A recent study has found that the use of Accutane, one of the largest selling acne drugs, may lead to depression and suicidal behaviors in patients who take this toxic substance at the advice of their physician. As with most pharmaceuticals, this drug can result in a number of significant side effects. Even if a person using Accutane does not suffer from depression, the chemical make up of this foreign substance can wreak havoc in the body, and as the article below points out, Accutane actually includes an ingredient that was originally designed as a chemotherapy drug!
Once again, we see that the pharmaceutical companies are not practicing full disclosure when it comes to the dangers involved with using this substance. Accutane, in particular, is prescribed so often because it has such a high success rate at improving (temporarily) the effects of acne. It is critical that we learn about any drug that is prescribed to us, as we will most likely not be told the whole story by our health care providers. Many doctors prescribe drugs for their patients based solely on the numbers or supposed effectiveness of the drug. Americans want quick results, but as is the case with this kind of "doctoring," the issues that are causing the underlying health problems are not dealt with, and the "cure" can often be worse than the "cause." Choosing a lifestyle that pursues wellness will do much more to treat and prevent disease than any amount of dangerous drugs, which only tend to expose the patient to additional risks.
The Acne Drug Accutane More Than Doubles Your Depression Risk
by Seppo Puusa
(NaturalNews) More evidence has come in on the dangerous side effects of Accutane, the powerful acne drug, that is also known as Roaccutane in Europe. A Canadian study confirms that Accutane increases depression risk. The study found that Accutane more than doubles the risk of depression.
The study is the first controlled investigation to find a statistically substantiated link between isotretinoin (the active ingredient in Accutane) and depression, Dr. Anick Berard, from CHU Sainte-Justine Research Centre in Montreal, and colleagues stated in a report in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
The researchers studied 30,496 people from Quebec who had at least one prescription of Accutane between 1984 and 2003. Among these people, 126 had a reported depression case. The researchers looked for Accutane use five months before the reported depression case (risk period) and compared it to a five-month control period. After adjusting for potential risk factors for depression, the study found that exposure to Accutane increases the risk of depression by 2.6 times.
The research report finishes by recommending that "current guidelines should possibly be modified to include psychiatric assessments of patients prior to and during isotretinoin therapy."
There are two known pathways Accutane can lead to depression: lower availability of serotonin and decreased brain activity in the areas that mediate depression.
Earlier research has shown that Accutane reduces the availability of the neurotransmitter serotonin. Serotonin is also known as the "feel good" hormone. Low levels of serotonin have been linked consistently to many psychiatric symptoms, such as aggression, anxiety disorders, and suicidal ideation. Naturalnews reported about the study here: Suicide Link to Acne Drug Officially Established.
Among other side effects, Accutane increases sensitivity to sunlight. And dermatologists advice patients to avoid sunlight while on Accutane treatment. Sunlight is known to increase serotonin levels, and avoiding sunlight may further increase the problem with serotonin levels.
Another study, published at the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2005, found that Accutane was associated with decreased brain metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex. Orbiofrontal cortex is the brain area known to counter symptoms of depression.
Once you understand the history of Accutane, these side effects shouldn't come as a surprise.
Chemotherapy drug for acne
Accutane is a cancer drug. Bet you didn't know that.
Isotretinoin, the active ingredient in Accutane, was originally developed as a chemotherapy drug. During the chemotherapy trials doctors noticed patients' acne clearing.
What do we know of chemotherapy drugs?
They are among the most dangerous poisons. Chemotherapy treatment often does serious damage to the body. And, if the patient is lucky, may have a little effect on cancer.
In this context it's no wonder the list of Accutane's side effects looks truly frightening. Ranging from chapped lips to heart attacks, serious organ damage and suicides.
A Miracle Drug?
Do the benefits of Accutane warrant such risks?
The fact remains that only a small percentage of the patients treated with Accutane develop severe side effects. Still, just because you don't develop acute symptoms from Accutane doesn't mean Accutane is safe for you. It causes damage to everybody who takes it. But in many cases the body can handle it in a way that doesn't produce immediate symptoms.
Accutane is often dubbed as the "Miracle Drug" because it works where no other (allopathic) acne treatment does. It is said to work up to 85% of the cases.
As dermatologists often argue, in the balance sheet of tragedy, Accutane has the least awful bottom line -- it saves more lives than it costs.
This might be true, if Accutane had no effective alternatives and would permanently cure acne. If this were the case, many acne victims would agree to face the risk. Because acne, though not fatal, can have serious psychological effects and devastate a person's self-esteem and social life.
But there are alternatives. Acne, like being overweight, is a lifestyle problem. And it responds quickly to dietary and lifestyle changes.
Dietary and lifestyle changes are the holy grail of acne treatments. They can give you the permanent freedom you are looking for. And in the process profoundly increase the quality of your life. Something that Accutane or other prescription drugs can never do.
And many acne victims find their new found, Accutane-given freedom much too temporary. Often acne returns as quickly as six months after the treatment.
In the end you are left with one question. How much are you willing to risk for temporary freedom?
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023519.html
Monday, June 30, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Natural Alternatives to Blood Pressure Medications
Today's post references an article that gives some very practical, safe, and effective means for dealing with hypertension other than the typical pharmaceuticals that are handed out by the millions in this country. Statins for high cholesterol and hypertension drugs such as calcium channel blockers and beta blockers are some of the most often prescribed drugs in America, and account for a large part of Big Pharma's profits as well.
As we discussed earlier this week on this blog, the use of such medications, along with other risk factors, may have contributed to the death of popular newsman Tim Russert. Unfortunately, the treatment plan for Mr. Russert was not unique, and there are literally millions of other men who are wondering if they can trust the advice given by their doctors or if they too are in peril of sudden death.
Along with a lifestyle that pursues exercise, a sensible diet, and other quality choices, this article suggests ways that hypertension can be managed and prevented naturally. Using a high quality supplement such as magnesium orotate or a good magnesium transdermal oil will help with magnesium levels. Also a good B-Complex for stress is certainly worth consideration. Despite what most doctors will tell you, using blood pressure medications is not the only way to effectively treat hypertension. In fact, many of these drugs end up doing more harm than good to the cardiovascular system and a patient's overall health.
A Natural Approach to Treating Hypertension
by Jeremiah Smith
(NaturalNews) There are many nutrients available to individuals with hypertension who wish to take a more natural approach for addressing their condition. Clearly, improving diet and increasing physical activity are key to achieving normal blood pressure, along with a host of other positive benefits. Still, there are specific supplements that can assist in lowering blood pressure.
One very important mineral for regulating blood pressure is magnesium. Unfortunately, magnesium also represents one of the most common nutritional deficiencies in those who follow the Standard American Diet. There appears to be an inverse relationship between blood pressure and blood levels of magnesium. Furthermore, the Honolulu Heart Study showed that magnesium intake had the strongest association with blood pressure out of 60 other variables that were evaluated.
Various other studies indicate that magnesium supplementation reduces both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Around 600 mg per day seems to be the typical dosage for those supplementing with magnesium. When taking magnesium, you should be aware that large single doses may cause diarrhea. Therefore, it might be best to take 200-300 mg, two to three times per day.
Ascorbic acid, or vitamin C, has numerous beneficial properties, so it is no surprise to see it on a list for hypertension. The amazing thing about ascorbic acid is that it has some role to play in nearly every biochemical reaction within our bodies. Understanding this gives an appreciation for the profound health effects that it is capable of producing. In the case of hypertension, vitamin C is thought to exert its effects by enhancing nitric oxide (NO) production. NO is required for dilation of blood vessels, and this dilation reduces blood pressure. Like magnesium, vitamin C blood levels have an inverse relationship with blood pressure. The goal, of course, is to get those vitamin C levels up in order to bring blood pressure down. A complete discussion on dosing vitamin C would require an entire article in and of itself.
For more information please see the references below.
An additional nutritional supplement that has shown effectiveness against hypertension is coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). The general dosage for CoQ10 is around 100-200 mg per day. Note that CoQ10 is a fat-soluble substance and should be taken with food containing some fats or oils for maximum absorption.
The subject of oils brings us to the next superstar for bringing down high blood pressure. Fish oils, specifically the omega-3's (EPA and DHA), have proven antihypertensive benefits. In fact, the benefits of these substances are so well-established that Big Pharma decided to make a version of their own. It is marketed toward reducing high triglyceride levels. You can check it out for yourself here: (http://www.lovaza.com/) .
It appears that the omega-3 fats are capable of improving the elasticity of arteries, thus allowing the arteries to "absorb more shock" from the force of blood pumping through them. This results in decreased vascular resistance, which leads to reduced blood pressure. The amount of EPA or DHA taken daily can range from 3g to 15g.
Finally, garlic deserves a mention among nutritional agents that can be used to address high blood pressure. The overall effect of garlic on blood pressure may not be as pronounced as that of the previously discussed nutrients. However, it has demonstrated effectiveness in lowering systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The studies utilized doses ranging from 600-900 mg of garlic extract daily.
In conclusion, those individuals who are currently taking antihypertensive drugs should be aware that these nutrients have the potential to significantly lower blood pressure without the need of pharmaceuticals. For this reason, it may become necessary to reduce the drug dosage, or to discontinue the medication entirely. It is advisable to consult your physician regarding supplementation and any changes in therapy.
References:
Pelton, Ross. "Nutrients to Reduce Hypertension." Pharmacy Times, January 2005.
URL: http://www.naturalnews.com/z023501.html
As we discussed earlier this week on this blog, the use of such medications, along with other risk factors, may have contributed to the death of popular newsman Tim Russert. Unfortunately, the treatment plan for Mr. Russert was not unique, and there are literally millions of other men who are wondering if they can trust the advice given by their doctors or if they too are in peril of sudden death.
Along with a lifestyle that pursues exercise, a sensible diet, and other quality choices, this article suggests ways that hypertension can be managed and prevented naturally. Using a high quality supplement such as magnesium orotate or a good magnesium transdermal oil will help with magnesium levels. Also a good B-Complex for stress is certainly worth consideration. Despite what most doctors will tell you, using blood pressure medications is not the only way to effectively treat hypertension. In fact, many of these drugs end up doing more harm than good to the cardiovascular system and a patient's overall health.
A Natural Approach to Treating Hypertension
by Jeremiah Smith
(NaturalNews) There are many nutrients available to individuals with hypertension who wish to take a more natural approach for addressing their condition. Clearly, improving diet and increasing physical activity are key to achieving normal blood pressure, along with a host of other positive benefits. Still, there are specific supplements that can assist in lowering blood pressure.
One very important mineral for regulating blood pressure is magnesium. Unfortunately, magnesium also represents one of the most common nutritional deficiencies in those who follow the Standard American Diet. There appears to be an inverse relationship between blood pressure and blood levels of magnesium. Furthermore, the Honolulu Heart Study showed that magnesium intake had the strongest association with blood pressure out of 60 other variables that were evaluated.
Various other studies indicate that magnesium supplementation reduces both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Around 600 mg per day seems to be the typical dosage for those supplementing with magnesium. When taking magnesium, you should be aware that large single doses may cause diarrhea. Therefore, it might be best to take 200-300 mg, two to three times per day.
Ascorbic acid, or vitamin C, has numerous beneficial properties, so it is no surprise to see it on a list for hypertension. The amazing thing about ascorbic acid is that it has some role to play in nearly every biochemical reaction within our bodies. Understanding this gives an appreciation for the profound health effects that it is capable of producing. In the case of hypertension, vitamin C is thought to exert its effects by enhancing nitric oxide (NO) production. NO is required for dilation of blood vessels, and this dilation reduces blood pressure. Like magnesium, vitamin C blood levels have an inverse relationship with blood pressure. The goal, of course, is to get those vitamin C levels up in order to bring blood pressure down. A complete discussion on dosing vitamin C would require an entire article in and of itself.
For more information please see the references below.
An additional nutritional supplement that has shown effectiveness against hypertension is coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). The general dosage for CoQ10 is around 100-200 mg per day. Note that CoQ10 is a fat-soluble substance and should be taken with food containing some fats or oils for maximum absorption.
The subject of oils brings us to the next superstar for bringing down high blood pressure. Fish oils, specifically the omega-3's (EPA and DHA), have proven antihypertensive benefits. In fact, the benefits of these substances are so well-established that Big Pharma decided to make a version of their own. It is marketed toward reducing high triglyceride levels. You can check it out for yourself here: (http://www.lovaza.com/) .
It appears that the omega-3 fats are capable of improving the elasticity of arteries, thus allowing the arteries to "absorb more shock" from the force of blood pumping through them. This results in decreased vascular resistance, which leads to reduced blood pressure. The amount of EPA or DHA taken daily can range from 3g to 15g.
Finally, garlic deserves a mention among nutritional agents that can be used to address high blood pressure. The overall effect of garlic on blood pressure may not be as pronounced as that of the previously discussed nutrients. However, it has demonstrated effectiveness in lowering systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The studies utilized doses ranging from 600-900 mg of garlic extract daily.
In conclusion, those individuals who are currently taking antihypertensive drugs should be aware that these nutrients have the potential to significantly lower blood pressure without the need of pharmaceuticals. For this reason, it may become necessary to reduce the drug dosage, or to discontinue the medication entirely. It is advisable to consult your physician regarding supplementation and any changes in therapy.
References:
Pelton, Ross. "Nutrients to Reduce Hypertension." Pharmacy Times, January 2005.
URL: http://www.naturalnews.com/z023501.html
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Sunshine Saves Lives
The mainstream media is finally picking up on research that indicates the benefits of controlled amounts of sunshine clearly outweigh any risk involved. A new study highlighted in the following article has determined that the risk of premature death in those with inadequate amounts of vitamin D is an astounding two times greater than in people who have sufficient amounts of the "sunshine vitamin" in their blood.
Naturally produced vitamin D-3, and that derived from a quality supplement when necessary, is a factor in many processes within the body that protect us from a multitude of diseases. Vitamin D plays a role in preventing inflammation, a key factor in cardiovascular and many other forms of disease.
As we enter into summer, please keep in mind that it is important to get ample amounts of sunshine daily, but in order to minimize the risk of skin damage, it is best to stay out of direct sunshine during the peak hours of 10am-3pm. The use of a natural, chemical-free sun screen is recommended if you must be exposed to the sun during this period. Get out there every day, all year round, to get your dosage of sunshine, vitamin D, and fresh air that our Creator has bountifully supplied for us. It will boost your body and your spirit.
Low vitamin D means higher death risk
By David Liu, Ph.D.
Jun 24, 2008 - 12:51:28 PM
TUESDAY June 24, 2008 (foodconsumer.org) -- Individuals with lower blood levels of sunshine vitamin D in their blood appear to have an increased risk of death from all causes and from cardiovascular diseases, according to an Austrian study in the June 23 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.
The study found people with a lowest level of vitamin D in their blood were twice as likely to die from any cause including death from heart disease during an eight-year period as those who had a high level.
Vitamin D is naturally produced in the body when the skin is exposed to sunshine. Exposure of the face and both hands for 20 minutes to strong sunshine is believed to generate enough vitamin D while a dietary regimen is needed to have a preventative effect against certain diseases or death, particularly in dark-skinned individuals and the elderly who produce less vitamin D.
An estimated 50 to 60 percent of older people in North America and the rest of the world do not have sufficient vitamin D and a similar percentage of young people have the same problem, according to the background information in the report.
Previous studies have linked blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the blood lower than 20 to 30 nanograms per milliliter with risk of falls, fractures, cancer, immune dysfunction, cardiovascular disease and hypertension.
In the study, Harald Dobnig, M.D., an internist and endocrinologist at Medical University of Graz, Austria, and colleagues measured 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels in 3,258 consecutive patients at an average age of 62 years who were underwent coronary angiography testing between 1997 and 2000.
During the 7.7-year follow-up, 22.6 percent of participants died and among the dead, 62.8 percent were caused by cardiovascular causes.
Death rates from any cause and from the cardiovascular causes were higher in those with their blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in the lower 50 percent and in the lowest one-fourth of 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels, the study found.
Low 25-hydroxyviitamin D levels were also linked with markers of inflammation such as c-reactive protein as well as signs of oxidative damage to cells, the study found.
"Apart from the proved effects that vitamin D has on bone metabolism and neuromuscular function, appropriate serum levels (that may also be higher than in the present investigation) are associated with a decrease in mortality," the researchers concluded.
"Although not proved, it seems possible that at least part of this effect may be due to lowering of a risk profile promoting atherosclerosis [narrowing of the arteries] and preventing cardiovascular end points." The researchers said.
"Based on the findings of this study, a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of 20 nanograms per milliliter or higher may be advised for maintaining general health." (Editor's note: many other studies have suggested that 30 nanograms per milliliter are needed.)
The current study merely established an association between the serum vitamin D level and death risk and it did not prove that taking vitamin D supplements to increase its level in the body would actually reduce the risk of death from all causes although the possibility cannot be excluded either.
However, many clinical trials have already demonstrated the preventative effect of vitamin D against premature deaths from all causes including cardiovascular causes.
One study meta-analyzed data from 18 separate trials of 57,000 participants who had a dietary supplement of vitamin D at a dose ranging from 300 to 2000 International Units and found those who took vitamin D had a 7 percent lower risk of death than those who did not.
The study was conducted by Philippe Autier, M.D., of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and Sara Gandini, Ph.D., of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, Italy and published in the September 10, 2007 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.
Overall, early studies showed deficiencies in vitamin D are associated with a higher risk of death from cancers including breast, prostate, and colon cancer, heart disease and diabetes-illnesses, which overall are responsible for 60 to 70 percent of deaths in developed countries.
Another study conducted by Edward Giovannucci, M.D., Sc.D. at Harvard School of Public and colleagues revealed that people with 15 nanograms per milliliter of blood or less was found 2.42 times higher than those with a sufficient amount (30 nanograms per milliliter). The findings were published in the June 9, 2008 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.
The researchers came to the conclusion after they compared 454 men age 40 to 75 who had non-fatal heart attack or fatal heart disease during the follow-up period with 900 men who did not have a history cardiovascular disease.
Sunshine is the basic source of vitamin D. But readers may be careful about the advice they receive from news media, a health observer affiliated with foodconsumer.org suggested. Exposure to ultraviolet rays is widely viewed as a risk for developing skin cancer and people are often urged to use screens to block exposure to sunshine. Be aware though that vitamin D deficiency can put an individual at a higher risk of dying from other more serious types of cancers and a variety of other chronic diseases.
Other sources include fortified foods such as fortified milk and cereals, natural foods such as cod liver oil, fatty fish such as cooked salmon, mackerel, tuna and sardines, egg yolks, liver of animals, and supplements.
The current recommended daily allowance for vitamin D is 200 IU per day for people age under 50, 400 IUs for those age between 50 and 70, and 600 IUs for those over 70. Older people need higher doses. Research has found healthy people can tolerate intake of up to 10,000 IU per day. Vitamin D experts have already complained that the current RDA is too low to have a protective effect and recommended that the RDA should be increased to at least 1,000 IU per day.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/G_eneral_H_ealth_34/062412512008_Low_vitamin_D_means_higher_death_risk_printer.shtml
Naturally produced vitamin D-3, and that derived from a quality supplement when necessary, is a factor in many processes within the body that protect us from a multitude of diseases. Vitamin D plays a role in preventing inflammation, a key factor in cardiovascular and many other forms of disease.
As we enter into summer, please keep in mind that it is important to get ample amounts of sunshine daily, but in order to minimize the risk of skin damage, it is best to stay out of direct sunshine during the peak hours of 10am-3pm. The use of a natural, chemical-free sun screen is recommended if you must be exposed to the sun during this period. Get out there every day, all year round, to get your dosage of sunshine, vitamin D, and fresh air that our Creator has bountifully supplied for us. It will boost your body and your spirit.
Low vitamin D means higher death risk
By David Liu, Ph.D.
Jun 24, 2008 - 12:51:28 PM
TUESDAY June 24, 2008 (foodconsumer.org) -- Individuals with lower blood levels of sunshine vitamin D in their blood appear to have an increased risk of death from all causes and from cardiovascular diseases, according to an Austrian study in the June 23 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.
The study found people with a lowest level of vitamin D in their blood were twice as likely to die from any cause including death from heart disease during an eight-year period as those who had a high level.
Vitamin D is naturally produced in the body when the skin is exposed to sunshine. Exposure of the face and both hands for 20 minutes to strong sunshine is believed to generate enough vitamin D while a dietary regimen is needed to have a preventative effect against certain diseases or death, particularly in dark-skinned individuals and the elderly who produce less vitamin D.
An estimated 50 to 60 percent of older people in North America and the rest of the world do not have sufficient vitamin D and a similar percentage of young people have the same problem, according to the background information in the report.
Previous studies have linked blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the blood lower than 20 to 30 nanograms per milliliter with risk of falls, fractures, cancer, immune dysfunction, cardiovascular disease and hypertension.
In the study, Harald Dobnig, M.D., an internist and endocrinologist at Medical University of Graz, Austria, and colleagues measured 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels in 3,258 consecutive patients at an average age of 62 years who were underwent coronary angiography testing between 1997 and 2000.
During the 7.7-year follow-up, 22.6 percent of participants died and among the dead, 62.8 percent were caused by cardiovascular causes.
Death rates from any cause and from the cardiovascular causes were higher in those with their blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in the lower 50 percent and in the lowest one-fourth of 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels, the study found.
Low 25-hydroxyviitamin D levels were also linked with markers of inflammation such as c-reactive protein as well as signs of oxidative damage to cells, the study found.
"Apart from the proved effects that vitamin D has on bone metabolism and neuromuscular function, appropriate serum levels (that may also be higher than in the present investigation) are associated with a decrease in mortality," the researchers concluded.
"Although not proved, it seems possible that at least part of this effect may be due to lowering of a risk profile promoting atherosclerosis [narrowing of the arteries] and preventing cardiovascular end points." The researchers said.
"Based on the findings of this study, a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of 20 nanograms per milliliter or higher may be advised for maintaining general health." (Editor's note: many other studies have suggested that 30 nanograms per milliliter are needed.)
The current study merely established an association between the serum vitamin D level and death risk and it did not prove that taking vitamin D supplements to increase its level in the body would actually reduce the risk of death from all causes although the possibility cannot be excluded either.
However, many clinical trials have already demonstrated the preventative effect of vitamin D against premature deaths from all causes including cardiovascular causes.
One study meta-analyzed data from 18 separate trials of 57,000 participants who had a dietary supplement of vitamin D at a dose ranging from 300 to 2000 International Units and found those who took vitamin D had a 7 percent lower risk of death than those who did not.
The study was conducted by Philippe Autier, M.D., of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and Sara Gandini, Ph.D., of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, Italy and published in the September 10, 2007 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.
Overall, early studies showed deficiencies in vitamin D are associated with a higher risk of death from cancers including breast, prostate, and colon cancer, heart disease and diabetes-illnesses, which overall are responsible for 60 to 70 percent of deaths in developed countries.
Another study conducted by Edward Giovannucci, M.D., Sc.D. at Harvard School of Public and colleagues revealed that people with 15 nanograms per milliliter of blood or less was found 2.42 times higher than those with a sufficient amount (30 nanograms per milliliter). The findings were published in the June 9, 2008 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.
The researchers came to the conclusion after they compared 454 men age 40 to 75 who had non-fatal heart attack or fatal heart disease during the follow-up period with 900 men who did not have a history cardiovascular disease.
Sunshine is the basic source of vitamin D. But readers may be careful about the advice they receive from news media, a health observer affiliated with foodconsumer.org suggested. Exposure to ultraviolet rays is widely viewed as a risk for developing skin cancer and people are often urged to use screens to block exposure to sunshine. Be aware though that vitamin D deficiency can put an individual at a higher risk of dying from other more serious types of cancers and a variety of other chronic diseases.
Other sources include fortified foods such as fortified milk and cereals, natural foods such as cod liver oil, fatty fish such as cooked salmon, mackerel, tuna and sardines, egg yolks, liver of animals, and supplements.
The current recommended daily allowance for vitamin D is 200 IU per day for people age under 50, 400 IUs for those age between 50 and 70, and 600 IUs for those over 70. Older people need higher doses. Research has found healthy people can tolerate intake of up to 10,000 IU per day. Vitamin D experts have already complained that the current RDA is too low to have a protective effect and recommended that the RDA should be increased to at least 1,000 IU per day.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/G_eneral_H_ealth_34/062412512008_Low_vitamin_D_means_higher_death_risk_printer.shtml
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Popular Sugar Alternative On the Hot Seat
Over the last 25 years or so, the amount of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the average American's diet has risen significantly. Due to increasing costs for sugar, many manufacturers have switched to this derivative of corn as a sugar replacement in a wide variety of products. Unfortunately, even many foods labeled or considered "healthy" or "natural" contain HFCS.
Once considered a safer, less damaging alternative to processed sugar, research now indicates that this substance may be even worse than sugar, especially for individuals with certain health issues. Diabetics, in particular, may have difficulty properly absorbing HCFS. Its use has also been shown to be problematic for people with bowel disease, hypertension, and for postmenopausal women. The bottom line is that this sweetener is not a better alternative than other forms of sugar, and in fact may have hidden long-term effects that have not even surfaced yet, a situation that has proven to be all too true for many modern chemical substances.
The article below discusses a media blitz that is currently underway by the industry that manufacturers and sells HFCS in the hopes that its reputation can be cleaned up. They have chosen to target mothers, presumably because many foods containing large amounts of HFCS are heavily marketed to children.
High Fructose Corn Syrup Mixes It Up
Sweetener Advocate, Soured by Obesity Links, Targets Moms in Ads
By SUZANNE VRANICA
June 23, 2008; Page B7
The high-fructose corn-syrup business is fighting back.
In recent years, there have been a series of research papers and studies linking HFCS to the rise in obesity in the U.S. While sugar has to some degree also been blamed for America's growing weight problems, HFCS, because it is manufactured, has come under greater criticism by consumers and some health professionals.
Now a Washington trade group is trying to rehabilitate the reputation of the longtime sweetener. Beginning today, the Corn Refiners Association is launching a big ad and public-relations campaign to convince consumers that HFCS isn't the evil it has been made out to be.
The group is running full-page ads in more than a dozen major newspapers around the country saying its product is no worse for you than sugar. The ad, which features a stalk of corn, carries the headline: "And Now a Little Food for Thought." The ad goes on to tell readers that lots of foods and beverages are sweetened with "sugars made from corn, such as high-fructose corn syrup" and that it has the "same natural sweeteners as table sugar and honey."
The campaign, created by the Chicago office of Omnicom Group's DDB, includes two other newspaper ads; TV spots that begin in September; and online ads. The lion's share of the ads will run on media that specifically target moms. The group is planning to spend $20 million to $30 million on the 18-month campaign, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The use of HFCS began to spread during the 1980s as food manufacturers sought a less-expensive alternative to sugar. It is used in a long list of products such as soda, salad dressing, ketchup and breakfast cereals.
Some medical and health experts now say that HFCS is similar to sugar, adding that HFCS isn't metabolized by the body any differently than table sugar. Still, most agree that too much of either is not healthy. Last week, the American Medical Association, following its own investigation, announced that HFCS doesn't appear to contribute more to obesity than other caloric sweeteners. Still, the AMA called for further independent research to be done on the health effects of HFCS and also said that consumers should limit the amount of all sweeteners they use.
Its decision comes after some in the medical community called for the AMA to recommend that food companies restrict the use of HFCS or recommend that food companies label products that contain HFCS with a warning.
HFCS "has taken it on the chin in the past few years," says Michael F. Jacobson, executive director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It's essentially identical to sugar." But Mr. Jacobson isn't a fan of either sweetener. "Americans are eating far too much of both," he adds.
While the CRA has been trying to counter the bad publicity around HFCS since 2004, the group could no longer afford to rely on simple grass-roots marketing tactics such as talking with nutritionists and doctors. "The sweetener has been getting a bad rap, and a big reason is there has been no other information in the marketplace to counter the mistruths," says Don Hoffman, an executive vice president at DDB. As part of the marketing effort, the trade group will also have its PR firm conduct phone and in-person conversations with influential mommy bloggers.
Even though some health researchers are now softening their criticism of HFCS, the marketing effort still faces enormous hurdles. Changing the behavior of legions of moms who are growing increasingly leery about processed snacks and ingredients won't be easy, marketing experts say.
Moreover, some marketers have already removed high-fructose corn syrup from their products in an effort to capitalize on the backlash. While small food-and-beverage companies such as Jones Soda were among the first to remove corn syrup and replace it with sugar, the movement is no longer reserved for only niche brands. For instance, food titan Kraft Foods has recently come out with a Bull's-Eye Barbecue Sauce that is HFCS-free. The product "appeals to health-conscious patrons because it contains no high-fructose corn syrup, no fat and no artificial flavors, colors or preservatives," Kraft says on its Web site.
Kraft products that don't include the sweetener include the Back to Nature product line; Nabisco Oreo 100 Calorie Pack Chewy Granola Bars; Lunchables Pizza and some Kraft Salad Dressings. "We know some consumers are interested in items without high-fructose corn syrup, so we have eliminated it in some of our products," says a spokeswoman for the food maker. Kraft says it has no plan to eliminate HFCS entirely from its product line.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121416915596395063.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Once considered a safer, less damaging alternative to processed sugar, research now indicates that this substance may be even worse than sugar, especially for individuals with certain health issues. Diabetics, in particular, may have difficulty properly absorbing HCFS. Its use has also been shown to be problematic for people with bowel disease, hypertension, and for postmenopausal women. The bottom line is that this sweetener is not a better alternative than other forms of sugar, and in fact may have hidden long-term effects that have not even surfaced yet, a situation that has proven to be all too true for many modern chemical substances.
The article below discusses a media blitz that is currently underway by the industry that manufacturers and sells HFCS in the hopes that its reputation can be cleaned up. They have chosen to target mothers, presumably because many foods containing large amounts of HFCS are heavily marketed to children.
High Fructose Corn Syrup Mixes It Up
Sweetener Advocate, Soured by Obesity Links, Targets Moms in Ads
By SUZANNE VRANICA
June 23, 2008; Page B7
The high-fructose corn-syrup business is fighting back.
In recent years, there have been a series of research papers and studies linking HFCS to the rise in obesity in the U.S. While sugar has to some degree also been blamed for America's growing weight problems, HFCS, because it is manufactured, has come under greater criticism by consumers and some health professionals.
Now a Washington trade group is trying to rehabilitate the reputation of the longtime sweetener. Beginning today, the Corn Refiners Association is launching a big ad and public-relations campaign to convince consumers that HFCS isn't the evil it has been made out to be.
The group is running full-page ads in more than a dozen major newspapers around the country saying its product is no worse for you than sugar. The ad, which features a stalk of corn, carries the headline: "And Now a Little Food for Thought." The ad goes on to tell readers that lots of foods and beverages are sweetened with "sugars made from corn, such as high-fructose corn syrup" and that it has the "same natural sweeteners as table sugar and honey."
The campaign, created by the Chicago office of Omnicom Group's DDB, includes two other newspaper ads; TV spots that begin in September; and online ads. The lion's share of the ads will run on media that specifically target moms. The group is planning to spend $20 million to $30 million on the 18-month campaign, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The use of HFCS began to spread during the 1980s as food manufacturers sought a less-expensive alternative to sugar. It is used in a long list of products such as soda, salad dressing, ketchup and breakfast cereals.
Some medical and health experts now say that HFCS is similar to sugar, adding that HFCS isn't metabolized by the body any differently than table sugar. Still, most agree that too much of either is not healthy. Last week, the American Medical Association, following its own investigation, announced that HFCS doesn't appear to contribute more to obesity than other caloric sweeteners. Still, the AMA called for further independent research to be done on the health effects of HFCS and also said that consumers should limit the amount of all sweeteners they use.
Its decision comes after some in the medical community called for the AMA to recommend that food companies restrict the use of HFCS or recommend that food companies label products that contain HFCS with a warning.
HFCS "has taken it on the chin in the past few years," says Michael F. Jacobson, executive director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It's essentially identical to sugar." But Mr. Jacobson isn't a fan of either sweetener. "Americans are eating far too much of both," he adds.
While the CRA has been trying to counter the bad publicity around HFCS since 2004, the group could no longer afford to rely on simple grass-roots marketing tactics such as talking with nutritionists and doctors. "The sweetener has been getting a bad rap, and a big reason is there has been no other information in the marketplace to counter the mistruths," says Don Hoffman, an executive vice president at DDB. As part of the marketing effort, the trade group will also have its PR firm conduct phone and in-person conversations with influential mommy bloggers.
Even though some health researchers are now softening their criticism of HFCS, the marketing effort still faces enormous hurdles. Changing the behavior of legions of moms who are growing increasingly leery about processed snacks and ingredients won't be easy, marketing experts say.
Moreover, some marketers have already removed high-fructose corn syrup from their products in an effort to capitalize on the backlash. While small food-and-beverage companies such as Jones Soda were among the first to remove corn syrup and replace it with sugar, the movement is no longer reserved for only niche brands. For instance, food titan Kraft Foods has recently come out with a Bull's-Eye Barbecue Sauce that is HFCS-free. The product "appeals to health-conscious patrons because it contains no high-fructose corn syrup, no fat and no artificial flavors, colors or preservatives," Kraft says on its Web site.
Kraft products that don't include the sweetener include the Back to Nature product line; Nabisco Oreo 100 Calorie Pack Chewy Granola Bars; Lunchables Pizza and some Kraft Salad Dressings. "We know some consumers are interested in items without high-fructose corn syrup, so we have eliminated it in some of our products," says a spokeswoman for the food maker. Kraft says it has no plan to eliminate HFCS entirely from its product line.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121416915596395063.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The Suppression of Alternative Cancer Treatments
The following article is an excellent example of how the medical, academic, media, and governmental systems work together to control and manipulate freedom of information regarding alternative and natural therapies for the treatment of cancer and other diseases. It also gives a true picture of how conventional medicine becomes "disinterested" in any treatment possibility that doesn't bring in high revenues or use pharmaceutical drugs. Because of this quagmire of misinformation and hidden data, thousands of individuals, who may have benefitted tremendously, have died or been ravaged with disease unnecessarily.
If you are forced to deal with a cancer diagnosis or other degenerative diseases, I urge you to take time to research and educate yourself and then work with a health care provider who is open to and knowledgeable about alternative cancer protocols. Many forms of cancer have responded very successfully to alternative forms of treatment, little of which has been disclosed to the general public. Most cancer patients are not told, nor do they realize that there are many options for the cancer patient that exist, some of which include a combination of limited mainstream options in conjunction with a supportive regimen of natural and nutritional medicine which will actually support the body during the healing process.
It is also vital to remember that prevention is the best medicine when it comes to all forms of disease. If we choose to follow a lifestyle that pursues wellness, treating disease will most often be an issue that can be totally avoided. In addition, our bodies will then be better prepared to fight illness if it should occur.
CancerDecisions
Newsletter Archives
For June 22, 2008
A GREAT OPPORTUNITY LOST
Ralph Moss, Ph.D
Many readers have asked what happened to the National Institutes of Health-sponsored clinical trial of the Gonzalez regimen, the one that used orally administered enzymes for the treatment of pancreatic cancer?
In the 1980s, Nicholas Gonzalez, MD, was a disciple of Robert A. Good, MD, PhD, director of Sloan-Kettering Institute, New York. With Good's encouragement, he began a project (while still a Cornell medical student) to evaluate the enzyme treatment of cancer promoted by William Donald Kelley, DDS, of Grapevine, Texas.
Gonzalez felt this treatment was beneficial and eventually opened an office in Manhattan to treat patients using this protocol. He presented 25 of his best cases to the NCI's Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT) in July 1993. The pilot study was published in 1999 in the journal Nutrition and Cancer (Gonzalez 1999). Because of the positive findings of this pilot study, first the National Cancer Institute and then the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) proposed a formal clinical trial of the method.
A decade ago, hopes were high and this trial was promoted as a sterling example of how conventional and alternative medicine could work together for the good of patients, by seeking the truth about the relative merits of various contesting treatments. For example, John Chabot, MD, of the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center of Columbia University, and Dr. Gonzalez spoke from the same podium at the 1999 Center for Mind-Body Medicine conference. It seemed like a transcendent moment.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded a grant of $1.4 million to Dr. Gonzalez. Alas, this clinical trial ran into trouble almost as soon as it was launched in March 1999. The trial was originally designed to randomize 90 pancreatic cancer patients to receive either gemcitabine (Gemzar) chemotherapy or a large daily dose of orally administered pancreatic enzymes. But the key word was 'randomize' -- patients were to be randomly assigned to one or the other group by the computer equivalent of a coin toss. However, most people who were attracted to this trial wanted the enzyme therapy, and not a 50-50 chance of getting chemotherapy. So in the end only three eligible patients agreed to be randomized in this fashion.
Sensing an approaching impasse, in 2000, NIH intervened to change the design. According to a government statement of the time:
"The design of the trial is now changing to a single-armed, non-randomized case-cohort study where patients will only be enrolled in what was the nutritional arm. Researchers plan to compare patients on the Gonzalez regimen to a concurrently accrued group of patients being treated with gemcitabine, although such comparisons are known to be difficult because patients selected for the newer or older treatments may not be entirely comparable."
In fact, the 'de-randomization' of the trial was a major blow to its credibility. I was on a panel of government advisors that was asked to endorse this decision. In a conference call a representative of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated clearly that his agency would not accept the results of any trial that was not fully randomized. Yet the NIH strongly recommended the change and the panel in question voted in favor of changing the protocol for pragmatic reasons.
I will not attempt to trace the deterioration of this trial in the next few years. Simply put, after the "honeymoon" phase of 1999-2000, there came a period of increasing tension between Dr. Gonzalez and the Columbia University investigators. Dr. Gonzalez claimed that after Columbia was chosen as the site of the trial, "the money went into their bank account, all of it, never to be seen again" (personal communication, June 19, 2008). He also claims that he wasn't adequately compensated for his treatment of the patients.
The newly non-randomized trail was supposed to accrue between 72 and 90 participants within the first three years. But it dragged on and on, with insufficient recruitment and a growing atmosphere of disagreement. Finally, in 2007 the trial was suspended. Its entry at www.clinicaltrials.gov states: "This study is ongoing, but not recruiting patients." In fact, the trial in its current incarnation is unlikely ever to start up again.
According to Columbia's own Web site, the Irving Center diagnoses and treats 3,500 cancer cases per year. I find it amazing that Columbia University could not recruit 72 to 90 suitable participants over 8 years. But that was not the limit of potential patients. There could also be referrals from other centers.
Each year, more than 37,000 Americans are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and 34,000 die of this disease. Many people are eventually told that they have the kind of incurable, inoperable disease that was targeted in this trial. Yet NCI and Columbia University between them apparently could not find 70 people to fill the trial, even though about a quarter of a million such patients were diagnosed with this cancer in the US during the period in question.
Imagine if the NCI and NIH, sponsors of the trial, had released a series of press releases, or launched a vigorous advertising campaign, whose purpose was to inform the American public about the availability of this non-toxic dietary treatment for cancer. They could probably have populated a dozen such trials! It seems to me that the basic difficulty was a lack of genuine interest or enthusiasm on the part of the academic participants.
At the same time, the trial came under tremendous pressure from doctors and compliant journalists who opposed the testing of alternative treatments. Sometimes this opposition was little more than a hatchet job.
It was unfortunate that, as time progressed, most of the medico-political support for the trial drained away. At the time of its initiation, some of its prominent supporters included not just members of Congress, but Drs. Ernst Wynder, head of the American Health Foundation, New York; William Fair, MD, chairman of urology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Karen Antman, MD, professor of medicine and pharmacology at Columbia's medical school, and director of Columbia's Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center; Michael A. Friedman, deputy director of the National Cancer Institute; Wayne Jonas, MD, director of the Office of Alternative Medicine (now the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine); and John Paul Jones III, research vice president of the giant Proctor & Gamble company.
What a difference a decade makes! Wynder and Fair died soon afterwards; Antman and Friedman moved to even more prestigious jobs; Jonas was replaced by a new NCCAM director, who was indifferent (if not downright hostile) to the project; and Jones retired from P&G. By 2007, Gonzalez himself had become "One Man Alone" -- ironically, the title of his 1990 monograph on the program's developer, William Donald Kelley, DDS. One hundred years after John Beard, DSc, of the University of Edinburgh, first proposed the treatment of cancer with pancreatic enzymes, this plausible approach still lacks a rigorous clinical trial in humans.
Because of the radically different interpretations being put forward about the trial, Dr. Gonzalez submitted the dispute for adjudication to the Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services. On February 25, 2008 OHRP sent a letter to Steven Shea, MD, Vice President and Dean of the Columbia Center, which is now available online.
This letter from the OHRP confirms some of Dr. Gonzalez's accusations concerning the conduct of this failed trial. The most surprising government finding was as follows: "We note that Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) found that for 40 of 62 subjects it appeared that informed consent was not documented with a signed written consent form prior to the initiation of research activities involving human subjects." Read that over-nearly two-thirds of the participants were not even properly informed of the risks and benefits of participation in the trial!
There were other irregularities as well. The OHRP requested of Columbia's dean: "Please provide us with a corrective action plan that addresses the above determinations by March 21, 2008." The letter does not state whether or not any corrective plan has been proposed.
Dr. Gonzalez alleges much more widespread malfeasance on the part of his erstwhile academic collaborators. It certainly seems that the OHRP charges, although mildly phrased, confirm that all was not as it should have been at Columbia. Given the fact that two-thirds of the subjects did not give proper informed consent - responsibility for which rested entirely with Dr. Chabot and Columbia - one wonders exactly what prospective patients were told about the relative merits of the two arms of the trial. I understand that at least one Congressman, Dan Burton (R-IN), has taken an interest in the failure of this once-promising trial. It is certainly time for a full-scale Congressional investigation of this failure - of what exactly went wrong and, in the broader sense, whether the public is getting the truth about the potential benefits of alternative treatments for cancer.
NOTE: The formal title of the trial was "A Phase III Study of Gemcitabine Compared With Pancreatic Enzyme Therapy Plus Specialized Diet (Gonzalez Regimen) in Treating Patients Who Have Stage II, Stage III or Stage IV Pancreatic Cancer." The principal investigator was the aforementioned Dr. Chabot. The project number was P30-CA13696.
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/062208_page.html
If you are forced to deal with a cancer diagnosis or other degenerative diseases, I urge you to take time to research and educate yourself and then work with a health care provider who is open to and knowledgeable about alternative cancer protocols. Many forms of cancer have responded very successfully to alternative forms of treatment, little of which has been disclosed to the general public. Most cancer patients are not told, nor do they realize that there are many options for the cancer patient that exist, some of which include a combination of limited mainstream options in conjunction with a supportive regimen of natural and nutritional medicine which will actually support the body during the healing process.
It is also vital to remember that prevention is the best medicine when it comes to all forms of disease. If we choose to follow a lifestyle that pursues wellness, treating disease will most often be an issue that can be totally avoided. In addition, our bodies will then be better prepared to fight illness if it should occur.
CancerDecisions
Newsletter Archives
For June 22, 2008
A GREAT OPPORTUNITY LOST
Ralph Moss, Ph.D
Many readers have asked what happened to the National Institutes of Health-sponsored clinical trial of the Gonzalez regimen, the one that used orally administered enzymes for the treatment of pancreatic cancer?
In the 1980s, Nicholas Gonzalez, MD, was a disciple of Robert A. Good, MD, PhD, director of Sloan-Kettering Institute, New York. With Good's encouragement, he began a project (while still a Cornell medical student) to evaluate the enzyme treatment of cancer promoted by William Donald Kelley, DDS, of Grapevine, Texas.
Gonzalez felt this treatment was beneficial and eventually opened an office in Manhattan to treat patients using this protocol. He presented 25 of his best cases to the NCI's Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT) in July 1993. The pilot study was published in 1999 in the journal Nutrition and Cancer (Gonzalez 1999). Because of the positive findings of this pilot study, first the National Cancer Institute and then the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) proposed a formal clinical trial of the method.
A decade ago, hopes were high and this trial was promoted as a sterling example of how conventional and alternative medicine could work together for the good of patients, by seeking the truth about the relative merits of various contesting treatments. For example, John Chabot, MD, of the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center of Columbia University, and Dr. Gonzalez spoke from the same podium at the 1999 Center for Mind-Body Medicine conference. It seemed like a transcendent moment.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded a grant of $1.4 million to Dr. Gonzalez. Alas, this clinical trial ran into trouble almost as soon as it was launched in March 1999. The trial was originally designed to randomize 90 pancreatic cancer patients to receive either gemcitabine (Gemzar) chemotherapy or a large daily dose of orally administered pancreatic enzymes. But the key word was 'randomize' -- patients were to be randomly assigned to one or the other group by the computer equivalent of a coin toss. However, most people who were attracted to this trial wanted the enzyme therapy, and not a 50-50 chance of getting chemotherapy. So in the end only three eligible patients agreed to be randomized in this fashion.
Sensing an approaching impasse, in 2000, NIH intervened to change the design. According to a government statement of the time:
"The design of the trial is now changing to a single-armed, non-randomized case-cohort study where patients will only be enrolled in what was the nutritional arm. Researchers plan to compare patients on the Gonzalez regimen to a concurrently accrued group of patients being treated with gemcitabine, although such comparisons are known to be difficult because patients selected for the newer or older treatments may not be entirely comparable."
In fact, the 'de-randomization' of the trial was a major blow to its credibility. I was on a panel of government advisors that was asked to endorse this decision. In a conference call a representative of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated clearly that his agency would not accept the results of any trial that was not fully randomized. Yet the NIH strongly recommended the change and the panel in question voted in favor of changing the protocol for pragmatic reasons.
I will not attempt to trace the deterioration of this trial in the next few years. Simply put, after the "honeymoon" phase of 1999-2000, there came a period of increasing tension between Dr. Gonzalez and the Columbia University investigators. Dr. Gonzalez claimed that after Columbia was chosen as the site of the trial, "the money went into their bank account, all of it, never to be seen again" (personal communication, June 19, 2008). He also claims that he wasn't adequately compensated for his treatment of the patients.
The newly non-randomized trail was supposed to accrue between 72 and 90 participants within the first three years. But it dragged on and on, with insufficient recruitment and a growing atmosphere of disagreement. Finally, in 2007 the trial was suspended. Its entry at www.clinicaltrials.gov states: "This study is ongoing, but not recruiting patients." In fact, the trial in its current incarnation is unlikely ever to start up again.
According to Columbia's own Web site, the Irving Center diagnoses and treats 3,500 cancer cases per year. I find it amazing that Columbia University could not recruit 72 to 90 suitable participants over 8 years. But that was not the limit of potential patients. There could also be referrals from other centers.
Each year, more than 37,000 Americans are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and 34,000 die of this disease. Many people are eventually told that they have the kind of incurable, inoperable disease that was targeted in this trial. Yet NCI and Columbia University between them apparently could not find 70 people to fill the trial, even though about a quarter of a million such patients were diagnosed with this cancer in the US during the period in question.
Imagine if the NCI and NIH, sponsors of the trial, had released a series of press releases, or launched a vigorous advertising campaign, whose purpose was to inform the American public about the availability of this non-toxic dietary treatment for cancer. They could probably have populated a dozen such trials! It seems to me that the basic difficulty was a lack of genuine interest or enthusiasm on the part of the academic participants.
At the same time, the trial came under tremendous pressure from doctors and compliant journalists who opposed the testing of alternative treatments. Sometimes this opposition was little more than a hatchet job.
It was unfortunate that, as time progressed, most of the medico-political support for the trial drained away. At the time of its initiation, some of its prominent supporters included not just members of Congress, but Drs. Ernst Wynder, head of the American Health Foundation, New York; William Fair, MD, chairman of urology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Karen Antman, MD, professor of medicine and pharmacology at Columbia's medical school, and director of Columbia's Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center; Michael A. Friedman, deputy director of the National Cancer Institute; Wayne Jonas, MD, director of the Office of Alternative Medicine (now the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine); and John Paul Jones III, research vice president of the giant Proctor & Gamble company.
What a difference a decade makes! Wynder and Fair died soon afterwards; Antman and Friedman moved to even more prestigious jobs; Jonas was replaced by a new NCCAM director, who was indifferent (if not downright hostile) to the project; and Jones retired from P&G. By 2007, Gonzalez himself had become "One Man Alone" -- ironically, the title of his 1990 monograph on the program's developer, William Donald Kelley, DDS. One hundred years after John Beard, DSc, of the University of Edinburgh, first proposed the treatment of cancer with pancreatic enzymes, this plausible approach still lacks a rigorous clinical trial in humans.
Because of the radically different interpretations being put forward about the trial, Dr. Gonzalez submitted the dispute for adjudication to the Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services. On February 25, 2008 OHRP sent a letter to Steven Shea, MD, Vice President and Dean of the Columbia Center, which is now available online.
This letter from the OHRP confirms some of Dr. Gonzalez's accusations concerning the conduct of this failed trial. The most surprising government finding was as follows: "We note that Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) found that for 40 of 62 subjects it appeared that informed consent was not documented with a signed written consent form prior to the initiation of research activities involving human subjects." Read that over-nearly two-thirds of the participants were not even properly informed of the risks and benefits of participation in the trial!
There were other irregularities as well. The OHRP requested of Columbia's dean: "Please provide us with a corrective action plan that addresses the above determinations by March 21, 2008." The letter does not state whether or not any corrective plan has been proposed.
Dr. Gonzalez alleges much more widespread malfeasance on the part of his erstwhile academic collaborators. It certainly seems that the OHRP charges, although mildly phrased, confirm that all was not as it should have been at Columbia. Given the fact that two-thirds of the subjects did not give proper informed consent - responsibility for which rested entirely with Dr. Chabot and Columbia - one wonders exactly what prospective patients were told about the relative merits of the two arms of the trial. I understand that at least one Congressman, Dan Burton (R-IN), has taken an interest in the failure of this once-promising trial. It is certainly time for a full-scale Congressional investigation of this failure - of what exactly went wrong and, in the broader sense, whether the public is getting the truth about the potential benefits of alternative treatments for cancer.
NOTE: The formal title of the trial was "A Phase III Study of Gemcitabine Compared With Pancreatic Enzyme Therapy Plus Specialized Diet (Gonzalez Regimen) in Treating Patients Who Have Stage II, Stage III or Stage IV Pancreatic Cancer." The principal investigator was the aforementioned Dr. Chabot. The project number was P30-CA13696.
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/062208_page.html
Monday, June 23, 2008
Can You Trust Your Doctor?
The following insightful article is a must read for everyone who is concerned about their own health and welfare and the integrity of the American medical system. It addresses some of the key issues that were brought to the forefront by the sudden death of popular newsman Tim Russert last week. It appears that Mr. Russert was following the advice of his medical providers to the tee, trusting that his best interests were at heart. Perhaps his doctors even believed that he was getting the best possible care, for it is sad but true that most physicians are taught that the use of pharmaceutical drugs, despite their sometimes deadly risks, still provides the best options for patients.
The author of this article points out some practical steps, such as dealing with obesity, which may have saved Russert's life, and may also save your life or that of someone you love. He also clearly reveals one of the major dilemmas of modern medicine: Physicians who are taught to treat "numbers" rather than people. Tim Russert's death is an indictment against a system that is fueled by the profits of Big Pharma, and one that thus seeks to "treat" disease rather than provide wellness. Radical changes are needed in American healthcare, and it behooves each and every one of us to take it upon ourselves to be thoroughly educated and involved in all decisions regarding the care of ourselves and our families. It is tragic that in many cases one can end up sicker and at greater risk for an untimely death after seeking out the care and advice of a healthcare professional in this country.
Western Medicine Fails Tim Russert
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Byron Richards, CCN
The shocking death of Tim Russert last Friday has left an entire nation wondering what happened. He was a model patient, doing everything his doctors asked. All major media have run articles trying to explain the nuances and difficulties in treating coronary artery disease. These articles find little fault in Russert's care, trying to create the idea that his heart attack was just too hard to predict and that all that could have been done for him was done. I beg to differ. His death represents the failure of standard medical care to produce a positive result -- an occurrence that is all too common in today's world.
Talk show hosts lament the death of Russert as the death of an icon and one of the last men of news not suffering from flagrant political bias. His piercing, accurate, and fair questions often got to the source of many issues and exposed the truth for what it was. Now that he is gone who is left to ask the questions -- even about his death?
Russert's doctor, Michael Newman, has not disclosed his medication list or any specific changes in medication doses in the past year. Why? What is he trying to hide? Russert's death is a matter of tremendous public interest, partly because the man was admired by so many and partly because there are millions of men out there wondering if they are the next Tim Russert. There is no excuse for anything but full disclosure of his health issues so that a proper public dialogue can take place that may help many others.
A Glaring Omission of the Facts
The most glaring omitted information from Russert's doctor is telling us what diabetes medication he was taking. I am willing to bet that he was taking Avandia, the drug the FDA should have pulled off the market because it causes a whopping 43% increased risk of a sudden heart attack, information the FDA actively sought to sequester during that drug's approval process. Why do I think that? Because in the scant health data his doctor is giving out he has stated that Russert had high triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol -- the exact metabolic profile that Avandia is supposed to treat. When a treatment has death as a common side effect it can hardly be considered a treatment.
Could it be that Russert is a casualty of one of the great Big Pharma/FDA scams currently going on? How ironic, since all news programs are sponsored by this industry's ads and the media fought tooth and claw in the past year to ensure that dangerous drug ads could continue to run non-stop during all news programs -- exposing millions of Americans to drug-induced injury (while they got their billions in ad revenues). I am stunned that no reporter interviewing his doctor seems to be able to ask such an obvious question.
Russert's Doctor Failed Him
Russert was significantly obese and had been for many years. Any doctor that couldn't guess his coronary arteries were full of plaque is not very bright. Once a man's waistline passes 40 inches you can rest assured plaque is forming in his arteries -- you don't need a test. The longer you are in this condition the worse the plaque buildup is going to be. This is not rocket science. His autopsy showed a number of significantly clogged arteries which seemed to surprise his doctor and other "experts." Apparently they forgot to take Plaque 101 in medical school.
By the time Russert's weight problem had progressed to the point of diabetes a major intervention should have been done. He should have been read the riot act. He should have been told that his higher blood sugar would now be caramelizing (cementing) his arteries and vital organs, like spilling sugary syrup on the counter and letting it turn hard -- and that sooner or later something would certainly break.
He should have been told that his excessive abdominal fat clearly predicts that his liver and kidneys look more like a piece of bacon than lean beef. He should have been told that his low HDL cholesterol was due to free radical damage, meaning his lipids were being oxidized in his blood from some form of toxin or stress (such as oxidized adrenaline). He should have been told that this same problem will "cook" the fat that is marbleizing his liver and eventually make it look like a piece of overcooked meat.
He should have been told that his fat stomach was now his worst enemy, cranking out more inflammatory signals on a daily basis than any other stress he was under. He should have been told that the outsides of his arteries were also getting fat, and this excess fat was recruiting macrophages to the outer lining of his arteries that were in turn forming abnormal inflammatory gangs along his arteries that were going to drastically alter the function of his arteries.
His doctor should have scared the hell out of him because behavior changes in men seldom take place unless there is adequate pain. And then he should have given him the facts of the simple solution "Tim, all you have to do is get in a healthy pattern where you lose 20% of your weight, at which point your risk factor for a heart attack drops to close to zero. Then, if you keep losing 1-2 pounds a month you will maintain this very low risk pattern while you are getting back in shape. In fact, by losing the weight you can go a long way towards reversing all of these problems."
He should have been told that his real risk for a heart attack was based on his overall inflammation burden (wear and tear), and that if he managed this trend well he would have much less risk of any problem. He needed to start by managing his weight, because that was a major source of inflammation. He needed to make sure he got enough sleep at night to recover from wear and tear. And he really needed to watch his work load as pushing himself into the ground was no longer a safe option.
Of course I do not know what conversations took place between Russert and his doctor, but considering that his doctor is also overweight it probably wasn't anything like the above and it certainly wasn't effective. What Russert's doctor did was what virtually all doctors do in this country; they pull out the Big Pharma tool box and begin aggressively treating numbers on paper instead of the patient in front of them.
Sure we can say that Russert's problems were self inflicted. But why then do we need doctors? Don't doctors have an obligation to do everything in their power to help a person get well? Or are doctors nothing more than part of the Big Pharma drug cartel?
The Cardiovascular Drug Quagmire
Drugs buy you time if you are lucky. The problem with cardiovascular drugs that make numbers look better on paper is that they make your health worse the longer you use them -- and your Big Pharma-trained doctors expect you to use them forever. It was quite clear back in February of this year, when the ACCORD trial turned in dismal results, that the greater the number of cardiovascular drugs given to a diabetic to manage his condition the more likely he was to die.
Russert's doctor said he was taking a statin even though his cholesterol wasn't high. Yes, this is now standard medical care. Anyone at risk gets their cholesterol system placed in a statin straightjacket. This is one of the dumbest things you would ever want to do, since cholesterol synthesis is the foundation of survival in your body. The American Heart Association actively promotes this fraud at considerable profit for its bedfellows with consequent death for many Americans.
Tim Russert is a great example proving that statins are useless -- and likely dangerous. Statins are now proven to activate a gene called atrogin-1, a gene that is abnormal to activate and directly damages muscle. This reduces the effectiveness of muscles to perform exercise, reducing Russert's chance of losing weight. The heart is also a muscle, meaning that statins can induce direct heart damage via atrogin-1 activation. Statins also reduce the production of coenzyme Q10, leading to cardiac malfunction.
Russert's autopsy showed his heart was enlarged, meaning it was structurally abnormal and headed in the direction of failure. This finding surprised his doctor, apparently meaning that this change in his heart was recent. Was this simply a progression of his condition or was this caused by statins? Nobody really knows, but rest assured his doctor and the general statin-prescribing community will blame his underlying health when in fact the accelerated deterioration of the heart often happens after starting statin therapy or when statin doses are raised. This is why the public needs to know what kind of statin Russert was on, what was the dose, and had it been raised in the past year. The simple fact of the case is that Russert's heart was not working well prior to the arterial clot that caused his fatal heart attack -- and this means that he had less of a chance of surviving the heart attack. There is a high likelihood this handicap in heart function was the result of the statin he was taking.
There is also the plain observation that Russert did not have high cholesterol in the first place, yet his autopsy showed that he had a number of coronary arteries full of plaque. What does that say for the cholesterol theory of heart disease? It means that cholesterol numbers on paper are a near useless marker of actual health. It means that taking statins didn't make any difference to Russert at all, except in a likely adverse way. And it means that nothing effective was actually done to help him. In other words, the theory of statins and trying to lower cholesterol to abnormally low levels to prevent a heart attack, as clearly exposed by the massive Vytorin drug fraud, is a 20-billion-dollar a year racket. It is propped up by groups like the American Heart Association who will do almost anything to maintain their grip on public health, power, and money -- regardless of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who die each year while receiving such treatment.
Russert was being treated for coronary artery disease, which involves the use of blood pressure medications such as beta blockers and calcium channel blockers. These medications put Russert's heart in a medical wheelchair. Maybe one day doctors will learn there is a huge difference between having good blood pressure because you are healthy and having good blood pressure numbers because you are taking medication.
Blood pressure medication restricts cardiovascular function, which means by definition that circulatory pressure and thus circulation to small blood vessels and numerous end points of circulation throughout your body is reduced. This means that nutrients and oxygen do not reach many cells and organs appropriately; creating acid pH and inflammation as an undesirable side effect. This causes many people taking these medications to become fatigued and gain weight or not be able to lose weight, a problem that is generally ignored yet directly makes the underlying cardiovascular problem worse.
In Russert's case his doctor has not disclosed his exact blood pressure medications, other than to say his blood pressure had risen recently. This likely meant he increased the dose of medication. Thus, in the months leading up to his death Russert was going all out trying to cover the elections while at the same time he was taking higher amounts of anti-energy blood pressure drugs that increased fatigue and wear and tear.
The Long Plane Flight
The straw that broke the camel's back was most likely the long plane flight Russert took as he and his family returned from a vacation to Italy the day before his death. The low cabin pressure for an extended period of time, combined with the lack of movement, places significant stress on both the circulatory and lymphatic systems. This subjected Russert to a low-oxygen pro-inflammatory stress that is known to be associated with increased clotting risk -- especially in somebody who is at risk in the first place. The pro-clotting strain of that flight would persist for the next several days, at least.
Russert had a combination of factors that were not working in his favor. He had just been through months of grueling wear and tear covering the elections. Tom Brokaw reported that Russert had pushed himself too exhaustion a number of times. This means he had created a baseline of wear and tear that was pushing the inflammatory limits, a problem that tends to congest his lymphatic trash removal processes. At the same time, flying in an airplane is always a challenge to anyone's lymph system, based on changes in pressure. If there is already pre-existing lymph stagnation from wear and tear -- a long airplane flight can be a real problem.
It is worth noting that blood pressure medication, especially if the dose is too high, is a significant handicap in terms of being able to tolerate the pressure changes and lower oxygen problem of a long plane flight. This is because the forced reduction in pressure by the medication causes the lymph system to lose "tone," in turn promoting even further lymph stagnation.
These problems were compounded by Russert's high level of triglycerides, which are fat blobs just sitting in his circulation. These are like Mack trucks reducing the flow of traffic -- significantly compounding the pressure problem of stagnation induced by the flight along with the other wear and tear factors.
Thus, after his plane flight Russert was left in a significant pro-inflammatory and pro-clotting state. If he would have taken a few days off to rest and recover he may well be alive today. But no, he dragged his jet-lagged body out of bed, put it on a treadmill for a while (inducing further wear and tear considering the circumstances), and then went off to work. He was never to return.
The Tim Russert tragedy does have a take home message for men -- wake up.
http://www.wellnessresources.com/content/printable/western_medicine_fails_tim_russert/
The author of this article points out some practical steps, such as dealing with obesity, which may have saved Russert's life, and may also save your life or that of someone you love. He also clearly reveals one of the major dilemmas of modern medicine: Physicians who are taught to treat "numbers" rather than people. Tim Russert's death is an indictment against a system that is fueled by the profits of Big Pharma, and one that thus seeks to "treat" disease rather than provide wellness. Radical changes are needed in American healthcare, and it behooves each and every one of us to take it upon ourselves to be thoroughly educated and involved in all decisions regarding the care of ourselves and our families. It is tragic that in many cases one can end up sicker and at greater risk for an untimely death after seeking out the care and advice of a healthcare professional in this country.
Western Medicine Fails Tim Russert
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Byron Richards, CCN
The shocking death of Tim Russert last Friday has left an entire nation wondering what happened. He was a model patient, doing everything his doctors asked. All major media have run articles trying to explain the nuances and difficulties in treating coronary artery disease. These articles find little fault in Russert's care, trying to create the idea that his heart attack was just too hard to predict and that all that could have been done for him was done. I beg to differ. His death represents the failure of standard medical care to produce a positive result -- an occurrence that is all too common in today's world.
Talk show hosts lament the death of Russert as the death of an icon and one of the last men of news not suffering from flagrant political bias. His piercing, accurate, and fair questions often got to the source of many issues and exposed the truth for what it was. Now that he is gone who is left to ask the questions -- even about his death?
Russert's doctor, Michael Newman, has not disclosed his medication list or any specific changes in medication doses in the past year. Why? What is he trying to hide? Russert's death is a matter of tremendous public interest, partly because the man was admired by so many and partly because there are millions of men out there wondering if they are the next Tim Russert. There is no excuse for anything but full disclosure of his health issues so that a proper public dialogue can take place that may help many others.
A Glaring Omission of the Facts
The most glaring omitted information from Russert's doctor is telling us what diabetes medication he was taking. I am willing to bet that he was taking Avandia, the drug the FDA should have pulled off the market because it causes a whopping 43% increased risk of a sudden heart attack, information the FDA actively sought to sequester during that drug's approval process. Why do I think that? Because in the scant health data his doctor is giving out he has stated that Russert had high triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol -- the exact metabolic profile that Avandia is supposed to treat. When a treatment has death as a common side effect it can hardly be considered a treatment.
Could it be that Russert is a casualty of one of the great Big Pharma/FDA scams currently going on? How ironic, since all news programs are sponsored by this industry's ads and the media fought tooth and claw in the past year to ensure that dangerous drug ads could continue to run non-stop during all news programs -- exposing millions of Americans to drug-induced injury (while they got their billions in ad revenues). I am stunned that no reporter interviewing his doctor seems to be able to ask such an obvious question.
Russert's Doctor Failed Him
Russert was significantly obese and had been for many years. Any doctor that couldn't guess his coronary arteries were full of plaque is not very bright. Once a man's waistline passes 40 inches you can rest assured plaque is forming in his arteries -- you don't need a test. The longer you are in this condition the worse the plaque buildup is going to be. This is not rocket science. His autopsy showed a number of significantly clogged arteries which seemed to surprise his doctor and other "experts." Apparently they forgot to take Plaque 101 in medical school.
By the time Russert's weight problem had progressed to the point of diabetes a major intervention should have been done. He should have been read the riot act. He should have been told that his higher blood sugar would now be caramelizing (cementing) his arteries and vital organs, like spilling sugary syrup on the counter and letting it turn hard -- and that sooner or later something would certainly break.
He should have been told that his excessive abdominal fat clearly predicts that his liver and kidneys look more like a piece of bacon than lean beef. He should have been told that his low HDL cholesterol was due to free radical damage, meaning his lipids were being oxidized in his blood from some form of toxin or stress (such as oxidized adrenaline). He should have been told that this same problem will "cook" the fat that is marbleizing his liver and eventually make it look like a piece of overcooked meat.
He should have been told that his fat stomach was now his worst enemy, cranking out more inflammatory signals on a daily basis than any other stress he was under. He should have been told that the outsides of his arteries were also getting fat, and this excess fat was recruiting macrophages to the outer lining of his arteries that were in turn forming abnormal inflammatory gangs along his arteries that were going to drastically alter the function of his arteries.
His doctor should have scared the hell out of him because behavior changes in men seldom take place unless there is adequate pain. And then he should have given him the facts of the simple solution "Tim, all you have to do is get in a healthy pattern where you lose 20% of your weight, at which point your risk factor for a heart attack drops to close to zero. Then, if you keep losing 1-2 pounds a month you will maintain this very low risk pattern while you are getting back in shape. In fact, by losing the weight you can go a long way towards reversing all of these problems."
He should have been told that his real risk for a heart attack was based on his overall inflammation burden (wear and tear), and that if he managed this trend well he would have much less risk of any problem. He needed to start by managing his weight, because that was a major source of inflammation. He needed to make sure he got enough sleep at night to recover from wear and tear. And he really needed to watch his work load as pushing himself into the ground was no longer a safe option.
Of course I do not know what conversations took place between Russert and his doctor, but considering that his doctor is also overweight it probably wasn't anything like the above and it certainly wasn't effective. What Russert's doctor did was what virtually all doctors do in this country; they pull out the Big Pharma tool box and begin aggressively treating numbers on paper instead of the patient in front of them.
Sure we can say that Russert's problems were self inflicted. But why then do we need doctors? Don't doctors have an obligation to do everything in their power to help a person get well? Or are doctors nothing more than part of the Big Pharma drug cartel?
The Cardiovascular Drug Quagmire
Drugs buy you time if you are lucky. The problem with cardiovascular drugs that make numbers look better on paper is that they make your health worse the longer you use them -- and your Big Pharma-trained doctors expect you to use them forever. It was quite clear back in February of this year, when the ACCORD trial turned in dismal results, that the greater the number of cardiovascular drugs given to a diabetic to manage his condition the more likely he was to die.
Russert's doctor said he was taking a statin even though his cholesterol wasn't high. Yes, this is now standard medical care. Anyone at risk gets their cholesterol system placed in a statin straightjacket. This is one of the dumbest things you would ever want to do, since cholesterol synthesis is the foundation of survival in your body. The American Heart Association actively promotes this fraud at considerable profit for its bedfellows with consequent death for many Americans.
Tim Russert is a great example proving that statins are useless -- and likely dangerous. Statins are now proven to activate a gene called atrogin-1, a gene that is abnormal to activate and directly damages muscle. This reduces the effectiveness of muscles to perform exercise, reducing Russert's chance of losing weight. The heart is also a muscle, meaning that statins can induce direct heart damage via atrogin-1 activation. Statins also reduce the production of coenzyme Q10, leading to cardiac malfunction.
Russert's autopsy showed his heart was enlarged, meaning it was structurally abnormal and headed in the direction of failure. This finding surprised his doctor, apparently meaning that this change in his heart was recent. Was this simply a progression of his condition or was this caused by statins? Nobody really knows, but rest assured his doctor and the general statin-prescribing community will blame his underlying health when in fact the accelerated deterioration of the heart often happens after starting statin therapy or when statin doses are raised. This is why the public needs to know what kind of statin Russert was on, what was the dose, and had it been raised in the past year. The simple fact of the case is that Russert's heart was not working well prior to the arterial clot that caused his fatal heart attack -- and this means that he had less of a chance of surviving the heart attack. There is a high likelihood this handicap in heart function was the result of the statin he was taking.
There is also the plain observation that Russert did not have high cholesterol in the first place, yet his autopsy showed that he had a number of coronary arteries full of plaque. What does that say for the cholesterol theory of heart disease? It means that cholesterol numbers on paper are a near useless marker of actual health. It means that taking statins didn't make any difference to Russert at all, except in a likely adverse way. And it means that nothing effective was actually done to help him. In other words, the theory of statins and trying to lower cholesterol to abnormally low levels to prevent a heart attack, as clearly exposed by the massive Vytorin drug fraud, is a 20-billion-dollar a year racket. It is propped up by groups like the American Heart Association who will do almost anything to maintain their grip on public health, power, and money -- regardless of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who die each year while receiving such treatment.
Russert was being treated for coronary artery disease, which involves the use of blood pressure medications such as beta blockers and calcium channel blockers. These medications put Russert's heart in a medical wheelchair. Maybe one day doctors will learn there is a huge difference between having good blood pressure because you are healthy and having good blood pressure numbers because you are taking medication.
Blood pressure medication restricts cardiovascular function, which means by definition that circulatory pressure and thus circulation to small blood vessels and numerous end points of circulation throughout your body is reduced. This means that nutrients and oxygen do not reach many cells and organs appropriately; creating acid pH and inflammation as an undesirable side effect. This causes many people taking these medications to become fatigued and gain weight or not be able to lose weight, a problem that is generally ignored yet directly makes the underlying cardiovascular problem worse.
In Russert's case his doctor has not disclosed his exact blood pressure medications, other than to say his blood pressure had risen recently. This likely meant he increased the dose of medication. Thus, in the months leading up to his death Russert was going all out trying to cover the elections while at the same time he was taking higher amounts of anti-energy blood pressure drugs that increased fatigue and wear and tear.
The Long Plane Flight
The straw that broke the camel's back was most likely the long plane flight Russert took as he and his family returned from a vacation to Italy the day before his death. The low cabin pressure for an extended period of time, combined with the lack of movement, places significant stress on both the circulatory and lymphatic systems. This subjected Russert to a low-oxygen pro-inflammatory stress that is known to be associated with increased clotting risk -- especially in somebody who is at risk in the first place. The pro-clotting strain of that flight would persist for the next several days, at least.
Russert had a combination of factors that were not working in his favor. He had just been through months of grueling wear and tear covering the elections. Tom Brokaw reported that Russert had pushed himself too exhaustion a number of times. This means he had created a baseline of wear and tear that was pushing the inflammatory limits, a problem that tends to congest his lymphatic trash removal processes. At the same time, flying in an airplane is always a challenge to anyone's lymph system, based on changes in pressure. If there is already pre-existing lymph stagnation from wear and tear -- a long airplane flight can be a real problem.
It is worth noting that blood pressure medication, especially if the dose is too high, is a significant handicap in terms of being able to tolerate the pressure changes and lower oxygen problem of a long plane flight. This is because the forced reduction in pressure by the medication causes the lymph system to lose "tone," in turn promoting even further lymph stagnation.
These problems were compounded by Russert's high level of triglycerides, which are fat blobs just sitting in his circulation. These are like Mack trucks reducing the flow of traffic -- significantly compounding the pressure problem of stagnation induced by the flight along with the other wear and tear factors.
Thus, after his plane flight Russert was left in a significant pro-inflammatory and pro-clotting state. If he would have taken a few days off to rest and recover he may well be alive today. But no, he dragged his jet-lagged body out of bed, put it on a treadmill for a while (inducing further wear and tear considering the circumstances), and then went off to work. He was never to return.
The Tim Russert tragedy does have a take home message for men -- wake up.
http://www.wellnessresources.com/content/printable/western_medicine_fails_tim_russert/
Friday, June 20, 2008
Ron Paul Switches Political Gears
Today's post is a good news bad news scenario: The bad news is that Ron Paul, champion of health freedoms and other sane policies that allow Americans to govern themselves, has given up his bid for President. The good news is that he is not ceasing to spread his vision, but is now focusing on educating people and on political races at lower levels of government where it is easier to have a substantial impact and realistically overcome the establishment.
It was exciting to see someone with such values running for national office, but in the world of politics such as it is, to take on the major parties with all their clout and financial support is truly a David and Goliath story, and one which was a longshot from the start. However, just because Mr. Paul did not get a place on the ballot in November does not mean that his efforts were wasted. The Paul campaign has given many people food for thought and introduced the public to different ways of handling issues that may result in much fruit down the road. It would be much more powerful to influence a change in the overall way Americans think than to simply have one man in power for a time who marches to a different drummer.
Kudos to you and your supporters Ron! We are grateful for your hard work and willingness to stand for truth and the liberty of all free-thinking Americans.
Ron Paul Formally Ends Prez Campaign, Starts "Campaign For Liberty."
By Sarah Lai Stirland
June 12, 2008 10:04:46 PM
Categories: Election '08
Texas congressman Ron Paul will formally end his presidential campaign this evening and announce the launch of a new project called the "Campaign for Liberty," reports ABC News.
The group will fund the campaigns of political candidates at all levels of government, and work as an educational outreach effort. According to the project's new web site:
The work of the Campaign for Liberty will take many forms. We will educate our fellow Americans in freedom, sound money, non-interventionism, and free markets. We'll have our own commentaries and videos on the news of the day. I'll work with friends I respect to design materials for homeschoolers.
Politically, we'll expand the great work of our precinct leader program. We'll make our presence felt at every level of government, where just a few people with our level of enthusiasm can make a world of difference. We'll keep an eye on Congress and lobby against legislation that threatens us. We'll identify and support political candidates who champion our great ideas against the empty suits the party establishments offer the public.
We will be a permanent presence on the American political landscape. That I promise you. We're not about to let all this good work die. To the contrary, with your help we're going to make it grow -- by leaps and bounds.
The campaign will stream Paul's speech about the subject from a rally in Houston, Texas at 9 pm central time.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/ron-paul-formal.html
It was exciting to see someone with such values running for national office, but in the world of politics such as it is, to take on the major parties with all their clout and financial support is truly a David and Goliath story, and one which was a longshot from the start. However, just because Mr. Paul did not get a place on the ballot in November does not mean that his efforts were wasted. The Paul campaign has given many people food for thought and introduced the public to different ways of handling issues that may result in much fruit down the road. It would be much more powerful to influence a change in the overall way Americans think than to simply have one man in power for a time who marches to a different drummer.
Kudos to you and your supporters Ron! We are grateful for your hard work and willingness to stand for truth and the liberty of all free-thinking Americans.
Ron Paul Formally Ends Prez Campaign, Starts "Campaign For Liberty."
By Sarah Lai Stirland
June 12, 2008 10:04:46 PM
Categories: Election '08
Texas congressman Ron Paul will formally end his presidential campaign this evening and announce the launch of a new project called the "Campaign for Liberty," reports ABC News.
The group will fund the campaigns of political candidates at all levels of government, and work as an educational outreach effort. According to the project's new web site:
The work of the Campaign for Liberty will take many forms. We will educate our fellow Americans in freedom, sound money, non-interventionism, and free markets. We'll have our own commentaries and videos on the news of the day. I'll work with friends I respect to design materials for homeschoolers.
Politically, we'll expand the great work of our precinct leader program. We'll make our presence felt at every level of government, where just a few people with our level of enthusiasm can make a world of difference. We'll keep an eye on Congress and lobby against legislation that threatens us. We'll identify and support political candidates who champion our great ideas against the empty suits the party establishments offer the public.
We will be a permanent presence on the American political landscape. That I promise you. We're not about to let all this good work die. To the contrary, with your help we're going to make it grow -- by leaps and bounds.
The campaign will stream Paul's speech about the subject from a rally in Houston, Texas at 9 pm central time.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/ron-paul-formal.html
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Enjoy Your Pets Safely
The therapeutic value of owning a pet can be very significant, and relationships with animals can bring much pleasure and healing into our lives. However, our pets can be at risk for infections and disease just as we humans are. Today's article discusses some tips that can help you and your pet to stay well and avoid disease.
It is possible for animals to pass along disease to humans, and this is particularly an issue for individuals who have a compromised immune system or for young children whose immune systems are not yet fully developed. It is wise to be aware of some basic practices that will lessen the risk of illness for both you and your pets. Preventative health care is a wonderful philosophy to live by, and it can apply to your cat, dog, or other pets just as much as it much as it can to the rest of the family.
Deadly Diseases You Can Catch From Your Pet
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
By Jessica Ryen Doyle
Pets can serve as wonderful companions -- and owning one certainly has many physical and mental health benefits.
However, with the summer months upon us, it is likely your pets will be spending more time outdoors, leaving them prone to zoonotic diseases -- diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans.
A Corpus Christi, Texas, man and his daughter spent weeks in the hospital because of a diseased cockatiel bought from a PetSmart store, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday by the man's family.
Joe De La Garza, 63, later died of psittacosis, KRIS 6 News reported.
"There have been over 250 zoonotic diseases identified," said Dr. Roger Mahr, past president of the American Veterinary Medical Association. "There is a particular focus on household pets."
They are definitely an area of concern. More than 60 percent of U.S. households have pets and the value of that companionship has been recognized.
Zoonotic diseases, which present themselves in the form of bacteria, viruses and fungal infections, can be transmitted from animals to humans four ways, Mahr said:
1. Direct contact with the animal or the animal's surroundings;
2. Oral ingestion of the animal's feces or things that have touched the animal's waste;
3. Aerosol contact, including contaminated droplets in the air such as when the animal sneezes or when a bird stirs up its feathers and/or waste from the cage and the human breathes it in;
4. Vector-borne transmission, including fleas, ticks and mosquitoes.
Mahr, a Chicago-area veterinarian, said the following are common diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans:
*Parasites. Internal parasites such as hookworms or roundworms can produce larvae, which can migrate through the human's body and go through various body organs, including the eyes or skin. External parasites include fleas and ticks.
*Rabies. Transmitted through the saliva of an animal, vaccines are available. Take precautions when you are around strange animals that could bite.
*Ringworms. A fungus that lives on the skin of dogs and cats, the spores can be transmitted from the body of the animal to the human through direct contact.
*Psittacosis. This is a bacterial infection that is frequently transmitted by birds. Usually, a bird with psittacosis will be asymptomatic, Mahr said. By the time a person has developed the disease, he or she will have respiratory flu-like symptoms. People might not realize their illness is life-threatening until it has already affected major organs like the heart, liver or kidneys, he added.
*Salmonella. "We hear about it in food," Mahr said, "but it's an intestinal bacteria that's also carried through feces, particularly in reptiles and amphibians." Mahr said parents should discourage young children from handling frogs and snakes.
*Leptospirosis. This is a bacterial infection transmitted by handling infected urine and then touching your mouth. A vaccine is available, Mahr said.
"The No. 1 way to prevent the transmission of these diseases is to wash one's hands," Mahr said. "Wash your hands before preparing food and after handling pets, especially after cleaning up their waste -- even if you are just cleaning their cage or handling their bedding."
Besides hand-washing, Mahr suggested these tips to prevent transmission of zoonotic diseases:
*Make sure your pet has regular veterinary check-ups and receives the necessary vaccinations and preventative medications;
*Clean up litter boxes and waste in the yard immediately after the pet relieves itself;
*Wear gloves when cleaning up any waste material and when cleaning your fish tank;
*Avoid walking your pet in wooded areas where ticks and mosquitoes live, or areas where rodents and raccoons may be; they carry diseases, too;
*Check your pet on a regular basis for parasites, particularly after it has been outside;
*Avoid letting your pet lick your face. Animals have bacteria and sometimes yeast infections that live in their mouths. For children or people with suppressed immune systems, this can be especially dangerous;
*Be careful of cat scratches. Cats can carry bacteria on their paws and nails.
Mahr cautioned that if a pet is coughing persistently or has diarrhea, it shoud be taken to the veterinarian immediately. These can be symptoms of zoonotic diseases.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,368502,00.html
It is possible for animals to pass along disease to humans, and this is particularly an issue for individuals who have a compromised immune system or for young children whose immune systems are not yet fully developed. It is wise to be aware of some basic practices that will lessen the risk of illness for both you and your pets. Preventative health care is a wonderful philosophy to live by, and it can apply to your cat, dog, or other pets just as much as it much as it can to the rest of the family.
Deadly Diseases You Can Catch From Your Pet
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
By Jessica Ryen Doyle
Pets can serve as wonderful companions -- and owning one certainly has many physical and mental health benefits.
However, with the summer months upon us, it is likely your pets will be spending more time outdoors, leaving them prone to zoonotic diseases -- diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans.
A Corpus Christi, Texas, man and his daughter spent weeks in the hospital because of a diseased cockatiel bought from a PetSmart store, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday by the man's family.
Joe De La Garza, 63, later died of psittacosis, KRIS 6 News reported.
"There have been over 250 zoonotic diseases identified," said Dr. Roger Mahr, past president of the American Veterinary Medical Association. "There is a particular focus on household pets."
They are definitely an area of concern. More than 60 percent of U.S. households have pets and the value of that companionship has been recognized.
Zoonotic diseases, which present themselves in the form of bacteria, viruses and fungal infections, can be transmitted from animals to humans four ways, Mahr said:
1. Direct contact with the animal or the animal's surroundings;
2. Oral ingestion of the animal's feces or things that have touched the animal's waste;
3. Aerosol contact, including contaminated droplets in the air such as when the animal sneezes or when a bird stirs up its feathers and/or waste from the cage and the human breathes it in;
4. Vector-borne transmission, including fleas, ticks and mosquitoes.
Mahr, a Chicago-area veterinarian, said the following are common diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans:
*Parasites. Internal parasites such as hookworms or roundworms can produce larvae, which can migrate through the human's body and go through various body organs, including the eyes or skin. External parasites include fleas and ticks.
*Rabies. Transmitted through the saliva of an animal, vaccines are available. Take precautions when you are around strange animals that could bite.
*Ringworms. A fungus that lives on the skin of dogs and cats, the spores can be transmitted from the body of the animal to the human through direct contact.
*Psittacosis. This is a bacterial infection that is frequently transmitted by birds. Usually, a bird with psittacosis will be asymptomatic, Mahr said. By the time a person has developed the disease, he or she will have respiratory flu-like symptoms. People might not realize their illness is life-threatening until it has already affected major organs like the heart, liver or kidneys, he added.
*Salmonella. "We hear about it in food," Mahr said, "but it's an intestinal bacteria that's also carried through feces, particularly in reptiles and amphibians." Mahr said parents should discourage young children from handling frogs and snakes.
*Leptospirosis. This is a bacterial infection transmitted by handling infected urine and then touching your mouth. A vaccine is available, Mahr said.
"The No. 1 way to prevent the transmission of these diseases is to wash one's hands," Mahr said. "Wash your hands before preparing food and after handling pets, especially after cleaning up their waste -- even if you are just cleaning their cage or handling their bedding."
Besides hand-washing, Mahr suggested these tips to prevent transmission of zoonotic diseases:
*Make sure your pet has regular veterinary check-ups and receives the necessary vaccinations and preventative medications;
*Clean up litter boxes and waste in the yard immediately after the pet relieves itself;
*Wear gloves when cleaning up any waste material and when cleaning your fish tank;
*Avoid walking your pet in wooded areas where ticks and mosquitoes live, or areas where rodents and raccoons may be; they carry diseases, too;
*Check your pet on a regular basis for parasites, particularly after it has been outside;
*Avoid letting your pet lick your face. Animals have bacteria and sometimes yeast infections that live in their mouths. For children or people with suppressed immune systems, this can be especially dangerous;
*Be careful of cat scratches. Cats can carry bacteria on their paws and nails.
Mahr cautioned that if a pet is coughing persistently or has diarrhea, it shoud be taken to the veterinarian immediately. These can be symptoms of zoonotic diseases.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,368502,00.html
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The World According to Monsanto
Today's post is a video of an investigative film that documents some very disturbing information regarding the activities of one of the worlds largest international mega corporations. Monsanto has a long history of being controversial, including a track record of covering up and lying about known safety hazards related to their products. In recent years they have been pioneers in the bio-engineering field, and are heavily involved in the trend towards GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) in the food supply. This video highlights much of the company's sordid past, as well as some of the dangers, known and unknown, of their current business interests centered around the development and sale of GMOs.
There is much to be alarmed about in this report, but one of the most upsetting factors involves a governmental, legal, and civil system that protects a corporation such as Monsanto rather than being an advocate for the health and safety of the public. Under such conditions, lying about the hazards of the products a company produces becomes a good business decision simply because the amount of money that can be made far outweighs any penalties that may be assessed if they are caught. This has led to the destruction of many lives in the past, and will continue to enable such shameful activities by companies like Monsanto until this travesty of justice is remedied.
Education is our most powerful tool when it comes to exposing the parties involved in such corruption, so I hope you will take the time to watch this video in its entirety, and share it with as many people as possible. The integrity of the food supply for future generations is at stake.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
WARNING: Beware of Chemical Exposure in Your Bathroom
New research is now indicating that millions of plastic shower curtains sold in this country may be making your bath an even more toxic place than it typically already is. Between cleaning and personal care products laced with dangerous chemicals, water treated with fluoride, chlorine, and other poisons, and now the hazards of PVC shower curtains, your daily shower may be exposing your family to a slew of health risks.
As stated in the article below, there are alternatives to a PVC shower curtain, and you would do well to invest in one. Another key step is to eliminate hazardous cleaning and care products. It is also advisable to install a water filtration system that will eliminate toxins from the water supply. The heat and humidity in a bathroom only exacerbate the problems of air and water quality. Protect your lungs, skin, and overall health by taking these suggested steps for safety.
We live in a very toxic society. Becoming aware of environmental pollutants and toxins is imperative toward good health and well-being. However, it could actually be life-saving for those fighting disease or illness.
PVC shower curtains harmful to your health
By MIke Dias
Jun 16, 2008 - 12:03:53 PM
If you're you have plans to purchase PVC shower curtain anytime from now, you might want to think again. An environmental organization has discovered that this type of curtain may pose a risk to your health because it emits a large number of toxic compounds.
Last week, the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) , a U.S non-profit organization based out of Falls Church, VA which is dedicated to protecting communities from exposure to dangerous environmental chemicals, in the air, water and soil, published a report indicating that polyvinyl chloride curtains release a variety of harmful chemicals when newly unpacked and used, at least for the first month.
The PVC shower curtains are not just sold in one or two small corner stores in your neighbourhood. These products retail from many if not all national major outlets such as Wal-Mart, Target and Sears and could affect millions of people in the United States.
The title of the report: "Volatile Vinyl -- The New Shower Curtain's Chemical Smell" may be deemed alarmist by some sceptical critics, but its content should be nothing to ignore. The 44-page report summarizes a two-part study carried out on plastic shower curtains purchased from Bed Bath and Beyond, Kmart, Sears, Target and Wal-Mart. The report provides some detailed insight into the nature of this type of curtains and lists the various chemicals and harmful elements contained which can be dangerous to our health.
For further clarification, the PVC shower curtains were tested for two things, the concentrations of chemicals involved in the make-up of these curtains and the volatile organic compounds (VOC) present when unpacked. These volatile organic compounds are released into the atmosphere after these curtains are unpacked and hung up.
The study showed the curtains released over 108 VOCs over a 28-day period. Twenty-eight days later 4 VOCs were still able to be detected in the air. These organic compounds have been linked to diseases such as cancer, and reproductive toxicity and they are also known to cause conditions such as kidney and liver damage as well as damage to the central nervous system and other important parts of the body.
The test meant to determine the chemical make-up of the PVC curtains found some worrisome chemicals including phthalates, which have been associated with reproductive problems such as shortened pregnancy duration in women and premature breast development in girls. These chemicals can also cause damage to sperm and other male reproductive functions.
The study also found that high heat and humidity promoted the release of these dangerous chemicals from the shower curtains.
Some skeptic scientists disagree with the report published and even the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has refused to ban PVC shower curtains despite the complaints of the CHEJ and the fact that 7 of the chemicals found in the study have been listed as hazardous air pollutants by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The level of VOCs present in the curtains is 16 times higher than the recommended guidelines for indoor air quality as stipulated by the U.S Green Building Council and Washington State Indoor Air Quality Program.
Certain retailers have commenced plans to phase out PVC shower curtains but their efforts haven't been an outright and immediate ban. IKEA however has engaged in major steps to drop such curtains in favour of alternatives which are viewed as much more environmentally friendly.
Despite all the pussyfooting and apparent delays by the bureaucracy to give a final verdict on the issue, consumers are launching into action with various efforts condemning the use of PVC shower curtains and demanding that they be banned.
PVC is one of the most used forms of plastic in the world so it is apparent why there seems to be some hesitation to launch a full-scale ban on such products by the government, the economic and financial factors also have to be considered as well.
For individuals who are more concerned about their safety than what the government intends to do now or in the future, the best thing for them to do would be to replace their PVC shower curtains with options which are much more environmentally friendly such as the ethylene vinyl acetate shower curtains which are stocked by a number of major retailers in the United States and all over the globe as well.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/M_edicare_54/061612032008_PVC_shower_curtains_harmful_to_your_health_printer.shtml
As stated in the article below, there are alternatives to a PVC shower curtain, and you would do well to invest in one. Another key step is to eliminate hazardous cleaning and care products. It is also advisable to install a water filtration system that will eliminate toxins from the water supply. The heat and humidity in a bathroom only exacerbate the problems of air and water quality. Protect your lungs, skin, and overall health by taking these suggested steps for safety.
We live in a very toxic society. Becoming aware of environmental pollutants and toxins is imperative toward good health and well-being. However, it could actually be life-saving for those fighting disease or illness.
PVC shower curtains harmful to your health
By MIke Dias
Jun 16, 2008 - 12:03:53 PM
If you're you have plans to purchase PVC shower curtain anytime from now, you might want to think again. An environmental organization has discovered that this type of curtain may pose a risk to your health because it emits a large number of toxic compounds.
Last week, the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) , a U.S non-profit organization based out of Falls Church, VA which is dedicated to protecting communities from exposure to dangerous environmental chemicals, in the air, water and soil, published a report indicating that polyvinyl chloride curtains release a variety of harmful chemicals when newly unpacked and used, at least for the first month.
The PVC shower curtains are not just sold in one or two small corner stores in your neighbourhood. These products retail from many if not all national major outlets such as Wal-Mart, Target and Sears and could affect millions of people in the United States.
The title of the report: "Volatile Vinyl -- The New Shower Curtain's Chemical Smell" may be deemed alarmist by some sceptical critics, but its content should be nothing to ignore. The 44-page report summarizes a two-part study carried out on plastic shower curtains purchased from Bed Bath and Beyond, Kmart, Sears, Target and Wal-Mart. The report provides some detailed insight into the nature of this type of curtains and lists the various chemicals and harmful elements contained which can be dangerous to our health.
For further clarification, the PVC shower curtains were tested for two things, the concentrations of chemicals involved in the make-up of these curtains and the volatile organic compounds (VOC) present when unpacked. These volatile organic compounds are released into the atmosphere after these curtains are unpacked and hung up.
The study showed the curtains released over 108 VOCs over a 28-day period. Twenty-eight days later 4 VOCs were still able to be detected in the air. These organic compounds have been linked to diseases such as cancer, and reproductive toxicity and they are also known to cause conditions such as kidney and liver damage as well as damage to the central nervous system and other important parts of the body.
The test meant to determine the chemical make-up of the PVC curtains found some worrisome chemicals including phthalates, which have been associated with reproductive problems such as shortened pregnancy duration in women and premature breast development in girls. These chemicals can also cause damage to sperm and other male reproductive functions.
The study also found that high heat and humidity promoted the release of these dangerous chemicals from the shower curtains.
Some skeptic scientists disagree with the report published and even the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has refused to ban PVC shower curtains despite the complaints of the CHEJ and the fact that 7 of the chemicals found in the study have been listed as hazardous air pollutants by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The level of VOCs present in the curtains is 16 times higher than the recommended guidelines for indoor air quality as stipulated by the U.S Green Building Council and Washington State Indoor Air Quality Program.
Certain retailers have commenced plans to phase out PVC shower curtains but their efforts haven't been an outright and immediate ban. IKEA however has engaged in major steps to drop such curtains in favour of alternatives which are viewed as much more environmentally friendly.
Despite all the pussyfooting and apparent delays by the bureaucracy to give a final verdict on the issue, consumers are launching into action with various efforts condemning the use of PVC shower curtains and demanding that they be banned.
PVC is one of the most used forms of plastic in the world so it is apparent why there seems to be some hesitation to launch a full-scale ban on such products by the government, the economic and financial factors also have to be considered as well.
For individuals who are more concerned about their safety than what the government intends to do now or in the future, the best thing for them to do would be to replace their PVC shower curtains with options which are much more environmentally friendly such as the ethylene vinyl acetate shower curtains which are stocked by a number of major retailers in the United States and all over the globe as well.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/M_edicare_54/061612032008_PVC_shower_curtains_harmful_to_your_health_printer.shtml
Monday, June 16, 2008
Grape Juice Bolsters Memory
If you have forgotten to drink your grape juice lately, perhaps you should up the dosage. Recent research indicates this beverage that is so rich in phytonutrients, antioxidants, and other natural substances may be the latest "brain food" discovery as well. This particular study documents the effects of grape juice on elderly people, citing improvements in several areas of cognitive thinking in those who included grape juice in their diets.
It is wise to make sure that the grape juice you are consuming is organic. Several quality companies bottle organic Concord grape juice. Remember that it doesn't take a huge amount -- usually 1 cup two-times daily for those who are experiencing memory concerns. For those that are healthy, 1/2 cup daily is a good preventative amount.
If the use of grape juice and other fruits, vegetables, and whole foods can have a significant effect on senior citizens, a lifestyle that incorporates such foods from an early age must have an even greater influence on wellness. Studies such as these should encourage us to mentor and coach the next generation, primarily through leading by example, as to how important it is to eat well. Modeling healthy lifestyle choices at home is the best way to combat all the negative nutritional messages we are bombarded with every day in the media. Learning about how to cook and eat well is a wonderful project that is educational and fun, and can include family members of all ages.
Pilot Study Showed Improved Memory Skills in Older Adults with Early Memory Decline
CONCORD, Mass., June 2 /PRNewswire/ -- As America's baby boomers continue to age, the number of people 65 years of age and older is expected to double to 70 million by 2030. As such, age-related cognitive decline and incidence of chronic conditions, including Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes and cancer, is on the rise. Research supports that good nutrition -- particularly a diet including phytonutrient-rich fruits, vegetables and their juices -- plays an important role in the aging process and may help slow and possibly even reverse age-related physical and mental declines.
Results from a recent pilot human study suggest that including Concord grape juice in the diet may provide benefit for older adults with early memory decline. This study represents the first placebo-controlled human study to investigate whether regular consumption of a polyphenol-rich food or beverage could have beneficial effects against age-related cognitive decline.
The results were presented at the 38th annual scientific meeting of the American Aging Society in Boulder, Colo., May 30-June 2, 2008. The study, led by Robert Krikorian, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, included 12 adults with early memory decline. Participants drank a total of 15 to 21 ounces, depending on body weight, of either Concord grape juice or placebo daily, divided among meals, for a 12- week period. The beverages were equal in calorie and sugar content but only the Concord grape juice contained natural polyphenolic compounds, which have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Participants who drank the Concord grape juice showed significant improvement in list learning and trends suggested improved short-term retention and spatial memory.
According to Dr. Krikorian, "These results with Concord grape juice are very encouraging and certainly warrant additional study. A simple, easy-to- incorporate dietary intervention that could improve or protect memory function, such as drinking Concord grape juice daily, may be beneficial for the aging population."
Study collaborators included Tiffany Nash and Marcelle Shidler from the University of Cincinnati as well as James Joseph and Barbara Shukitt-Hale from the USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University. Joseph and Shukitt-Hale's ground-breaking animal research has previously shown that supplementation of certain polyphenol-rich fruits and vegetables resulted in improved cognitive function in animal models. In fact, this human study was a natural next step based on their 2006 publication in Nutrition where they reported that polyphenol-rich Concord grape juice supplementation in the diet of aged rats resulted in beneficial effects on memory and cognitive function.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/drinking-polyphenol-rich-concord-grape-juice-may-improve-memory-in-older-adults,415257.shtml
It is wise to make sure that the grape juice you are consuming is organic. Several quality companies bottle organic Concord grape juice. Remember that it doesn't take a huge amount -- usually 1 cup two-times daily for those who are experiencing memory concerns. For those that are healthy, 1/2 cup daily is a good preventative amount.
If the use of grape juice and other fruits, vegetables, and whole foods can have a significant effect on senior citizens, a lifestyle that incorporates such foods from an early age must have an even greater influence on wellness. Studies such as these should encourage us to mentor and coach the next generation, primarily through leading by example, as to how important it is to eat well. Modeling healthy lifestyle choices at home is the best way to combat all the negative nutritional messages we are bombarded with every day in the media. Learning about how to cook and eat well is a wonderful project that is educational and fun, and can include family members of all ages.
Pilot Study Showed Improved Memory Skills in Older Adults with Early Memory Decline
CONCORD, Mass., June 2 /PRNewswire/ -- As America's baby boomers continue to age, the number of people 65 years of age and older is expected to double to 70 million by 2030. As such, age-related cognitive decline and incidence of chronic conditions, including Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes and cancer, is on the rise. Research supports that good nutrition -- particularly a diet including phytonutrient-rich fruits, vegetables and their juices -- plays an important role in the aging process and may help slow and possibly even reverse age-related physical and mental declines.
Results from a recent pilot human study suggest that including Concord grape juice in the diet may provide benefit for older adults with early memory decline. This study represents the first placebo-controlled human study to investigate whether regular consumption of a polyphenol-rich food or beverage could have beneficial effects against age-related cognitive decline.
The results were presented at the 38th annual scientific meeting of the American Aging Society in Boulder, Colo., May 30-June 2, 2008. The study, led by Robert Krikorian, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, included 12 adults with early memory decline. Participants drank a total of 15 to 21 ounces, depending on body weight, of either Concord grape juice or placebo daily, divided among meals, for a 12- week period. The beverages were equal in calorie and sugar content but only the Concord grape juice contained natural polyphenolic compounds, which have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Participants who drank the Concord grape juice showed significant improvement in list learning and trends suggested improved short-term retention and spatial memory.
According to Dr. Krikorian, "These results with Concord grape juice are very encouraging and certainly warrant additional study. A simple, easy-to- incorporate dietary intervention that could improve or protect memory function, such as drinking Concord grape juice daily, may be beneficial for the aging population."
Study collaborators included Tiffany Nash and Marcelle Shidler from the University of Cincinnati as well as James Joseph and Barbara Shukitt-Hale from the USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University. Joseph and Shukitt-Hale's ground-breaking animal research has previously shown that supplementation of certain polyphenol-rich fruits and vegetables resulted in improved cognitive function in animal models. In fact, this human study was a natural next step based on their 2006 publication in Nutrition where they reported that polyphenol-rich Concord grape juice supplementation in the diet of aged rats resulted in beneficial effects on memory and cognitive function.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/drinking-polyphenol-rich-concord-grape-juice-may-improve-memory-in-older-adults,415257.shtml
Friday, June 13, 2008
Attacks on Nutritional Supplements: Is There a Conflict of Interest?
The following story addresses a current issue that has huge implications regarding health freedoms in this country. Once again we see that the "fox is guarding the hen-house," so to speak. Big Pharma, the FDA, and other parties that do not want Americans to have free access to natural substances are working through the media to discredit vitamins, supplements, herbs, and even nutritional foods. We see the same old patterns at work, often involving inaccurate research studies that are purposely manipulated to show skewed results.
The goal of those carrying this agenda is to outlaw any substance or procedure that they consider to be in competition with pharmaceuticals and other conventional medical treatments. But even beyond that, there are some who would seek to keep "nutritionals" legal, but only allow those approved by the FDA to be sold.
Ultimately, those responsible would like to control all aspects of our lives, including the food supply and all of our health care options. If there were ever a time to start home gardening, that time is now. We cannot depend on others to provide the nutrition our bodies need any longer. It may come to the point that the only way to obtain real food and the natural benefits it provides is to grow it ourselves or network with others who have the same vision. Dangerous policies such as those supported by the powers that be may force people to go "underground" in order to avoid the effects of a government that seeks to protect and favor the pharmaceutical industry rather than to encourage true wellness and creative entrepreneurism when it comes to the health and welfare of its citizens.
The truth behind the headlines about antioxidants and vitamins
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) If you've been reading the health headlines in the mainstream media recently, you might have come to the conclusion that vitamins are the most dangerous thing you could possibly consume. Headlines declare antioxidants to be useless, vitamin C to be dangerous and vitamin E to be deadly! Nutrition, it seems, is suddenly under attack by the mainstream media, and if you believe all the headlines, you should probably flee from dietary supplements and start chugging prescription drugs as quickly as possible.
But what's really behind these scare tactics, and is there any real science backing the headlines appearing in the popular press? To answer this question, consider one highly-publicized example of a large antioxidant study (vitamins E and C) in women. A nine-year study followed more than 8,000 women to determine the effects of antioxidants in preventing heart disease. The study found a significant reduction in stroke (31 percent reduction) and heart attacks (22 percent) among those women who actually took the vitamins. But if you consider all the women who originally signed up for the study -- including those thousands who never took the vitamins -- it turns out the results show nothing substantial.
This all comes down to common sense. Of course you're not going to see positive results in women who didn't take the vitamins; nor would you see results from anything else (a drug, an herb, etc.) if the women didn't actually take that substance. And yet the mass media stories about the study all declare antioxidants to be useless because they are considering the measured results of all the women who didn't take the antioxidants. It's like taking a hundred cars that ran out of gas, filling up 40 of them with gasoline, then declaring that gasoline doesn't make cars run because 60 of them are still on empty.
It sounds absurd, I know, but it's only the beginning of this story: Time after time, medical researchers and the mainstream media seem to go out of their way to distort scientific studies and misinform readers about the usefulness of vitamins and dietary supplements.
Vitamin E will kill you! (And other media lies)
Another study publicized last year declared that vitamin E was deadly and would kill you with heart attacks and strokes. This particular meta-data analysis was based on synthetic vitamin E (a completely unnatural chemical made from petroleum derivatives), not the natural vitamin E that appears in nature. Furthermore, many of the study subjects were elderly patients suffering from heart disease, putting them at high risk for heart attacks from day one. When these patients started to die during the study, researchers declared, "The vitamin E killed them!"
Researchers also went to great lengths to cherry-pick studies that showed negative results for vitamin E, tossing out all the studies that showed positive results. This kind of subjective inclusion of clinical trials in a meta analysis is a classic sign of scientific fraud.
I know what you're thinking: Researchers are smarter than that. They wouldn't be so foolish as to count the results of people who didn't take the vitamins, or give supplements to the near-dead and blame their deaths on the supplements. But you might be assuming these researchers are operating with ethics in the first place, and experience tells us they're not. Many are recipients of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants offered to them by drug companies. Their primary research (and revenue source) involves studying the effects of pharmaceuticals. Researchers who don't consistently "discover" positive effects for pharmaceuticals are eventually blackballed from the industry and find themselves jobless and unemployable. There's a tremendous amount of pressure applied to researchers to make sure they uncover findings that support the financial interests of the drug companies. Eight percent of all clinical trials funded by drug companies produce results that are favorable to the financial interests of those companies.
Similarly, there is also a lot of pressure to find something wrong with dietary supplements, herbs and nutrition -- precisely because such substances compete with pharmaceuticals. The more consumers take nutritional supplements, the less they need pharmaceuticals (because nutrition actually prevents disease and keeps you healthy), so one of the key ways to ensure a strong future market for pharmaceuticals is to discredit nutritional supplements and make people believe they're somehow dangerous.
The danger of pharmaceuticals
This is all quite laughable, given that prescription drugs are now the 4rd leading cause of death in America. FDA-approved pharmaceuticals are killing at least 100,000 Americans a year right now, and just one diabetes drug recently scrutinized for its health effects was reported by Dr. David Graham, a senior FDA drug safety researcher, to have likely killed more than 80,000 Americans! That's more Americans than died in the entire Vietnam War, and this is from but one drug.
Almost nothing is killing Americans faster than prescription drugs: Not terrorists, not war, not chemicals in the food, car accidents or drunk driving. Only cancer and strokes kill more Americans, and even in those cases, death is accelerated by the side effects of the pharmaceuticals used to treat those diseases (chemotherapy is especially toxic and causes tremendous harm to the liver, kidneys and brain). Pharmaceuticals are so universally dangerous to the health and safety of Americans that if they were herbs, they would have all been outlawed years ago.
And yet the mainstream media tries to distract the public and get people to focus on the dangers of vitamins instead. Vitamins have killed no one. No one ever died from taking natural vitamin E, or eating superfoods or ingesting vitamin-rich berries. In fact, nutritional supplements and superfoods greatly enhance human health, protecting you from disease and greatly reducing your risk of cancer, heart disease, depression, diabetes, obesity and many other common diseases.
It is a curious sign of the times that the mainstream media, which receives billions of dollars in advertising from drug companies, now finds itself in the business if misinforming Americans, trying to convince them that day is night, up is down, and nutrition is dangerous. War is peace, ignorance is strength and freedom is tyranny. It's right out of the book 1984 by George Orwell, and sadly, it has become reality with the mainstream media today.
So don't be suckered by the headlines. Be a skeptical thinker, and consider who's funding these skewed studies that somehow keep inventing dangers associated with herbs or dietary supplements. Herbs, vitamins and superfoods are astonishingly safe, and yet pharmaceuticals are so dangerous that each year, they kill more Americans than would fit in a superbowl football stadium. Where's the news about all those deaths? Nowhere to be found. There are profits to protect and markets to defend. The people have to be kept ignorant of the true causes of health -- and taught to fear nutrition -- in order to keep the Big Pharma racket profitably rolling along.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023357.html
The goal of those carrying this agenda is to outlaw any substance or procedure that they consider to be in competition with pharmaceuticals and other conventional medical treatments. But even beyond that, there are some who would seek to keep "nutritionals" legal, but only allow those approved by the FDA to be sold.
Ultimately, those responsible would like to control all aspects of our lives, including the food supply and all of our health care options. If there were ever a time to start home gardening, that time is now. We cannot depend on others to provide the nutrition our bodies need any longer. It may come to the point that the only way to obtain real food and the natural benefits it provides is to grow it ourselves or network with others who have the same vision. Dangerous policies such as those supported by the powers that be may force people to go "underground" in order to avoid the effects of a government that seeks to protect and favor the pharmaceutical industry rather than to encourage true wellness and creative entrepreneurism when it comes to the health and welfare of its citizens.
The truth behind the headlines about antioxidants and vitamins
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) If you've been reading the health headlines in the mainstream media recently, you might have come to the conclusion that vitamins are the most dangerous thing you could possibly consume. Headlines declare antioxidants to be useless, vitamin C to be dangerous and vitamin E to be deadly! Nutrition, it seems, is suddenly under attack by the mainstream media, and if you believe all the headlines, you should probably flee from dietary supplements and start chugging prescription drugs as quickly as possible.
But what's really behind these scare tactics, and is there any real science backing the headlines appearing in the popular press? To answer this question, consider one highly-publicized example of a large antioxidant study (vitamins E and C) in women. A nine-year study followed more than 8,000 women to determine the effects of antioxidants in preventing heart disease. The study found a significant reduction in stroke (31 percent reduction) and heart attacks (22 percent) among those women who actually took the vitamins. But if you consider all the women who originally signed up for the study -- including those thousands who never took the vitamins -- it turns out the results show nothing substantial.
This all comes down to common sense. Of course you're not going to see positive results in women who didn't take the vitamins; nor would you see results from anything else (a drug, an herb, etc.) if the women didn't actually take that substance. And yet the mass media stories about the study all declare antioxidants to be useless because they are considering the measured results of all the women who didn't take the antioxidants. It's like taking a hundred cars that ran out of gas, filling up 40 of them with gasoline, then declaring that gasoline doesn't make cars run because 60 of them are still on empty.
It sounds absurd, I know, but it's only the beginning of this story: Time after time, medical researchers and the mainstream media seem to go out of their way to distort scientific studies and misinform readers about the usefulness of vitamins and dietary supplements.
Vitamin E will kill you! (And other media lies)
Another study publicized last year declared that vitamin E was deadly and would kill you with heart attacks and strokes. This particular meta-data analysis was based on synthetic vitamin E (a completely unnatural chemical made from petroleum derivatives), not the natural vitamin E that appears in nature. Furthermore, many of the study subjects were elderly patients suffering from heart disease, putting them at high risk for heart attacks from day one. When these patients started to die during the study, researchers declared, "The vitamin E killed them!"
Researchers also went to great lengths to cherry-pick studies that showed negative results for vitamin E, tossing out all the studies that showed positive results. This kind of subjective inclusion of clinical trials in a meta analysis is a classic sign of scientific fraud.
I know what you're thinking: Researchers are smarter than that. They wouldn't be so foolish as to count the results of people who didn't take the vitamins, or give supplements to the near-dead and blame their deaths on the supplements. But you might be assuming these researchers are operating with ethics in the first place, and experience tells us they're not. Many are recipients of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants offered to them by drug companies. Their primary research (and revenue source) involves studying the effects of pharmaceuticals. Researchers who don't consistently "discover" positive effects for pharmaceuticals are eventually blackballed from the industry and find themselves jobless and unemployable. There's a tremendous amount of pressure applied to researchers to make sure they uncover findings that support the financial interests of the drug companies. Eight percent of all clinical trials funded by drug companies produce results that are favorable to the financial interests of those companies.
Similarly, there is also a lot of pressure to find something wrong with dietary supplements, herbs and nutrition -- precisely because such substances compete with pharmaceuticals. The more consumers take nutritional supplements, the less they need pharmaceuticals (because nutrition actually prevents disease and keeps you healthy), so one of the key ways to ensure a strong future market for pharmaceuticals is to discredit nutritional supplements and make people believe they're somehow dangerous.
The danger of pharmaceuticals
This is all quite laughable, given that prescription drugs are now the 4rd leading cause of death in America. FDA-approved pharmaceuticals are killing at least 100,000 Americans a year right now, and just one diabetes drug recently scrutinized for its health effects was reported by Dr. David Graham, a senior FDA drug safety researcher, to have likely killed more than 80,000 Americans! That's more Americans than died in the entire Vietnam War, and this is from but one drug.
Almost nothing is killing Americans faster than prescription drugs: Not terrorists, not war, not chemicals in the food, car accidents or drunk driving. Only cancer and strokes kill more Americans, and even in those cases, death is accelerated by the side effects of the pharmaceuticals used to treat those diseases (chemotherapy is especially toxic and causes tremendous harm to the liver, kidneys and brain). Pharmaceuticals are so universally dangerous to the health and safety of Americans that if they were herbs, they would have all been outlawed years ago.
And yet the mainstream media tries to distract the public and get people to focus on the dangers of vitamins instead. Vitamins have killed no one. No one ever died from taking natural vitamin E, or eating superfoods or ingesting vitamin-rich berries. In fact, nutritional supplements and superfoods greatly enhance human health, protecting you from disease and greatly reducing your risk of cancer, heart disease, depression, diabetes, obesity and many other common diseases.
It is a curious sign of the times that the mainstream media, which receives billions of dollars in advertising from drug companies, now finds itself in the business if misinforming Americans, trying to convince them that day is night, up is down, and nutrition is dangerous. War is peace, ignorance is strength and freedom is tyranny. It's right out of the book 1984 by George Orwell, and sadly, it has become reality with the mainstream media today.
So don't be suckered by the headlines. Be a skeptical thinker, and consider who's funding these skewed studies that somehow keep inventing dangers associated with herbs or dietary supplements. Herbs, vitamins and superfoods are astonishingly safe, and yet pharmaceuticals are so dangerous that each year, they kill more Americans than would fit in a superbowl football stadium. Where's the news about all those deaths? Nowhere to be found. There are profits to protect and markets to defend. The people have to be kept ignorant of the true causes of health -- and taught to fear nutrition -- in order to keep the Big Pharma racket profitably rolling along.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023357.html
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Pain Pills Are Not "One Size Fits All"
Millions of people are given medicines that contain codeine every year, as it has become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for pain here in the US. This addictive substance is often used to "treat" individuals with chronic pain, and in addition to the many hazardous side effects of codeine (it is particularly toxic to the liver), research now indicates that its effectiveness may vary greatly from person to person based partly on genetic and racial factors. It appears that certain people are at higher risk for dangerous side effects from codeine as well.
The widespread use of a drug like codeine is a perfect example of really bad medicine. I wonder how many people who are prescribed codeine are told that it is not a long-term answer for chronic pain, but in fact will introduce further health complications from ongoing use, and will do nothing to correct the issues that are causing the pain in the first place. Many doctors will write a script for codeine simply because chronic pain is such a common symptom in many of their patients and these physicians do not know what else to do or do not care enough to help these men and women who are trusting in them for a solution to find real answers to the underlying factors that are causing pain. I would venture to guess that a large percentage of individuals who are on codeine could greatly reduce their pain levels simply from shedding extra pounds and learning how to stretch and properly exercise their bodies. The tragedy is that once people begin to use a drug such as codeine, they lose what little impetus they may have left to get up and move in ways that will lead them towards wholeness. Instead of pursuing health and wellness, codeine users are often given a cocktail of added drugs to deal with the side effects, thus putting their systems even further out of balance.
If you suffer from chronic pain I encourage you to look into alternative ways of dealing with it rather than getting hooked on drugs. Many people are having great success with treatments such as massage, exercise, hydrotherapy, physical therapy, chiropractic care, bioelectric therapy, stress management, natural-foods based diet, and other options that will build you up instead of tear your body down through the use of pharmaceuticals.
Genetic Factors Affect Codeine's Work as Painkiller
Fri Jun 6, 11:47 PM ET
FRIDAY, June 6 (HealthDay News) -- The popular painkiller codeine can be ineffective or, worse, cause serious reactions if you are among those people whose bodies do not process the medication properly.
The liver converts codeine into morphine using the enzyme CYP2D6, a process that causes pain relief in most people. However, genetic differences in some people cause either too much or too little of the enzyme to be produced, resulting in less than pleasant results, reports Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy group, in its June Worst Pills, Best Pills newsletter.
People whose liver's produce higher than normal CYP2D6 levels convert more of the codeine into morphine -- a situation that could cause excessive sedation, severe constipation and other side effects. While this only occurs in about 4 percent of Caucasian North Americans, prevalence is much higher in people from Greece and Portugal (10 percent), Saudi Arabia (20 percent) and Ethiopia (30 percent).
People with less CYP2D6 find little or no relief from codeine, because the liver does not convert enough into morphine. This happens in about 6 percent to 10 percent of Caucasians, 3 percent to 6 percent of Mexican-Americans, 2 percent to 5 percent of African-Americans and about 1 percent of Asians.
"When one adds the number of people who are genetically deficient in CYP2D6 to the number of people taking medications that inhibit CYP2D6, it is clear that a significantly large group of people are at risk of a suboptimal response to codeine," Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, said in a prepared statement.
Certain medications can also affect one's CYP2D6 activity. The enzyme's production is inhibited, for example, by: diphenhydramine, a common antihistamine sold over-the-counter as Benadryl; and quinidine, a medication used to treat abnormal heart rhythm and sold under the brand names Duraquin, Quinaglute, Dura-tabs, and Quinidex, the report said.
Testing one's CYP2D6 enzyme level is neither routinely available nor affordable, so patients taking codeine for the first time should use caution and watch for signs of an excessive response, such as sedation, respiratory depression and gastrointestinal effects, Wolfe said.
"All inadequate or excessive responses to this drug need to be reported to a physician," Wolfe said.
More information
The U.S. National Library of Medicine has more about codeine.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20080607/hl_hsn/geneticfactorsaffectcodeinesworkaspainkiller&printer=1;_ylt=AnU6i4fOgc3S7VfeMd3po3y9j7AB
The widespread use of a drug like codeine is a perfect example of really bad medicine. I wonder how many people who are prescribed codeine are told that it is not a long-term answer for chronic pain, but in fact will introduce further health complications from ongoing use, and will do nothing to correct the issues that are causing the pain in the first place. Many doctors will write a script for codeine simply because chronic pain is such a common symptom in many of their patients and these physicians do not know what else to do or do not care enough to help these men and women who are trusting in them for a solution to find real answers to the underlying factors that are causing pain. I would venture to guess that a large percentage of individuals who are on codeine could greatly reduce their pain levels simply from shedding extra pounds and learning how to stretch and properly exercise their bodies. The tragedy is that once people begin to use a drug such as codeine, they lose what little impetus they may have left to get up and move in ways that will lead them towards wholeness. Instead of pursuing health and wellness, codeine users are often given a cocktail of added drugs to deal with the side effects, thus putting their systems even further out of balance.
If you suffer from chronic pain I encourage you to look into alternative ways of dealing with it rather than getting hooked on drugs. Many people are having great success with treatments such as massage, exercise, hydrotherapy, physical therapy, chiropractic care, bioelectric therapy, stress management, natural-foods based diet, and other options that will build you up instead of tear your body down through the use of pharmaceuticals.
Genetic Factors Affect Codeine's Work as Painkiller
Fri Jun 6, 11:47 PM ET
FRIDAY, June 6 (HealthDay News) -- The popular painkiller codeine can be ineffective or, worse, cause serious reactions if you are among those people whose bodies do not process the medication properly.
The liver converts codeine into morphine using the enzyme CYP2D6, a process that causes pain relief in most people. However, genetic differences in some people cause either too much or too little of the enzyme to be produced, resulting in less than pleasant results, reports Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy group, in its June Worst Pills, Best Pills newsletter.
People whose liver's produce higher than normal CYP2D6 levels convert more of the codeine into morphine -- a situation that could cause excessive sedation, severe constipation and other side effects. While this only occurs in about 4 percent of Caucasian North Americans, prevalence is much higher in people from Greece and Portugal (10 percent), Saudi Arabia (20 percent) and Ethiopia (30 percent).
People with less CYP2D6 find little or no relief from codeine, because the liver does not convert enough into morphine. This happens in about 6 percent to 10 percent of Caucasians, 3 percent to 6 percent of Mexican-Americans, 2 percent to 5 percent of African-Americans and about 1 percent of Asians.
"When one adds the number of people who are genetically deficient in CYP2D6 to the number of people taking medications that inhibit CYP2D6, it is clear that a significantly large group of people are at risk of a suboptimal response to codeine," Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, said in a prepared statement.
Certain medications can also affect one's CYP2D6 activity. The enzyme's production is inhibited, for example, by: diphenhydramine, a common antihistamine sold over-the-counter as Benadryl; and quinidine, a medication used to treat abnormal heart rhythm and sold under the brand names Duraquin, Quinaglute, Dura-tabs, and Quinidex, the report said.
Testing one's CYP2D6 enzyme level is neither routinely available nor affordable, so patients taking codeine for the first time should use caution and watch for signs of an excessive response, such as sedation, respiratory depression and gastrointestinal effects, Wolfe said.
"All inadequate or excessive responses to this drug need to be reported to a physician," Wolfe said.
More information
The U.S. National Library of Medicine has more about codeine.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20080607/hl_hsn/geneticfactorsaffectcodeinesworkaspainkiller&printer=1;_ylt=AnU6i4fOgc3S7VfeMd3po3y9j7AB
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Hazards of Cancer Treatments in Children
Cancer is always a difficult diagnosis to handle, especially when it is found in a child. Decisions must be made regarding treatment, and parents are often put under the gun to move quickly. They are also commonly intimidated by medical authorities if they express any doubts about recommended therapies or lean towards alternative treatments. However, as the article posted below points out, there are very good reasons that parents should be wary of traditional cancer treatments such as chemo and radiation. These toxic procedures are particularly hard on the immature bodies of young children.
Parents who express concerns are often told that these treatments have evolved in recent years so that they are more effective and less toxic than back in the "old days." Unfortunately, this is not always true. Researchers in this study found that children who were most recently exposed to chemo and radiation had higher risk factors in some cases than those treated 30-40 years ago.
Whenever we receive medical treatments that have potentially dangerous side effects, the hazards may not surface for many years. What we or our children are exposed to today may result in dire consequences in the future. Unfortunately, when the medical establishment discusses cancer response rates and other statistics, they often do not factor in (usually intentionally) health hazards that typically appear after the time period they consider as a "cure" (commonly five years.) There are many reasons for this misinformation, one of the main being the financial implications that are at stake for the "cancer industry."
It is wise to establish a working relationship with a practitioner of natural medicine so that if the time ever comes when cancer must be dealt with, you have someone available to work with who can help you sort out your options during such a stressful time. Even more importantly, you can also get advice about developing a lifestyle that leads you towards wellness and will greatly reduce the risk of cancer and other debilitating diseases from ever occurring in the first place. Remember, prevention is by far the best treatment.
Study details heart problems after childhood cancer
Fri Jun 6, 1:22 PM ET
Survivors of childhood cancer who had aggressive chemotherapy are at increased risk of structural and functional heart problems, a new study indicates.
Both chemotherapy, especially with drugs called anthracyclines, and radiation to the chest are known to increase the risk of heart damage among childhood cancer survivors, Dr. Veronika Velensek of the University Children's Hospital Ljubljana in Slovenia and colleagues note.
To better understand the risk factors for cardiovascular disease among these patients, Velensek and her team performed a battery of tests of heart structure and function in 211 patients who had survived for at least five years after being diagnosed with cancer in childhood. All were treated between 1968 and 1998.
More than half (53 percent) had signs of heart damage.
Individuals treated most recently (1989-1998) were at greatest risk, the researchers found; nearly three-quarters of these patients had heart damage. These patients were all treated with intensive chemotherapy with several drugs, including high doses of anthracyclines, the researchers note.
Patients who underwent radiation were at increased risk of heart valve disease. Those treated for Hodgkin's disease between 1968 and 1988 were at greatest risk. "A possible explanation for this could be that in the time period higher doses of irradiation were used...older radiation therapy techniques were available and less effective shielding was used," the researchers write in the online medical journal BMC Cancer.
Patients who had received a large total dose of anthracyclines and were treated with drugs called alkylating agents at the same time were most likely to have systolic dysfunction, or problems with contraction of the heart's main pumping chambers, as well as enlargement of the chambers on the left side of the heart.
The researchers also found that 46 percent of the patients had below-normal exercise tolerance. While no specific type of treatment was linked to poor fitness, the researchers note, the fact that one third of the patients were sedentary and obese may have been a factor.
SOURCE: BMC Cancer, May 20, 2008.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080606/hl_nm/childhood_cancer_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AlcT99tfsf0niT37lBXmRMQR.3QA
Parents who express concerns are often told that these treatments have evolved in recent years so that they are more effective and less toxic than back in the "old days." Unfortunately, this is not always true. Researchers in this study found that children who were most recently exposed to chemo and radiation had higher risk factors in some cases than those treated 30-40 years ago.
Whenever we receive medical treatments that have potentially dangerous side effects, the hazards may not surface for many years. What we or our children are exposed to today may result in dire consequences in the future. Unfortunately, when the medical establishment discusses cancer response rates and other statistics, they often do not factor in (usually intentionally) health hazards that typically appear after the time period they consider as a "cure" (commonly five years.) There are many reasons for this misinformation, one of the main being the financial implications that are at stake for the "cancer industry."
It is wise to establish a working relationship with a practitioner of natural medicine so that if the time ever comes when cancer must be dealt with, you have someone available to work with who can help you sort out your options during such a stressful time. Even more importantly, you can also get advice about developing a lifestyle that leads you towards wellness and will greatly reduce the risk of cancer and other debilitating diseases from ever occurring in the first place. Remember, prevention is by far the best treatment.
Study details heart problems after childhood cancer
Fri Jun 6, 1:22 PM ET
Survivors of childhood cancer who had aggressive chemotherapy are at increased risk of structural and functional heart problems, a new study indicates.
Both chemotherapy, especially with drugs called anthracyclines, and radiation to the chest are known to increase the risk of heart damage among childhood cancer survivors, Dr. Veronika Velensek of the University Children's Hospital Ljubljana in Slovenia and colleagues note.
To better understand the risk factors for cardiovascular disease among these patients, Velensek and her team performed a battery of tests of heart structure and function in 211 patients who had survived for at least five years after being diagnosed with cancer in childhood. All were treated between 1968 and 1998.
More than half (53 percent) had signs of heart damage.
Individuals treated most recently (1989-1998) were at greatest risk, the researchers found; nearly three-quarters of these patients had heart damage. These patients were all treated with intensive chemotherapy with several drugs, including high doses of anthracyclines, the researchers note.
Patients who underwent radiation were at increased risk of heart valve disease. Those treated for Hodgkin's disease between 1968 and 1988 were at greatest risk. "A possible explanation for this could be that in the time period higher doses of irradiation were used...older radiation therapy techniques were available and less effective shielding was used," the researchers write in the online medical journal BMC Cancer.
Patients who had received a large total dose of anthracyclines and were treated with drugs called alkylating agents at the same time were most likely to have systolic dysfunction, or problems with contraction of the heart's main pumping chambers, as well as enlargement of the chambers on the left side of the heart.
The researchers also found that 46 percent of the patients had below-normal exercise tolerance. While no specific type of treatment was linked to poor fitness, the researchers note, the fact that one third of the patients were sedentary and obese may have been a factor.
SOURCE: BMC Cancer, May 20, 2008.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080606/hl_nm/childhood_cancer_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AlcT99tfsf0niT37lBXmRMQR.3QA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
