for new mothers; however, nothing could be further from the truth.
The bill was originally proposed in response to the death by suicide of Melanie Stokes, a pharmaceutical rep. who took her own life by leaping from a balcony several stories off of the ground. Contrary to popular understanding it was not post-partum depression that killed Melanie, but the numerous antidepressant drugs she was taking, which the FDA confirmed double the suicide risk.
Nobody is suggesting that new moms do not ever experience mood swings, depression, or even psychotic episodes. The more important issue is what the effect of this bill will be and why nobody is addressing potential methods of prevention. Everyone knows how many young moms experience gestational diabetes, but who is addressing the even higher rate of gestational hypoglycemia, which often initially manifests as depression? This is a physical condition that is treated with diet and is exacerbated by antidepressants (which list hypoglycemia as a side effect).
To simply screen women for post-partum mood disorders and ensure that they get "treatment," we would be setting families up for the expectation of tragedy and increasing the chances of that actually happening when we refer them to medical "professionals" who are oblivious to the negative mind-altering effects of psychiatric drugs. A popular opinion among medical caregivers these days is that "post-partum mood disorders" must be a sign of an underlying biochemical imbalance and would be corrected with drugs.
Current drugs used on post-partum women include SSRIs, atypical antidepressants, and even antipsychotic drugs. These pose a significant risk to the immediate safety and health of women as well as their children and families. SSRIs carry a black box warning for suicide and the most popular one, Effexor (the same medication Andrea Yates was taking when she drowned her 5 children), has the words “homicidal ideation” listed as a side effect. Nearly every recent case of infanticide which has made news can be clearly linked back to a psychiatric drug. These drugs endanger babies and mothers.
Additionally, the drugs can be extremely addictive and also pose a risk to nurslings or babies exposed in subsequent pregnancies. Some babies have died from SIDS linked to exposure from pregnancy or nursing; others have experienced coma, seizures, GI bleeding, heart defects, lung problems, and many babies died before reaching full term or soon after birth.
The bill does not address the fact that studies show that biological agents (antidepressants for example) cited in the bill and already prescribed to pregnant women can cause congenital heart birth defects where children have had to undergo open-heart surgeries to correct this. Also, some babies are being born with organs outside their bodies, requiring immediate surgery.
In closing I want to re-emphasize the total lack of any real answer to post-partum depression posed by this bill. If we can prevent post-partum depression or support moms through it, or offer proven SAFE and EFFECTIVE natural alternatives to dangerous drugs, then we should. However we should never, ever become party to a pharmaceutical campaign to push drugs on the public. We will set ourselves up for disaster if we allow an invasion into the privacy of every family in the country and suggest to our most vulnerable citizens that they might be mentally ill.
We must do everything in our power to protect innocent children, and giving their mothers addictive drugs which pose a significant risk of causing suicide and violence does not protect anyone. It does cause the child to become addicted while still in the womb and sets up drug dependence which can be lifelong.
We still have no idea what effect most drugs have on developing brains. It might take decades for the impact on the developing brain to become apparent.
For information on the research pertaining to the risks of antidepressants and other treatments for new moms and their babies, details about the Melanie Stokes case (or you can read the letter by Dr. Ann Blake Tracy at http://uniteforlife.org/MOTHERSact.htm#...), as well as information on prevention strategies and safe, effective treatments for post-partum mood disorders, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Amy PhiloFounder, www.uniteforlife.orgCo-Founder, www.chaada.org
Camille MilkeFounder, www.copesfoundation.comNew Mexico State Director of the ICFDA http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html
Mother of a victim of psychiatric drug-induced suicide and grandmother to a now motherless child
Dr. Ann Blake TracyExecutive Director of the ICFDA
http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html
Author of Prozac: Pancaea or Pandora? Our Serotonin Nightmare
URL: http://www.naturalnews.com/z022789.html
In essence, in the twisted eyes of the drug companies and other sponsors of this legislation, pregnancy has now become a mental illness. The only explanation for this kind of pretzel logic is the profits that stand to be made by the massively increased sales of these drugs, along with a mentality that seeks to control and manipulate the people for the sake of the greater worth, at least according to those who subscribe to this philosophy. There is still time to stop this madness before it becomes law, and the article below gives some practical ways that you can make your voice heard. Have we not lost enough of our health freedoms already?
MOTHERS Act Seeks to Drug Expectant Mothers with Antidepressants to "Treat" Postpartum Depression
by Mike Adams
Originally published March 6 2008
(NaturalNews) A new law being considered in the U.S. Congress would attempt to prevent postpartum depression in new moms by drugging them with SSRI antidepressant drugs while they're still pregnant. This legislation is being aggressively pushed by pro-pharma front groups in an effort to expand the customer base for SSRI drugs by targeting pregnant women as new "customers" for the chemicals. It's an example of the latest insanity from Big Pharma, whose drugs are already killing over 100,000 Americans each year while inciting violence and suicides in teens. Every single shooting massacre we've seen in the last ten years has been carried out by a person taking SSRI antidepressant drugs. The mainstream media pays no attention to this link, and the FDA ignores the reports in order to keep these drugs on the market.
SSRI drugs have never been approved for use on newborns, yet this new MOTHERS Act will effectively drug unborn babies and newborns with drugs like Prozac. This will certainly have an impact on their developing brains, and the bulk of the research available today shows that the impact will be negative. Will these children be more prone to violent thoughts and behavior? Will they contemplate suicide at younger ages? And what will be the impact of the drugs on the mother?
For one mother who was drugged with antidepressants -- Amy Philo -- the drugs caused her to experience thoughts of violence against her own newborn babies. After taking antidepressants prescribed by her doctor, she had visions of killing them (and herself). Upon returning to her doctor, Amy was told to increase the dosage! Eventually, Amy realized the drugs were wrecking her own brain chemistry, and she stopped taking the pills entirely, causing the thoughts of violence and suicide to subside.
Now, Amy is leading a campaign to stop the MOTHERS Act. She's posted a heart-wrenching 5-minute video on YouTube that tells her story (with pictures of her babies, too!):http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQW23XCmOCw
A local news station also covered her story, and that report can be viewed here:http://youtube.com/watch?v=W4B8I_8wz6I
An article explaining more about the effort to stop the MOTHERS Act is found here:http://birthfriend.wordpress.com/2008/0
As you'll learn from these videos and articles, the real purpose of the MOTHERS Act is to drug the mothers. Thus, it should really be called the Drug the MOTHERS Act! It's being pushed by drug companies, of course, and backed by psychiatrists and corrupt government officials who have close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The whole point of this act is not to protect mothers from depression, but to recruit mothers as patients and, by doing so, also expose newborns to psychiatric drugs that will destroy their normal brain function and turn them into lifelong customers requiring ongoing chemical treatment.
We must stop the MOTHERS Act. It is a dangerous law created for marketing purposes, not medical purposes. Treating pregnant women with antidepressant drugs (and thereby exposing their unborn babies to those drugs) is one of the most outrageous pro-pharma ideas to come along in many years. It's not enough to drug the teenagers and children with these dangerous pharmaceuticals, now Big Pharma wants to start drugging children before they're even born!
If this law is passed and implemented, I fear for the future of our babies. Imbalanced by these dangerous pharmaceuticals, mothers are likely to commit acts of extreme violence against their children. Then they will be thrown into the prison system, of course, where they will be drugged with yet more psychiatric drugs (generating yet more profits for Big Pharma). Their children, meanwhile, will be taken away by Child Protective Services and treated with psychiatric drugs under the care of a "psychiatric doctors" who, of course, will poison that child's brain with a never-ending regimen of Big Pharma's chemicals. Do you see the scam here? By "screening" pregnant women for depression, they can create TWO new patients for psychiatric drugs, even though a family is destroyed in the process.
This is precisely the aim of Big Pharma: Sell more drugs, create more markets, and earn more profits regardless of the cost in human suffering. Big Pharma has zero concern for families and zero compassion for human beings. It only seeks to poison the minds of the people through television advertising and psychiatric drugs, all while maximizing its own profits.
What you can do to stop the MOTHERS Act
We must work together to stop this dangerous act that would recruit mothers to be treated with dangerous psychiatric drugs (while exposing their unborn babies to those same drugs).
Sign the petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-t...
Also, see Unite For Life at:http://uniteforlife.org/MOTHERSact.htm#...
By the way, this is not an article about pro-life vs. pro-choice on the issue of unborn babies, and I use the term "unborn babies" in a purely humanitarian sense, because a child that's in the womb and about to be born is clearly an "unborn baby" whose health must be protected. I am opposed to the drugging of mothers during any trimester. Pharmaceuticals simply do not belong in expectant mothers. Those pharmaceuticals pass straight through to the blood of the fetus. Regardless of whether you're pro-life or pro-choice on the issue of abortion, I hope you agree that pregnant women should not be drugged with antidepressants!
Press release from UNITE / CHAADA
UNITE / CHAADA / ICFDA / COPES Foundation Objection to the Proposed MOTHERS Act - Bill before Senate Puts Young Children and Mothers in Serious Danger
To the HELP Committee of the United States Senate:
For years, the March of Dimes has warned not to use meds while pregnant. Why now encourage mothers to take drugs?
Please register this extreme objection to the proposed MOTHERS Act (S. 1375) which is now before you in committee. It is my earnest hope that you will immediately defeat this bill in committee. The bill has been brought to you under the guise of ensuring safety or support for new mothers; however, nothing could be further from the truth.
The bill was originally proposed in response to the death by suicide of Melanie Stokes, a pharmaceutical rep. who took her own life by leaping from a balcony several stories off of the ground. Contrary to popular understanding it was not post-partum depression that killed Melanie, but the numerous antidepressant drugs she was taking, which the FDA confirmed double the suicide risk.
Nobody is suggesting that new moms do not ever experience mood swings, depression, or even psychotic episodes. The more important issue is what the effect of this bill will be and why nobody is addressing potential methods of prevention. Everyone knows how many young moms experience gestational diabetes, but who is addressing the even higher rate of gestational hypoglycemia, which often initially manifests as depression? This is a physical condition that is treated with diet and is exacerbated by antidepressants (which list hypoglycemia as a side effect).
To simply screen women for post-partum mood disorders and ensure that they get "treatment," we would be setting families up for the expectation of tragedy and increasing the chances of that actually happening when we refer them to medical "professionals" who are oblivious to the negative mind-altering effects of psychiatric drugs. A popular opinion among medical caregivers these days is that "post-partum mood disorders" must be a sign of an underlying biochemical imbalance and would be corrected with drugs.
Current drugs used on post-partum women include SSRIs, atypical antidepressants, and even antipsychotic drugs. These pose a significant risk to the immediate safety and health of women as well as their children and families. SSRIs carry a black box warning for suicide and the most popular one, Effexor (the same medication Andrea Yates was taking when she drowned her 5 children), has the words “homicidal ideation” listed as a side effect. Nearly every recent case of infanticide which has made news can be clearly linked back to a psychiatric drug. These drugs endanger babies and mothers.
Additionally, the drugs can be extremely addictive and also pose a risk to nurslings or babies exposed in subsequent pregnancies. Some babies have died from SIDS linked to exposure from pregnancy or nursing; others have experienced coma, seizures, GI bleeding, heart defects, lung problems, and many babies died before reaching full term or soon after birth.
The bill does not address the fact that studies show that biological agents (antidepressants for example) cited in the bill and already prescribed to pregnant women can cause congenital heart birth defects where children have had to undergo open-heart surgeries to correct this. Also, some babies are being born with organs outside their bodies, requiring immediate surgery.
In closing I want to re-emphasize the total lack of any real answer to post-partum depression posed by this bill. If we can prevent post-partum depression or support moms through it, or offer proven SAFE and EFFECTIVE natural alternatives to dangerous drugs, then we should. However we should never, ever become party to a pharmaceutical campaign to push drugs on the public. We will set ourselves up for disaster if we allow an invasion into the privacy of every family in the country and suggest to our most vulnerable citizens that they might be mentally ill.
We must do everything in our power to protect innocent children, and giving their mothers addictive drugs which pose a significant risk of causing suicide and violence does not protect anyone. It does cause the child to become addicted while still in the womb and sets up drug dependence which can be lifelong.
We still have no idea what effect most drugs have on developing brains. It might take decades for the impact on the developing brain to become apparent.
For information on the research pertaining to the risks of antidepressants and other treatments for new moms and their babies, details about the Melanie Stokes case (or you can read the letter by Dr. Ann Blake Tracy at http://uniteforlife.org/MOTHERSact.htm#...), as well as information on prevention strategies and safe, effective treatments for post-partum mood disorders, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Amy PhiloFounder, www.uniteforlife.orgCo-Founder, www.chaada.org
Camille MilkeFounder, www.copesfoundation.comNew Mexico State Director of the ICFDA http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html
Mother of a victim of psychiatric drug-induced suicide and grandmother to a now motherless child
Dr. Ann Blake TracyExecutive Director of the ICFDA
http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html
Author of Prozac: Pancaea or Pandora? Our Serotonin Nightmare
URL: http://www.naturalnews.com/z022789.html
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Alternative Treatments for Pain
The number of people experiencing chronic pain is on the rise. The effects of a poor diet, lack of exercise, and the consequences of obesity, along with an increase in such illnesses as fibromyalgia, are producing an epidemic of chronic pain sufferers.
The article below references some therapies that many patients are finding success with that are also enabling them to avoid the toxic consequences of pain medications. Not many of us can afford $20,000 to attend a pain clinic, but many of these noninvasive therapies can be instituted on our own, such as stretching and therapeutic exercise. It is also refreshing to see insurance companies taking a closer look at the advantages of providing coverage for these alternatives to surgery and drugs. Natural remedies such as those mentioned in this piece, along with a lifestyle that pursues wellness, is and always will be the best way to prevent or treat disease of all types.
'Boot camps' treat pain sufferers
By CARLA K. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 29 minutes ago
Ballet teacher Gayle Parseghian thought she might never dance again after a back injury while moving heavy furniture left her with unrelenting pain.
But an intensive, four-week "boot camp" got the 55-year-old dancer from Toledo, Ohio, back to the barre. The program at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago taught her to manage the chronic pain that had tormented her for more than a year.
"It affects your relationship with your spouse, your family, your friends, your boss," she said. "It's like you're trapped in your body and you can't get out. It's a feeling of being completely out of control."
New research suggests chronic pain affects the brain's ability to rest, disrupting a system that normally charges up some brain regions and powers down others when a person relaxes.
"I ask a patient who has had chronic pain for 10 years to put the mind blank, don't think about anything," says Dr. Dante Chialvo, a researcher at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine who is not involved with the boot camp.
MRI images show the pain sufferer's brain lighting up, but not as a normal brain at rest would, he said. "There is an objective biological difference in the brain."
The early findings could explain the sleep disturbances, decision-making problems and mood changes that often accompany chronic pain, he said.
And they could explain why the boot camp approach worked for Parseghian.
The Chicago program, affiliated with Northwestern's medical school, attacks pain on three fronts - biological, psychological and social. It doesn't claim to cure chronic pain, but instead gives patients tools to lessen its hold on their lives.
Patients spend Monday through Friday stretching, exercising and moving in new ways. They meet with a physician, an occupational therapist, a physical therapist, a biofeedback therapist, a clinical psychologist and a movement specialist.
They may address depression or sleep problems or adjust their medications. And they learn from the other patients in the program.
Getting all of these things under one roof differs from most approaches to treating chronic pain, said Dr. Steven Stanos, the program's medical director.
Patients know the drill. In the fragmented world of health care, they bounce from internist to chiropractor to massage therapist to surgeon — with none of the experts sharing information.
"You will try anything and everything to get out of the pain," Parseghian said. "You discover all of your efforts are fruitless and you have spent monumental amounts of money."
She tried herbal patches, vitamins, injections, prescription narcotics and a battery-operated device that uses electrical impulses to block pain. Nothing worked.
Surgery would have been next. She was in a surgeon's waiting room when she read an article about the boot camp.
If acute pain is the body's alarm system, alerting to injury-causing dangers, then chronic pain is an alarm going haywire, screaming a warning long after the danger has passed.
The American Pain Society estimates millions of Americans are in chronic pain from backaches, jaw pain, headaches and fibromyalgia, a mysterious syndrome marked by muscle pain and fatigue. Sore spines alone cost billions of dollars each year.
In 2005, Americans with aching backs and necks spent $20 billion on prescription drugs and another $31 billion for outpatient doctor visits, according to a recent study in the Journal of the
American Medical Association. Total spending on spine treatments increased 65 percent from 1997, adjusted for inflation. But rising alongside that was the proportion of people with spine problems who reported limited function.
Such spending with such poor results gets insurance companies' attention.
Chronic pain patients' medical and pharmacy bills "show up on our radar," said Dr. James Cross, Aetna's national medical policy chief. The patients are "frustrated and clearly suffering" and "looking for an answer," he said.
Although boot camp-style programs cost up to $20,000, Cross said that's cost-effective compared to the procedure and pill merry-go-round. The company cites studies showing patients who have completed boot camp programs experience lasting pain reduction and lower stress. Aetna also believes patients completing the programs are more likely to return to work and less likely to seek other expensive treatments.
Other insurers also cover the programs, but convincing more companies will take more evidence, said Dennis Turk, a pain researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle and a believer in the approach.
It's unclear what combination of therapies works best for which patients and whether four weeks are needed for everyone, Turk said. Patients should be cautious because quality varies, he said.
"Anybody out there can put up a sign and say, 'I'm a comprehensive pain rehabilitation program,'" Turk said. He recommended programs affiliated with university medical centers and the nearly 100 interdisciplinary programs accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities.
Two weeks into the boot camp, Parseghian's husband visited her in Chicago for the weekend. They toured an art museum and went shopping together. Later, he phoned her with an observation.
"You didn't say one thing about your pain or the back. That used to monopolize our conversations," her husband told her.
That impressed Parseghian. "I guess I hadn't realized just how much my back issue had really manifested itself into our relationship," she said.
Two weeks later, she headed home with a detailed schedule for her first week back, including plenty of time to relax. She knew the staff would check with her in another four weeks to see how she was doing.
And she was armed with breathing techniques and phrases to repeat when she suffered a flare-up: "This has happened before and I have survived it. I'm going to be OK."
During her second week home, she reported, "I took my first ballet class last week."
"I thought that day would never come," she said. "Little by little, I'm regaining the control in my life that I thought the injury had robbed me of."
___
On the Net:
Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities: http://www.carf.org/
Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago: http://www.ric.org/
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080317/ap_on_he_me/chronic_pain_boot_camp&printer=1
The article below references some therapies that many patients are finding success with that are also enabling them to avoid the toxic consequences of pain medications. Not many of us can afford $20,000 to attend a pain clinic, but many of these noninvasive therapies can be instituted on our own, such as stretching and therapeutic exercise. It is also refreshing to see insurance companies taking a closer look at the advantages of providing coverage for these alternatives to surgery and drugs. Natural remedies such as those mentioned in this piece, along with a lifestyle that pursues wellness, is and always will be the best way to prevent or treat disease of all types.
'Boot camps' treat pain sufferers
By CARLA K. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 29 minutes ago
Ballet teacher Gayle Parseghian thought she might never dance again after a back injury while moving heavy furniture left her with unrelenting pain.
But an intensive, four-week "boot camp" got the 55-year-old dancer from Toledo, Ohio, back to the barre. The program at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago taught her to manage the chronic pain that had tormented her for more than a year.
"It affects your relationship with your spouse, your family, your friends, your boss," she said. "It's like you're trapped in your body and you can't get out. It's a feeling of being completely out of control."
New research suggests chronic pain affects the brain's ability to rest, disrupting a system that normally charges up some brain regions and powers down others when a person relaxes.
"I ask a patient who has had chronic pain for 10 years to put the mind blank, don't think about anything," says Dr. Dante Chialvo, a researcher at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine who is not involved with the boot camp.
MRI images show the pain sufferer's brain lighting up, but not as a normal brain at rest would, he said. "There is an objective biological difference in the brain."
The early findings could explain the sleep disturbances, decision-making problems and mood changes that often accompany chronic pain, he said.
And they could explain why the boot camp approach worked for Parseghian.
The Chicago program, affiliated with Northwestern's medical school, attacks pain on three fronts - biological, psychological and social. It doesn't claim to cure chronic pain, but instead gives patients tools to lessen its hold on their lives.
Patients spend Monday through Friday stretching, exercising and moving in new ways. They meet with a physician, an occupational therapist, a physical therapist, a biofeedback therapist, a clinical psychologist and a movement specialist.
They may address depression or sleep problems or adjust their medications. And they learn from the other patients in the program.
Getting all of these things under one roof differs from most approaches to treating chronic pain, said Dr. Steven Stanos, the program's medical director.
Patients know the drill. In the fragmented world of health care, they bounce from internist to chiropractor to massage therapist to surgeon — with none of the experts sharing information.
"You will try anything and everything to get out of the pain," Parseghian said. "You discover all of your efforts are fruitless and you have spent monumental amounts of money."
She tried herbal patches, vitamins, injections, prescription narcotics and a battery-operated device that uses electrical impulses to block pain. Nothing worked.
Surgery would have been next. She was in a surgeon's waiting room when she read an article about the boot camp.
If acute pain is the body's alarm system, alerting to injury-causing dangers, then chronic pain is an alarm going haywire, screaming a warning long after the danger has passed.
The American Pain Society estimates millions of Americans are in chronic pain from backaches, jaw pain, headaches and fibromyalgia, a mysterious syndrome marked by muscle pain and fatigue. Sore spines alone cost billions of dollars each year.
In 2005, Americans with aching backs and necks spent $20 billion on prescription drugs and another $31 billion for outpatient doctor visits, according to a recent study in the Journal of the
American Medical Association. Total spending on spine treatments increased 65 percent from 1997, adjusted for inflation. But rising alongside that was the proportion of people with spine problems who reported limited function.
Such spending with such poor results gets insurance companies' attention.
Chronic pain patients' medical and pharmacy bills "show up on our radar," said Dr. James Cross, Aetna's national medical policy chief. The patients are "frustrated and clearly suffering" and "looking for an answer," he said.
Although boot camp-style programs cost up to $20,000, Cross said that's cost-effective compared to the procedure and pill merry-go-round. The company cites studies showing patients who have completed boot camp programs experience lasting pain reduction and lower stress. Aetna also believes patients completing the programs are more likely to return to work and less likely to seek other expensive treatments.
Other insurers also cover the programs, but convincing more companies will take more evidence, said Dennis Turk, a pain researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle and a believer in the approach.
It's unclear what combination of therapies works best for which patients and whether four weeks are needed for everyone, Turk said. Patients should be cautious because quality varies, he said.
"Anybody out there can put up a sign and say, 'I'm a comprehensive pain rehabilitation program,'" Turk said. He recommended programs affiliated with university medical centers and the nearly 100 interdisciplinary programs accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities.
Two weeks into the boot camp, Parseghian's husband visited her in Chicago for the weekend. They toured an art museum and went shopping together. Later, he phoned her with an observation.
"You didn't say one thing about your pain or the back. That used to monopolize our conversations," her husband told her.
That impressed Parseghian. "I guess I hadn't realized just how much my back issue had really manifested itself into our relationship," she said.
Two weeks later, she headed home with a detailed schedule for her first week back, including plenty of time to relax. She knew the staff would check with her in another four weeks to see how she was doing.
And she was armed with breathing techniques and phrases to repeat when she suffered a flare-up: "This has happened before and I have survived it. I'm going to be OK."
During her second week home, she reported, "I took my first ballet class last week."
"I thought that day would never come," she said. "Little by little, I'm regaining the control in my life that I thought the injury had robbed me of."
___
On the Net:
Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities: http://www.carf.org/
Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago: http://www.ric.org/
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080317/ap_on_he_me/chronic_pain_boot_camp&printer=1
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Cancer Prevention
More good news! It is encouraging to see another story in the mainstream media that discusses disease prevention based on healthy dietary choices. We in the natural health field have been preaching this for years, and it seems that finally our message is beginning to be heard. This article focuses on research that points towards prevention of ovarian cancer by the consumption of two particular flavonoids found in tea and certain vegetables.
I found it especially hopeful that the author of this article points out that eating whole foods is preferred over supplementing with specific substances, as the pathways of prevention are not fully understood, and may be connected to the interrelationship between compounds within a natural food such as a vegetable. While it is necessary to supplement at times to receive enough of certain vitamins and minerals, it is impossible to improve on nature providing we feed on organic foods that have the maximum amount of nutrients and minimal toxins.
Could foods prevent ovarian cancer?
Flavonoids found in tea, veggies, fruits and beans could lower risk
By Karen Collins, R.D.
updated 7:15 a.m. CT, Fri., March. 14, 2008
Cancer prevention is important, but it is particularly crucial for those types of cancer not easily detected early. Ovarian cancer, for example, often has no symptoms in early stages and is frequently diagnosed at a more advanced stage, resulting in poorer survival rates than other cancers.
But could natural compounds in plant-based foods help to prevent ovarian cancer?
A new study suggests that diets high in certain flavonoid compounds found in vegetables, fruits, beans and tea may significantly lower a womans risk of developing ovarian cancer.
Flavonoids are a large family of antioxidant compounds known as phytochemicals. They are part of a plants natural defense system that helps the plant fight off disease and infection.
Lowered disease risk
Research suggests these compounds could help prevent a variety of diseases in humans - including cancer - by protecting cells from DNA damage. Scientists believe some flavonoids may also deter cancer development by helping to regulate cell growth and fight inflammation or by changing hormone levels.
A new study, published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2007, involved almost 67,000 women in the Nurses Health Study and looked at flavonoid consumption over 14 years. Although total flavonoid consumption was not shown as related to the risk of developing ovarian cancer, two particular flavonoids were.
Kaempferol - a flavonoid found in tea, broccoli, kale and spinach - and luteolin - which is provided by peppers, carrots, cabbage and celery - were both identified as cancer protective. Women who consumed the most of these two flavonoids were 40 percent and 34 percent less likely, respectively, to develop ovarian cancer compared to women who consumed the least. Participants who consumed high levels of a third phytochemical, myricetin (found in tea, dried beans, raisins and blueberries), also seemed somewhat protected.
Flavonoid compounds found in vegetables may be part of what is behind an apparent link between vegetable consumption and lower risk of ovarian cancer. A landmark report on diet and cancer risk published by the American Institute for Cancer Research in 2007 noted that some evidence suggests that non-starchy vegetables may offer protection against ovarian cancer. The report emphasizes that protection could come from any of several families of phytochemicals, as well as dietary fiber, vitamins and minerals.
Keep eating those veggies
Researchers note that determining the relative importance of one individual constituent in a food is difficult. A protective effect is likely the result of a combination of influences on several pathways involved in cancer development.
Evidence that supports phytochemicals role in fighting ovarian cancer is growing. A 2007 study published in the British Journal of Nutrition linked greater consumption of carotenoid phytochemicals with a 67 percent lower risk of ovarian cancer. This included not only beta-carotene, the oft-cited carotenoid in deep-orange vegetables and fruits, but also alpha-carotene, beta-cryptoxanthin, lutein and zeaxanthin - carotenoids found in a wide range of red, orange, yellow and green vegetables. This research echoed an earlier study, which showed a reduction in ovarian cancer risk of greater than 50 percent among top vegetable consumers.
Although the research is promising, for now women are best advised not to focus on a single potential link highlighted in one or two studies, but to follow current guidelines to lower overall cancer risk. General recommendations include following a diet that provides a wide variety of vegetables and other plant-based foods, exercising regularly and controlling weight.
Copyright 2008 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23578106/
I found it especially hopeful that the author of this article points out that eating whole foods is preferred over supplementing with specific substances, as the pathways of prevention are not fully understood, and may be connected to the interrelationship between compounds within a natural food such as a vegetable. While it is necessary to supplement at times to receive enough of certain vitamins and minerals, it is impossible to improve on nature providing we feed on organic foods that have the maximum amount of nutrients and minimal toxins.
Could foods prevent ovarian cancer?
Flavonoids found in tea, veggies, fruits and beans could lower risk
By Karen Collins, R.D.
updated 7:15 a.m. CT, Fri., March. 14, 2008
Cancer prevention is important, but it is particularly crucial for those types of cancer not easily detected early. Ovarian cancer, for example, often has no symptoms in early stages and is frequently diagnosed at a more advanced stage, resulting in poorer survival rates than other cancers.
But could natural compounds in plant-based foods help to prevent ovarian cancer?
A new study suggests that diets high in certain flavonoid compounds found in vegetables, fruits, beans and tea may significantly lower a womans risk of developing ovarian cancer.
Flavonoids are a large family of antioxidant compounds known as phytochemicals. They are part of a plants natural defense system that helps the plant fight off disease and infection.
Lowered disease risk
Research suggests these compounds could help prevent a variety of diseases in humans - including cancer - by protecting cells from DNA damage. Scientists believe some flavonoids may also deter cancer development by helping to regulate cell growth and fight inflammation or by changing hormone levels.
A new study, published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2007, involved almost 67,000 women in the Nurses Health Study and looked at flavonoid consumption over 14 years. Although total flavonoid consumption was not shown as related to the risk of developing ovarian cancer, two particular flavonoids were.
Kaempferol - a flavonoid found in tea, broccoli, kale and spinach - and luteolin - which is provided by peppers, carrots, cabbage and celery - were both identified as cancer protective. Women who consumed the most of these two flavonoids were 40 percent and 34 percent less likely, respectively, to develop ovarian cancer compared to women who consumed the least. Participants who consumed high levels of a third phytochemical, myricetin (found in tea, dried beans, raisins and blueberries), also seemed somewhat protected.
Flavonoid compounds found in vegetables may be part of what is behind an apparent link between vegetable consumption and lower risk of ovarian cancer. A landmark report on diet and cancer risk published by the American Institute for Cancer Research in 2007 noted that some evidence suggests that non-starchy vegetables may offer protection against ovarian cancer. The report emphasizes that protection could come from any of several families of phytochemicals, as well as dietary fiber, vitamins and minerals.
Keep eating those veggies
Researchers note that determining the relative importance of one individual constituent in a food is difficult. A protective effect is likely the result of a combination of influences on several pathways involved in cancer development.
Evidence that supports phytochemicals role in fighting ovarian cancer is growing. A 2007 study published in the British Journal of Nutrition linked greater consumption of carotenoid phytochemicals with a 67 percent lower risk of ovarian cancer. This included not only beta-carotene, the oft-cited carotenoid in deep-orange vegetables and fruits, but also alpha-carotene, beta-cryptoxanthin, lutein and zeaxanthin - carotenoids found in a wide range of red, orange, yellow and green vegetables. This research echoed an earlier study, which showed a reduction in ovarian cancer risk of greater than 50 percent among top vegetable consumers.
Although the research is promising, for now women are best advised not to focus on a single potential link highlighted in one or two studies, but to follow current guidelines to lower overall cancer risk. General recommendations include following a diet that provides a wide variety of vegetables and other plant-based foods, exercising regularly and controlling weight.
Copyright 2008 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23578106/
Monday, March 17, 2008
Buyer Beware Concerning Personal Care Products
In this day and age when so many consumer products are labeled organic or natural, it is not a simple matter to ensure that you are using substances that are toxin-free. The article below highlights a recent study that tested many popular brands of personal care products that claim to be green and free of dangerous chemicals, and the results were surprising and quite alarming.
Certain corporations that manufacture and sell organic foods have learned how to get around regulations and make their products sound organic when they are not, and the situation is even worse when it comes to personal care products. Some companies list a chemical name and then in parenthesis indicate what plant source it is synthesized from, hoping that customers will think this somehow makes the ingredient natural. I have noticed that a few MLM companies do not provide a full ingredient list, choosing only to list the components that make them look clean and green. For instance, there are certain ingredients that must be used in order to formulate a cream, but when the label lists only herbs and essential oils, then the company is not being truthful with their customers. The restrictions on the labeling of such products are almost non-existent, relying solely on the ethics of the manufacturers themselves. It is important that you are very aware of the ingredients used in any substance that is applied to your skin. Whatever goes on your skin is absorbed directly into the bloodstream and quickly spreads throughout the body. The posting below includes a link to a listing of all the products tested, along with the results. Researching the products that you use on your self and your family is a much better tactic than relying on the Luck of the Irish!
Popular 'natural' personal products fail test
Consumers may have to rethink exactly how "natural" and "organic" their shampoo, body wash or lotion are.
In a newly released study, tests of about 100 "green" products found that nearly half contained detectable levels of a cancer-causing chemical that is a byproduct of petrochemicals used in manufacturing. Products that contained detectable levels include popular brands such as Kiss My Face, Alba, Seventh Generation and Nature's Gate.
The Organic Consumers Association, a consumer-advocacy group, hired a third-party lab to test for the presence of 1,4-dioxane. The Los Angeles Times says the Environmental Protection Agency has declared 1,4-dioxane a probable human carcinogen because it causes cancer in lab animals.
It "has no place in 'natural' or 'organic' branded personal care products," the OCA says in their statement.
Marla Cone of the L.A. Times explains:
The compound is not intentionally added to products; it is a byproduct of a process used to soften harsh detergents. It is formed when foaming agents, or surfactants, are processed with ethylene oxide or similar petrochemicals.No one knows exactly what amount of the compound may be unsafe. In scientific studies, lab animals that had been fed 1,4-dioxane for many weeks developed nasal, liver and gall bladder cancers. But scientists do not now know what, if any, cancer risk humans face from years-long use of products containing the chemical.
The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates cosmetics, has set no standards for 1,4-dioxane. The agency has occasionally tested products for the compound since the late 1970s and says levels of it have substantially declined since then. The FDA says the current levels "do not present a hazard to consumers," although it has advised the industry to reduce amounts in cosmetics as much as possible.
At least one company, Hain Celestial Group, which owns Jason and Alba, told the L.A. Times it would reevaluate all its products. Others, like Seventh Generation, told the paper that it works hard as it can "to keep the levels as low as possible and keep our products as safe as possible."
Here are some of the products found to contain 1,4-dioxane:
JASON Tea Tree Scalp Normalizing Shampoo
Giovanni Cleanse Body Wash
365* Everyday Value Shower Gel
Nature's Gate Moisturizing Liquid Soap
Kiss My Face Moisture Soap
Method Dish Naturally Derived Ultra Concentrate
Labels and claims of "organic" or "natural" can be misleading, so the OCA says your best bet is to go with products whose ingredients you can pronounce or are certified under the USDA National Organic Program.
All USDA-certified organic brands that were tested in the study were free of 1,4-dioxane including:
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps 18-in-1 Hemp Almond Pure Castile Soap
Sensibility Soaps (Nourish brand)
TerrEssential Organic Baby Wash
For the full list of 100 products tested, click here (PDF, 2 pages).
Posted by Phuong Cat Le at March 14, 2008 10:44 a.m
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/consumersmarts/archives/134263.asp
Certain corporations that manufacture and sell organic foods have learned how to get around regulations and make their products sound organic when they are not, and the situation is even worse when it comes to personal care products. Some companies list a chemical name and then in parenthesis indicate what plant source it is synthesized from, hoping that customers will think this somehow makes the ingredient natural. I have noticed that a few MLM companies do not provide a full ingredient list, choosing only to list the components that make them look clean and green. For instance, there are certain ingredients that must be used in order to formulate a cream, but when the label lists only herbs and essential oils, then the company is not being truthful with their customers. The restrictions on the labeling of such products are almost non-existent, relying solely on the ethics of the manufacturers themselves. It is important that you are very aware of the ingredients used in any substance that is applied to your skin. Whatever goes on your skin is absorbed directly into the bloodstream and quickly spreads throughout the body. The posting below includes a link to a listing of all the products tested, along with the results. Researching the products that you use on your self and your family is a much better tactic than relying on the Luck of the Irish!
Popular 'natural' personal products fail test
Consumers may have to rethink exactly how "natural" and "organic" their shampoo, body wash or lotion are.
In a newly released study, tests of about 100 "green" products found that nearly half contained detectable levels of a cancer-causing chemical that is a byproduct of petrochemicals used in manufacturing. Products that contained detectable levels include popular brands such as Kiss My Face, Alba, Seventh Generation and Nature's Gate.
The Organic Consumers Association, a consumer-advocacy group, hired a third-party lab to test for the presence of 1,4-dioxane. The Los Angeles Times says the Environmental Protection Agency has declared 1,4-dioxane a probable human carcinogen because it causes cancer in lab animals.
It "has no place in 'natural' or 'organic' branded personal care products," the OCA says in their statement.
Marla Cone of the L.A. Times explains:
The compound is not intentionally added to products; it is a byproduct of a process used to soften harsh detergents. It is formed when foaming agents, or surfactants, are processed with ethylene oxide or similar petrochemicals.No one knows exactly what amount of the compound may be unsafe. In scientific studies, lab animals that had been fed 1,4-dioxane for many weeks developed nasal, liver and gall bladder cancers. But scientists do not now know what, if any, cancer risk humans face from years-long use of products containing the chemical.
The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates cosmetics, has set no standards for 1,4-dioxane. The agency has occasionally tested products for the compound since the late 1970s and says levels of it have substantially declined since then. The FDA says the current levels "do not present a hazard to consumers," although it has advised the industry to reduce amounts in cosmetics as much as possible.
At least one company, Hain Celestial Group, which owns Jason and Alba, told the L.A. Times it would reevaluate all its products. Others, like Seventh Generation, told the paper that it works hard as it can "to keep the levels as low as possible and keep our products as safe as possible."
Here are some of the products found to contain 1,4-dioxane:
JASON Tea Tree Scalp Normalizing Shampoo
Giovanni Cleanse Body Wash
365* Everyday Value Shower Gel
Nature's Gate Moisturizing Liquid Soap
Kiss My Face Moisture Soap
Method Dish Naturally Derived Ultra Concentrate
Labels and claims of "organic" or "natural" can be misleading, so the OCA says your best bet is to go with products whose ingredients you can pronounce or are certified under the USDA National Organic Program.
All USDA-certified organic brands that were tested in the study were free of 1,4-dioxane including:
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps 18-in-1 Hemp Almond Pure Castile Soap
Sensibility Soaps (Nourish brand)
TerrEssential Organic Baby Wash
For the full list of 100 products tested, click here (PDF, 2 pages).
Posted by Phuong Cat Le at March 14, 2008 10:44 a.m
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/consumersmarts/archives/134263.asp
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Acceptance of Legal Drugs in our Society
I found the article below in todays post to be extremely upsetting, as it indicates that our culture is increasingly justifying the use of chemicals and pharmaceutical drugs for just about any purpose imaginable. Issues such as the use of steroidal drugs in sports are grabbing the headlines lately, but this piece discusses the common use of stimulants and other drugs in the areas of academia, medicine, and business and how this practice is not only tolerated, but in some cases honored.
What kinds of messages are we giving our children? Kids today grow up with advertisers pushing high-energy drinks that look, taste, and smell like alcohol, and a culture that tells them popping a pill will make them more creative and successful. This makes the candy cigarettes of yesteryear look tame by comparison.
Fortunately, many health-minded individuals have had enough and are providing natural, organic foods for their families with the understanding that this is how we humans were created to flourish. Brain food is not an upper or a cup of strong coffee. These artificial chemicals only tear down the body in the long run, and open us up to future disease and deterioration of brain function. A lifestyle of wholesome eating and plenty of vigorous exercise will beat a chemical cocktail any day.
March 9, 2008
Smartening Up
Brain Enhancement Is Wrong, Right?
By BENEDICT CAREY
SO far no one is demanding that asterisks be attached to Nobels, Pulitzers or Lasker awards. Government agents have not been raiding anthropology departments, riffling book bags, testing professors urine. And if there are illicit trainers on campuses, shady tutors with wraparound sunglasses and ties to basement labs in Italy, no one has exposed them.
Yet an era of doping may be looming in academia, and it has ignited a debate about policy and ethics that in some ways echoes the national controversy over performance enhancement accusations against elite athletes like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
In a recent commentary in the journal Nature, two Cambridge University researchers reported that about a dozen of their colleagues had admitted to regular use of prescription drugs like Adderall, a stimulant, and Provigil, which promotes wakefulness to improve their academic performance. The former is approved to treat attention deficit disorder, the latter narcolepsy, and both are considered more effective, and more widely available, than the drugs circulating in dorms a generation ago.
Letters flooded the journal, and an online debate immediately bubbled up. The journal has been conducting its own, more rigorous survey, and so far at least 20 respondents have said that they used the drugs for nonmedical purposes, according to Philip Campbell, the journals editor in chief. The debate has also caught fire on the Web site of The Chronicle of Higher Education, where academics and students are sniping at one another.
But is prescription tweaking to perform on exams, or prepare presentations and grants, really the same as injecting hormones to chase down a home run record, or win the Tour de France?
Some argue that such use could be worse, given the potentially deep impact on society. And the behavior of academics in particular, as intellectual leaders, could serve as an example to others.
In his book Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, Francis Fukuyuma raises the broader issue of performance enhancement: The original purpose of medicine is to heal the sick, not turn healthy people into gods. He and others point out that increased use of such drugs could raise the standard of what is considered normal performance and widen the gap between those who have access to the medications and those who do not - and even erode the relationship between struggle and the building of character.
Even though stimulants and other cognitive enhancers are intended for legitimate clinical use, history predicts that greater availability will lead to an increase in diversion, misuse and abuse, wrote Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and James Swanson of the University of California at Irvine, in a letter to Nature. Among high school students, abuse of prescription medications is second only to cannabis use.
But others insist that the ethics are not so clear, and that academic performance is different in important ways from baseball, or cycling.
I think the analogy with sports doping is really misleading, because in sports it is all about competition, only about who is the best runner or home run hitter, said Martha Farah, director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania. In academics, whether you are a student or a researcher, there is an element of competition, but it is secondary. The main purpose is to try to learn things, to get experience, to write papers, to do experiments. So in that case if you can do it better because you have got some drug on board, that would on the face of things seem like a plus.
She and other midcareer scientists interviewed said that, as far as they knew, very few of their colleagues used brain-boosting drugs regularly. Many have used Provigil for jet lag, or even to stay vertical for late events. But most agreed that the next generation of scientists, now in graduate school and college, were more likely to use the drugs as study aids and bring along those habits as they moved up the ladder.
Surveys of college students have found that from 4 percent to 16 percent say they have used stimulants or other prescription drugs to improve their academic performance - usually getting the pills from other students.
Suppose you are preparing for the SAT, or going for a job interview - in those situations where you have to perform on that day, these drugs will be very attractive, said Dr. Barbara Sahakian of Cambridge, a co-author with Sharon Morein-Zamir of the recent essay in Nature. The desire for cognitive enhancement is very strong, maybe stronger than for beauty, or athletic ability.
Jeffrey White, a graduate student in cell biology who has attended several institutions, said that those numbers sounded about right. You can usually tell who is using them because they can be angry, testy, hyperfocused, they do not want to be bothered, he said.
Mr. White said he did not use the drugs himself, considering them an artificial shortcut that could set people up for problems later on. What happens if you are in a fast-paced surgical situation and they are not available? he asked. Will you be able to function at the same level?
Yet such objections - and philosophical concerns - can vaporize when students and junior faculty members face other questions: What happens if I do not make the cut? What if I am derailed by a bad test score, or a mangled chemistry course?
One person who posted anonymously on the Chronicle of Higher Education Web site said that a daily regimen of three 20-milligram doses of Adderall transformed his career: I am not talking about being able to work longer hours without sleep (although that helps), the posting said. I am talking about being able to take on twice the responsibility, work twice as fast, write more effectively, manage better, be more attentive, devise better and more creative strategies.
Dr. Anjan Chatterjee, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania who foresaw this debate in a 2004 paper, argues that the history of cosmetic surgery - scorned initially as vain and unnatural but now mainstream as a form of self-improvement - is a guide to predicting the trajectory of cosmetic neurology, as he calls it.
We worship at the altar of progress, and to the demigod of choice, Dr. Chatterjee said. Both are very strong undercurrents in the culture and the way this is likely to be framed is: Look, we want smart people to be as productive as possible to make everybodys lives better. We want people performing at the max, and if that means using these medicines, then great, then we should be free to choose what we want as long as we are not harming someone. I am not taking that position, but we have this winner-take-all culture and that is the way it is likely to go.
People already use legal performance enhancers, he said, from high-octane cafe Americanos to the beta-blockers taken by musicians to ease stage fright, to antidepressants to improve mood. So the question with all of these things is, Is this enhancement, or a matter of removing the cloud over our better selves? he said.
The public backlash against brain-enhancement, if it comes, may hit home only after the practice becomes mainstream, Dr. Chatterjee suggested. You can imagine a scenario in the future, when you are applying for a job, and the employer says, Sure, you have the talent for this, but we require you to take Adderall. Now, maybe you do start to care about the ethical implications.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09carey.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=health&pagewanted=print
What kinds of messages are we giving our children? Kids today grow up with advertisers pushing high-energy drinks that look, taste, and smell like alcohol, and a culture that tells them popping a pill will make them more creative and successful. This makes the candy cigarettes of yesteryear look tame by comparison.
Fortunately, many health-minded individuals have had enough and are providing natural, organic foods for their families with the understanding that this is how we humans were created to flourish. Brain food is not an upper or a cup of strong coffee. These artificial chemicals only tear down the body in the long run, and open us up to future disease and deterioration of brain function. A lifestyle of wholesome eating and plenty of vigorous exercise will beat a chemical cocktail any day.
March 9, 2008
Smartening Up
Brain Enhancement Is Wrong, Right?
By BENEDICT CAREY
SO far no one is demanding that asterisks be attached to Nobels, Pulitzers or Lasker awards. Government agents have not been raiding anthropology departments, riffling book bags, testing professors urine. And if there are illicit trainers on campuses, shady tutors with wraparound sunglasses and ties to basement labs in Italy, no one has exposed them.
Yet an era of doping may be looming in academia, and it has ignited a debate about policy and ethics that in some ways echoes the national controversy over performance enhancement accusations against elite athletes like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
In a recent commentary in the journal Nature, two Cambridge University researchers reported that about a dozen of their colleagues had admitted to regular use of prescription drugs like Adderall, a stimulant, and Provigil, which promotes wakefulness to improve their academic performance. The former is approved to treat attention deficit disorder, the latter narcolepsy, and both are considered more effective, and more widely available, than the drugs circulating in dorms a generation ago.
Letters flooded the journal, and an online debate immediately bubbled up. The journal has been conducting its own, more rigorous survey, and so far at least 20 respondents have said that they used the drugs for nonmedical purposes, according to Philip Campbell, the journals editor in chief. The debate has also caught fire on the Web site of The Chronicle of Higher Education, where academics and students are sniping at one another.
But is prescription tweaking to perform on exams, or prepare presentations and grants, really the same as injecting hormones to chase down a home run record, or win the Tour de France?
Some argue that such use could be worse, given the potentially deep impact on society. And the behavior of academics in particular, as intellectual leaders, could serve as an example to others.
In his book Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, Francis Fukuyuma raises the broader issue of performance enhancement: The original purpose of medicine is to heal the sick, not turn healthy people into gods. He and others point out that increased use of such drugs could raise the standard of what is considered normal performance and widen the gap between those who have access to the medications and those who do not - and even erode the relationship between struggle and the building of character.
Even though stimulants and other cognitive enhancers are intended for legitimate clinical use, history predicts that greater availability will lead to an increase in diversion, misuse and abuse, wrote Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and James Swanson of the University of California at Irvine, in a letter to Nature. Among high school students, abuse of prescription medications is second only to cannabis use.
But others insist that the ethics are not so clear, and that academic performance is different in important ways from baseball, or cycling.
I think the analogy with sports doping is really misleading, because in sports it is all about competition, only about who is the best runner or home run hitter, said Martha Farah, director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania. In academics, whether you are a student or a researcher, there is an element of competition, but it is secondary. The main purpose is to try to learn things, to get experience, to write papers, to do experiments. So in that case if you can do it better because you have got some drug on board, that would on the face of things seem like a plus.
She and other midcareer scientists interviewed said that, as far as they knew, very few of their colleagues used brain-boosting drugs regularly. Many have used Provigil for jet lag, or even to stay vertical for late events. But most agreed that the next generation of scientists, now in graduate school and college, were more likely to use the drugs as study aids and bring along those habits as they moved up the ladder.
Surveys of college students have found that from 4 percent to 16 percent say they have used stimulants or other prescription drugs to improve their academic performance - usually getting the pills from other students.
Suppose you are preparing for the SAT, or going for a job interview - in those situations where you have to perform on that day, these drugs will be very attractive, said Dr. Barbara Sahakian of Cambridge, a co-author with Sharon Morein-Zamir of the recent essay in Nature. The desire for cognitive enhancement is very strong, maybe stronger than for beauty, or athletic ability.
Jeffrey White, a graduate student in cell biology who has attended several institutions, said that those numbers sounded about right. You can usually tell who is using them because they can be angry, testy, hyperfocused, they do not want to be bothered, he said.
Mr. White said he did not use the drugs himself, considering them an artificial shortcut that could set people up for problems later on. What happens if you are in a fast-paced surgical situation and they are not available? he asked. Will you be able to function at the same level?
Yet such objections - and philosophical concerns - can vaporize when students and junior faculty members face other questions: What happens if I do not make the cut? What if I am derailed by a bad test score, or a mangled chemistry course?
One person who posted anonymously on the Chronicle of Higher Education Web site said that a daily regimen of three 20-milligram doses of Adderall transformed his career: I am not talking about being able to work longer hours without sleep (although that helps), the posting said. I am talking about being able to take on twice the responsibility, work twice as fast, write more effectively, manage better, be more attentive, devise better and more creative strategies.
Dr. Anjan Chatterjee, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania who foresaw this debate in a 2004 paper, argues that the history of cosmetic surgery - scorned initially as vain and unnatural but now mainstream as a form of self-improvement - is a guide to predicting the trajectory of cosmetic neurology, as he calls it.
We worship at the altar of progress, and to the demigod of choice, Dr. Chatterjee said. Both are very strong undercurrents in the culture and the way this is likely to be framed is: Look, we want smart people to be as productive as possible to make everybodys lives better. We want people performing at the max, and if that means using these medicines, then great, then we should be free to choose what we want as long as we are not harming someone. I am not taking that position, but we have this winner-take-all culture and that is the way it is likely to go.
People already use legal performance enhancers, he said, from high-octane cafe Americanos to the beta-blockers taken by musicians to ease stage fright, to antidepressants to improve mood. So the question with all of these things is, Is this enhancement, or a matter of removing the cloud over our better selves? he said.
The public backlash against brain-enhancement, if it comes, may hit home only after the practice becomes mainstream, Dr. Chatterjee suggested. You can imagine a scenario in the future, when you are applying for a job, and the employer says, Sure, you have the talent for this, but we require you to take Adderall. Now, maybe you do start to care about the ethical implications.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09carey.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=health&pagewanted=print
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Incidence of Strokes in Women On the Rise
It looks like the statisticians have finally caught up with another damaging effect of obesity and the Standard American Diet. Anybody who has an ounce of horse sense about wellness could have predicted this, but a report was just released indicating that the number of strokes in women, especially those younger than their mid-fifties, is significantly on the rise. Always a killer, strokes were once found mainly in men, and almost always in the elderly of both genders. However, it appears that even though the number of smokers, male and female, has dropped sharply, other factors such as a poor diet and a lack of regular physical exercise are taking up the slack and causing the incidence of strokes and other forms of cardiovascular disease to increase.
It is clear that the answer to restoring the health of Americans cannot be found in a pill bottle. Billions of dollars are spent on statin drugs to lower cholesterol, but it is only making people sicker. The marketing gurus in the drug companies would have us believe that we can eat anything we want, as long as we take our medicine faithfully. The truth that is being whitewashed is that our diets of fatty, artificial foods is creating an environment for disease in our bodies rather than making us well, as natural, organic foods are designed to do. The real cause behind the epidemic of national sickness is the increased inflammation in our bodies caused by eating junk that has minimal nutritional value, and actually does more harm than good. Brings to mind the old saying that does quite a good job at summing up SAD: Americans are digging their own graves with a knife and fork.
A Surge in Strokes
Rates among younger women have nearly tripled over the last decade.
Here's how to reduce your risk.
Pat Wingert and Barbara Kantrowitz
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 5:05 PM ET Mar 10, 2008
Her workday at a local school had just ended when 54-year-old Joanne Puopolo developed a headache so severe she had to pull her car off the road. The Duxbury, Mass., teacher's aide had been feeling sick all day and figured she'd caught "a bug" from one of her students. But soon after walking into her house, her left arm went stiff, and then her left hand suddenly flew up in the air. Her husband called 911, and by the time the ambulance arrived, Puopolo's entire left side was paralyzed. "I knew something was really wrong, but I wasn't thinking it could be a stroke," Puopolo says. After all, strokes only happen to elderly people, don't they? And men are much more vulnerable than women, right?
While the risk of stroke is still comparatively small before age 65, new trend data suggest that age and gender rates are starting to tip in the wrong direction for women. Not only are older women now as likely as older men to suffer a stroke, but recent health surveys indicate that the proportion of women between the ages of 35 and 54 having strokes has nearly tripled in the last decade, while the rate for men the same age has remained flat. While it's always possible that the number of strokes could have risen because of more accurate diagnoses, the fact that the same self-reporting survey was used repeatedly in a relatively brief period, gives Towfighi confidence that the rise is real.
The new incidence rates are still small - only 1.8 percent of women between the ages of 35 and 54 report having had a stroke. (About 80 percent of "brain attacks" are ischemic, caused by a blood clot or plaque that cuts off blood flow to the brain. The remainder are hemorrhagic and occur when a blood vessel in the brain leaks or ruptures.) But stroke researcher Amytis Towfighi, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, was worried by the new numbers, a big increase from the .63 percent of women reporting strokes in this age group a decade ago. Towfighi also knew that researchers had actually expected incidence rates to fall, as the number of people taking medication to control their blood pressure and cholesterol levels rose.
This puzzling turn of events warranted more study, Towfighi decided. "I wanted to understand if this was a new phenomenon, and if so, why it was happening," she says. "Most [stroke] studies focus on individuals who are over 60. But there are now more than 1 million stroke survivors aged 25 to 59 in the United States."
After scrutinizing data from the National Health and Nutrition Surveys conducted between 1988 and 1994 and again between 1999 and 2004, Towfighi and her former colleagues at the UCLA Stroke Center were able to publish a series of studies. They confirmed that the spike in strokes among middle-aged women is new and real, and they were also able to hypothesize about the cause of the increase: the expanding waistlines and rising body mass index (or BMI, a measure of body fat based on weight and height) of midlife women.
"There was really no significant difference in women's risk factors like smoking, high blood pressure, cholesterol levels and diabetes," Towfighi says. "But when we looked at biomarkers we found that these women's BMIs and waist circumferences had increased significantly." Men had also gained weight and inches, but not as much as women. (Overall, 50 percent more women had moved into the worrisome zone with waist circumferences over 35 inches, while only one-third more men had passed 40 inches, the outer limit of normal for males.) This was a disturbing trend, Towfighi said, because abdominal fat increases the risk of stroke more than fat deposits in other places because it's "visceral" fat, meaning it wraps itself around vital internal organs.
But even women whose weight is within the normal range, like Puopolo, can be at increased risk. In the last few years Puopolo, a former smoker, had developed high blood pressure and started taking medication to control it. But side effects prompted her to stop, and she let months go by without making an appointment to get a different medicine. "I wasn't really aware how dangerous high blood pressure was," says Puopolo.
Towfighi says recent data seem to indicate that women's blood pressure is increasing at a faster rate - 8 to 10 points a decade, starting at age 35 - than men's, which is increasing by 4 or 5 points per decade. Taking medication helps reduce the risk, but it doesn't eliminate it. "Before most people started on their medication, damage was done to their blood vessels, and that increases their risk of stroke," says Towfighi.
High cholesterol, another risk factor, is also becoming a bigger problem for women. Studies indicate that before age 44 men's cholesterol tends to be higher than women's. But after age 44 women's total cholesterol begins to rise faster than men's, and by the time women are between 55 and 64 they typically have higher cholesterol levels than men.
Not surprisingly, having multiple risk factors (including smoking and using birth control pills or hormone therapy) increases the chance of stroke. So does having the constellation of conditions known as metabolic syndrome, which not only exponentially increases the overall risk of stroke but increases the risk of stroke more for women than for men, says Towfighi. Those with metabolic syndrome suffer from high blood pressure, insulin resistance, increased fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels (specifically, elevated levels of triglycerides and reduced levels of high-density lipoprotein, known as HDL, or the good fats).
The lesson to be learned from this latest round of stroke research, says Towfighi, is that women should really make a point of eating a healthy diet. That means avoiding saturated fat and foods high in cholesterol, eating five servings a day of fruits and vegetables, and exercising at least a half an hour a day. Women should also know what their blood pressure is, and what normal is. The same is true of cholesterol. "We need to start curbing our risk factors early on," says Towfighi.
It's also crucial that women learn the warning signs of a stroke and know what to do if one occurs. The American Stroke Association says that if someone has any of these "five suddens" she should be rushed to the hospital to determine if she has had some type of stroke:
1) Sudden numbness or weakness, typically on one side of the body
2) Sudden difficulty speaking
3) Sudden headache
4) Sudden blurry vision
5) Sudden dizziness, or difficulty with balance or coordination
Other signs of a possible stroke include an inability to form a smile or raise both arms above the head.
These symptoms should be taken seriously, even if they last only a short time and the person resumes full function within a few minutes. Many people don't realize that a transitory stroke often comes before a full-blown stroke by hours, days or months. (Studies indicate that 10 percent of people who have a transitory stroke will have a major stroke within a week, and 20 percent will have one within three months.) Quick diagnosis and treatment can save lives, prevent disability and, in the case of transitory stroke, lower the chance that a more severe stroke will soon follow.
It's also important to realize that the warning signs of stroke in women tend to be "more nonspecific, like feeling weak all over or having a headache," Towfighi says. As a result, some women hesitate to call an ambulance or even their doctor. That may help explain why a woman is more likely to die after having a stroke than a man.
"People need to take all strokes seriously," says Towfighi, who suggests that you call 911 immediately, because time is of the essence. "If you call your doctor or try to drive yourself to the hospital, it may take too long," she says. "You want to get treatment initiated within three hours."
Strokes kill about 200,000 Americans a year and are the third leading cause of death, after heart disease and cancer, and the leading cause of adult disability. Puopolo, the mother of two sons, was one of the lucky ones. She was flown via helicopter to Massachusetts General Hospital for emergency surgery. Once discharged, she spent weeks in a rehabilitation center. Three months later, she's now home, but she continues with occupational and physical therapy. She still doesn't have full use of her left hand. She can't drive, and a lot of everyday tasks remain difficult. "When this first happened, and people heard that I'd had a stroke, they would say, 'She's too young to have had a stroke'," says Puopolo. But as she found out, you're never too young to take steps to reduce the risk that it could happen to you.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/120369
It is clear that the answer to restoring the health of Americans cannot be found in a pill bottle. Billions of dollars are spent on statin drugs to lower cholesterol, but it is only making people sicker. The marketing gurus in the drug companies would have us believe that we can eat anything we want, as long as we take our medicine faithfully. The truth that is being whitewashed is that our diets of fatty, artificial foods is creating an environment for disease in our bodies rather than making us well, as natural, organic foods are designed to do. The real cause behind the epidemic of national sickness is the increased inflammation in our bodies caused by eating junk that has minimal nutritional value, and actually does more harm than good. Brings to mind the old saying that does quite a good job at summing up SAD: Americans are digging their own graves with a knife and fork.
A Surge in Strokes
Rates among younger women have nearly tripled over the last decade.
Here's how to reduce your risk.
Pat Wingert and Barbara Kantrowitz
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 5:05 PM ET Mar 10, 2008
Her workday at a local school had just ended when 54-year-old Joanne Puopolo developed a headache so severe she had to pull her car off the road. The Duxbury, Mass., teacher's aide had been feeling sick all day and figured she'd caught "a bug" from one of her students. But soon after walking into her house, her left arm went stiff, and then her left hand suddenly flew up in the air. Her husband called 911, and by the time the ambulance arrived, Puopolo's entire left side was paralyzed. "I knew something was really wrong, but I wasn't thinking it could be a stroke," Puopolo says. After all, strokes only happen to elderly people, don't they? And men are much more vulnerable than women, right?
While the risk of stroke is still comparatively small before age 65, new trend data suggest that age and gender rates are starting to tip in the wrong direction for women. Not only are older women now as likely as older men to suffer a stroke, but recent health surveys indicate that the proportion of women between the ages of 35 and 54 having strokes has nearly tripled in the last decade, while the rate for men the same age has remained flat. While it's always possible that the number of strokes could have risen because of more accurate diagnoses, the fact that the same self-reporting survey was used repeatedly in a relatively brief period, gives Towfighi confidence that the rise is real.
The new incidence rates are still small - only 1.8 percent of women between the ages of 35 and 54 report having had a stroke. (About 80 percent of "brain attacks" are ischemic, caused by a blood clot or plaque that cuts off blood flow to the brain. The remainder are hemorrhagic and occur when a blood vessel in the brain leaks or ruptures.) But stroke researcher Amytis Towfighi, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, was worried by the new numbers, a big increase from the .63 percent of women reporting strokes in this age group a decade ago. Towfighi also knew that researchers had actually expected incidence rates to fall, as the number of people taking medication to control their blood pressure and cholesterol levels rose.
This puzzling turn of events warranted more study, Towfighi decided. "I wanted to understand if this was a new phenomenon, and if so, why it was happening," she says. "Most [stroke] studies focus on individuals who are over 60. But there are now more than 1 million stroke survivors aged 25 to 59 in the United States."
After scrutinizing data from the National Health and Nutrition Surveys conducted between 1988 and 1994 and again between 1999 and 2004, Towfighi and her former colleagues at the UCLA Stroke Center were able to publish a series of studies. They confirmed that the spike in strokes among middle-aged women is new and real, and they were also able to hypothesize about the cause of the increase: the expanding waistlines and rising body mass index (or BMI, a measure of body fat based on weight and height) of midlife women.
"There was really no significant difference in women's risk factors like smoking, high blood pressure, cholesterol levels and diabetes," Towfighi says. "But when we looked at biomarkers we found that these women's BMIs and waist circumferences had increased significantly." Men had also gained weight and inches, but not as much as women. (Overall, 50 percent more women had moved into the worrisome zone with waist circumferences over 35 inches, while only one-third more men had passed 40 inches, the outer limit of normal for males.) This was a disturbing trend, Towfighi said, because abdominal fat increases the risk of stroke more than fat deposits in other places because it's "visceral" fat, meaning it wraps itself around vital internal organs.
But even women whose weight is within the normal range, like Puopolo, can be at increased risk. In the last few years Puopolo, a former smoker, had developed high blood pressure and started taking medication to control it. But side effects prompted her to stop, and she let months go by without making an appointment to get a different medicine. "I wasn't really aware how dangerous high blood pressure was," says Puopolo.
Towfighi says recent data seem to indicate that women's blood pressure is increasing at a faster rate - 8 to 10 points a decade, starting at age 35 - than men's, which is increasing by 4 or 5 points per decade. Taking medication helps reduce the risk, but it doesn't eliminate it. "Before most people started on their medication, damage was done to their blood vessels, and that increases their risk of stroke," says Towfighi.
High cholesterol, another risk factor, is also becoming a bigger problem for women. Studies indicate that before age 44 men's cholesterol tends to be higher than women's. But after age 44 women's total cholesterol begins to rise faster than men's, and by the time women are between 55 and 64 they typically have higher cholesterol levels than men.
Not surprisingly, having multiple risk factors (including smoking and using birth control pills or hormone therapy) increases the chance of stroke. So does having the constellation of conditions known as metabolic syndrome, which not only exponentially increases the overall risk of stroke but increases the risk of stroke more for women than for men, says Towfighi. Those with metabolic syndrome suffer from high blood pressure, insulin resistance, increased fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels (specifically, elevated levels of triglycerides and reduced levels of high-density lipoprotein, known as HDL, or the good fats).
The lesson to be learned from this latest round of stroke research, says Towfighi, is that women should really make a point of eating a healthy diet. That means avoiding saturated fat and foods high in cholesterol, eating five servings a day of fruits and vegetables, and exercising at least a half an hour a day. Women should also know what their blood pressure is, and what normal is. The same is true of cholesterol. "We need to start curbing our risk factors early on," says Towfighi.
It's also crucial that women learn the warning signs of a stroke and know what to do if one occurs. The American Stroke Association says that if someone has any of these "five suddens" she should be rushed to the hospital to determine if she has had some type of stroke:
1) Sudden numbness or weakness, typically on one side of the body
2) Sudden difficulty speaking
3) Sudden headache
4) Sudden blurry vision
5) Sudden dizziness, or difficulty with balance or coordination
Other signs of a possible stroke include an inability to form a smile or raise both arms above the head.
These symptoms should be taken seriously, even if they last only a short time and the person resumes full function within a few minutes. Many people don't realize that a transitory stroke often comes before a full-blown stroke by hours, days or months. (Studies indicate that 10 percent of people who have a transitory stroke will have a major stroke within a week, and 20 percent will have one within three months.) Quick diagnosis and treatment can save lives, prevent disability and, in the case of transitory stroke, lower the chance that a more severe stroke will soon follow.
It's also important to realize that the warning signs of stroke in women tend to be "more nonspecific, like feeling weak all over or having a headache," Towfighi says. As a result, some women hesitate to call an ambulance or even their doctor. That may help explain why a woman is more likely to die after having a stroke than a man.
"People need to take all strokes seriously," says Towfighi, who suggests that you call 911 immediately, because time is of the essence. "If you call your doctor or try to drive yourself to the hospital, it may take too long," she says. "You want to get treatment initiated within three hours."
Strokes kill about 200,000 Americans a year and are the third leading cause of death, after heart disease and cancer, and the leading cause of adult disability. Puopolo, the mother of two sons, was one of the lucky ones. She was flown via helicopter to Massachusetts General Hospital for emergency surgery. Once discharged, she spent weeks in a rehabilitation center. Three months later, she's now home, but she continues with occupational and physical therapy. She still doesn't have full use of her left hand. She can't drive, and a lot of everyday tasks remain difficult. "When this first happened, and people heard that I'd had a stroke, they would say, 'She's too young to have had a stroke'," says Puopolo. But as she found out, you're never too young to take steps to reduce the risk that it could happen to you.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/120369
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
