As we approach Thanksgiving Day here in the United States, I thought today's article was quite appropriate. It discusses how difficult supervisors at work can cause cumulative stress in employees, ultimately leading to an increased risk for heart disease. It reminds me that the Holidays can be a challenging time for many family relationships as well.
On a positive note, family gatherings can also be a time for building functional relationships too. Sometimes it can involve a choice to put down some of the busyness and take time to slow down and listen. In other cases, forgiveness may be called for, a step that has proven spiritual, emotional, and physical benefits. One of the best ways to pursue wellness is to nurture all of our personal relationships so that they can be a healing force in both our own and others' lives.
Having a Bad Boss Is Bad for the Heart
Study Shows Working for an Incompetent Boss Can Raise Risk of Heart Disease
By Bill HendrickWebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Nov. 24, 2008 -- People who consider their bosses to be unfair, arbitrary, inconsiderate, and generally deficient in managerial skills are at greater risk for having a heart disease event such as a heart attack, a new Swedish study shows.
And stress that workers think is caused by bad managers adds up, increasing risk of heart problems over time, the researchers report in the Nov. 24 issue of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Swedish scientists tracked the heart health of more than 3,000 male workers between 1992 and 1995. Their occupational health records then were matched with national registry data on hospital admissions and death from ischemic heart disease up to 2003.
During the monitoring period of almost a decade, 74 cases of fatal and non-fatal heart disease events such as heart attack, unstable angina or cardiac arrest occurred. The more competent that workers ranked their managers, the lower their risk of serious heart problems.
The association between perceived leadership of managers and the risk of serious heart problems among workers increased the longer an employee worked for the same company, the study showed, suggesting that stress caused by bad bosses may increase over time.
The researchers suggest that companies take steps to improve managers' deficient skills, as rated by their subordinates, to ward off serious heart disease of workers.
"One could speculate that a present and active manager, providing structure, information, and support, counteracts destructive processes in work groups, thereby promoting regenerative rather than stress-related physiological processes in employees," writes Anna Nyberg of the Karolinska Institute and the Stress Research Institute at Stockholm University.
Rating the Bosses
Participants used a rating system for their senior managers, grading them on such things as how good they were at communicating and offering feedback, their success at managing change, their ability to set goals, and how much they delegated.
Higher leadership scores were found to be associated with lower risk for heart disease, and the association was "robust to adjustments for education, social class, income, supervisory status, perceived physical load at work, smoking, physical exercise, [body mass index], lipids, fibrinogen, and diabetes."
In short, the study shows that bad bosses can be hazardous to the health, and even to long life, of the people who work for them.
In another recent study, the researchers say, employees who were exposed to what they perceive as an adverse psychological work environment were found to be at a 50% excess risk of cardiovascular disease. The results from that study, the researchers write, "have considerable clinical implications, especially since psychosocial stressors at work are relatively common."
The researchers say evidence is mounting that the perceived quality of managerial behavior affects worker health. Workers are concerned about "considerate behavior" of bosses, how well managers are able to stimulate employees intellectually, and their ability to communicate with those who work under their supervision.
Questions used to rate bosses included such statements as "I am criticized by my boss if I have done something that is not good" and others about how well managers communicate their expectations.
What was clear was that workers who felt their bosses had trouble communicating information -- not just negative thoughts -- were at increased risk of developing heart problems. Training of managers about how to do their jobs better might be a good start, the researchers suggest.
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20081124/having-a-bad-boss-is-bad-for-the-heart
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Tips for Eating "Real" Food
As the biotech giants seek to control and monopolize the food chain, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find foods that have not been genetically modified, especially here in the US. Billions in profits are being generated through GMOs, and we are already aware of some short-term health concerns. The long-term effects of GMOs are not known yet, simply because they have not been in use long enough yet to do sufficient studies. However, we do know that the nutritional components of many modified foods are severely compromised.
Today's post gives several practical tips on how to secure food that is free from genetic tampering. As with all wellness issues, it will take a bit more effort and perhaps more money as well (although convenience foods and GMO-laced products are expensive too) to eat this way, but the rewards are well worth it. As they say, staying well is much cheaper (in numerous ways) than getting well.
Top Five Ways to Avoid GMOs in Your Food
by Dr. Gregory Damato, Ph.D., citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Recent polls across the world have consistently shown that, if they had a choice, 90% of people would actively seek to avoid GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in their food. The large multinational corporations of the world have gone through extensive measures to ensure the citizens of most nations have no possible way of knowing whether the food they and their children are eating contain contaminants of GMOs. The labelling of GMOs on the packaging of any foods in the US for example, is illegal. For example, if a company like Kellogs decided to include a full disclosure label on their cereal box that stated, "contains genetically modified corn" they could be sued by the manufacturer and then face possible prison time.
This is a very important issue because the democratic process of many nations has been surreptitiously supplanted by the corporatocracy of the seed company juggernauts. America has one of the highest levels of GMOs in their food chain in the western world with up to 85% of its pre-packaged and processed foods coming from genetic engineering. The people have never asked for GMOs- but got them anyway. The people then asked that they be properly labeled so they could avoid them- they were ignored. Therefore, seeing how our health freedom and well-being is consistently under attack from large multi-national corporations only seeking to increase profits at the expense of our health, what are we to do?
What we can do is simply try to avoid the GMO contaminants altogether and be extremely vigilant of how we spend our money and which companies we are choosing to support. Here are five simple and effective ways to decrease your contact with untested, toxic and dangerous GMOs.
1.) Buy Locally Produced Food
For now, GMOs are only used by large multinational corporations who buy direct from large farms. Produce from local mom and pop farmers have yet to become genetically modified. Purchasing locally grown food supports your local farmers and your health. Not to worry about GMO tomatoes and potatoes as they have all been pulled from the market.
2.) Buy Organically Grown Food
For now, the organic certification process is a relatively safe bet to ensure your food is free of GMOs, although this may not be the case in the future. Help support global sustainability by purchasing certified organically grown food.
3.) Avoid the Top Four GMO Crops of Soy, Corn, Canola and Cottonseed
This is a bit tricky as most blended oils in North America contain canola and cottonseed. Whenever you go out to dinner and receive anything fried, you are most likely consuming GMOs from the oil, not to mention transfat. A way around this would be to purchase 100% extra virgin olive oil, but be sure to avoid the term olive oil as most of it is blended with some GMO cottonseed or canola. Unless it specifically states "Non-GMO" or some derivation on the label, it most likely contains GMOs.Likewise, any time you go you consume corn chips, tacos or soy milk, you are eating GMOs, again unless it specifically states Non-GMO or is organic.
4.) Avoid Artificial Additives and Sweeteners
Most of use are aware of the dangers behind the artificial sweetener and excitotoxin, aspartame (known as preservative E951), but may not be aware that it is created using genetic modification. Even the majority of vitamin C (asorbic Acid) and many B vitamins have been created via genetic modification. A Japanese company was forced to pull GMO L-Tryptophan off the market in 1989 after thousands of people became severely ill with many developing an extremely rare blood disorder called, Esinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome (EMS), although the FDA never publicly mentioned that GMO contamination was the true cause of the recall.
5.) Look For the Non-GMO Label
This includes all animals used for food because most are typically fed GMO feed. If it does not state Non-GMO on the label, then email the manufacturer and ask if they use GMO feed. It is best to attempt to contact all of the manufacturers of the foods you generally eat on a daily or even weekly basis and determine whether GMOs ingredients are utilized in the food. You have a fundamental right to know whether the foods you are consuming have been contaminated with GMOs. When in doubt always look for the Non-GMO label, and unfortunately assume that it has been genetically modified unless the opposite have been explicitly stated.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z024865.html
Today's post gives several practical tips on how to secure food that is free from genetic tampering. As with all wellness issues, it will take a bit more effort and perhaps more money as well (although convenience foods and GMO-laced products are expensive too) to eat this way, but the rewards are well worth it. As they say, staying well is much cheaper (in numerous ways) than getting well.
Top Five Ways to Avoid GMOs in Your Food
by Dr. Gregory Damato, Ph.D., citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Recent polls across the world have consistently shown that, if they had a choice, 90% of people would actively seek to avoid GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in their food. The large multinational corporations of the world have gone through extensive measures to ensure the citizens of most nations have no possible way of knowing whether the food they and their children are eating contain contaminants of GMOs. The labelling of GMOs on the packaging of any foods in the US for example, is illegal. For example, if a company like Kellogs decided to include a full disclosure label on their cereal box that stated, "contains genetically modified corn" they could be sued by the manufacturer and then face possible prison time.
This is a very important issue because the democratic process of many nations has been surreptitiously supplanted by the corporatocracy of the seed company juggernauts. America has one of the highest levels of GMOs in their food chain in the western world with up to 85% of its pre-packaged and processed foods coming from genetic engineering. The people have never asked for GMOs- but got them anyway. The people then asked that they be properly labeled so they could avoid them- they were ignored. Therefore, seeing how our health freedom and well-being is consistently under attack from large multi-national corporations only seeking to increase profits at the expense of our health, what are we to do?
What we can do is simply try to avoid the GMO contaminants altogether and be extremely vigilant of how we spend our money and which companies we are choosing to support. Here are five simple and effective ways to decrease your contact with untested, toxic and dangerous GMOs.
1.) Buy Locally Produced Food
For now, GMOs are only used by large multinational corporations who buy direct from large farms. Produce from local mom and pop farmers have yet to become genetically modified. Purchasing locally grown food supports your local farmers and your health. Not to worry about GMO tomatoes and potatoes as they have all been pulled from the market.
2.) Buy Organically Grown Food
For now, the organic certification process is a relatively safe bet to ensure your food is free of GMOs, although this may not be the case in the future. Help support global sustainability by purchasing certified organically grown food.
3.) Avoid the Top Four GMO Crops of Soy, Corn, Canola and Cottonseed
This is a bit tricky as most blended oils in North America contain canola and cottonseed. Whenever you go out to dinner and receive anything fried, you are most likely consuming GMOs from the oil, not to mention transfat. A way around this would be to purchase 100% extra virgin olive oil, but be sure to avoid the term olive oil as most of it is blended with some GMO cottonseed or canola. Unless it specifically states "Non-GMO" or some derivation on the label, it most likely contains GMOs.Likewise, any time you go you consume corn chips, tacos or soy milk, you are eating GMOs, again unless it specifically states Non-GMO or is organic.
4.) Avoid Artificial Additives and Sweeteners
Most of use are aware of the dangers behind the artificial sweetener and excitotoxin, aspartame (known as preservative E951), but may not be aware that it is created using genetic modification. Even the majority of vitamin C (asorbic Acid) and many B vitamins have been created via genetic modification. A Japanese company was forced to pull GMO L-Tryptophan off the market in 1989 after thousands of people became severely ill with many developing an extremely rare blood disorder called, Esinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome (EMS), although the FDA never publicly mentioned that GMO contamination was the true cause of the recall.
5.) Look For the Non-GMO Label
This includes all animals used for food because most are typically fed GMO feed. If it does not state Non-GMO on the label, then email the manufacturer and ask if they use GMO feed. It is best to attempt to contact all of the manufacturers of the foods you generally eat on a daily or even weekly basis and determine whether GMOs ingredients are utilized in the food. You have a fundamental right to know whether the foods you are consuming have been contaminated with GMOs. When in doubt always look for the Non-GMO label, and unfortunately assume that it has been genetically modified unless the opposite have been explicitly stated.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z024865.html
Monday, November 24, 2008
Big Pharma's "Marketing" Puts Organized Crime to Shame
Lest we give in to a bit of sentimentality as the holidays approach, more dirt surfaced this week regarding the unethical practices of an industry that is increasingly tainted by illegal and deceptive maneuvers that have put the lives of millions at risk worldwide. In this latest episode, as the article below details, a respected figure on Public Radio has been caught taking undisclosed "consultation fees" from pharmaceutical firms in return for promoting their drugs on and off his long-running radio program. GlaxoSmithKline was quick to put the responsibility for these legal bribes on Dr. Goodwin. As they say, there is no honor amongst thieves.
This scandal comes on the tail of a government investigation culminated this fall that found drug maker Cephalon guilty of serious false marketing practices and other charges such as urging physicians to prescribe certain drugs for unsafe and unauthorized applications, including their use on children and mentally ill patients. The bulk of evidence against Cephalon came from a sales rep that agreed to wear a wire tap during a company conference. It appears Big Pharma has more in common with the Mafia than the free enterprise system.
Let's hope that revelations such as these will infuriate and motivate the American people to demand changes in a system that allows for such corruption. In the meantime, if your doctor prescribes any medication for any reason, do not take it for granted that its use is safe or appropriate.
NPR doc didn't disclose pharma payments
By tracy
Created Nov 21 2008 - 12:25pm
We've heard about drugmaker's payments and grants to prescribing doctors, researchers, medical societies, teaching hospitals, CME companies... and now, a radio host. The psychiatrist and former NIMH director Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, whose radio program "The Infinite Mind" airs on NPR, collected some $1.3 million from drugmakers between 2000 and 2007. Goodwin never mentioned those payments to listeners, despite the fact that some of his programs dealt with subjects "important to the commercial interests of the companies for which he consults," the New York Times reports.
The payments have come to light as part of a Congressional investigation into drugmakers' potential influence on prescribing habits. For instance, Goodwin told listeners that children with untreated bipolar disorder could suffer brain damage (a view not universally shared in psychiatry). During the same program, Goodwin touted the safety and efficacy of treatments for the disease, particularly mood stabilizing drugs. And the same day, GlaxoSmithKline paid the psychiatrist $2,500 to give a promotional lecture for its mood stabilizer Lamictal, just part of the $329,000 he collected for promoting Lamictal that year, Congressional records show.
Goodwin told the NYT that the radio show's producer knew about his consulting with drugmakers, but that neither he nor the producer realized at the time that they should have disclosed the relationships. "In retrospect, that should have been disclosed," Goodwin told the paper. But the NPR producer told the paper that Goodwin had denied getting money from drugmakers. "The fact that he was out on the stump for pharmaceutical companies was not something we were aware of. It would have violated our agreements," producer Bill Lichtenstein said in an interview.
NPR now says it's pulling the program as soon as possible and that, had it been aware of Goodwin's financial relationships, it would not have aired "The Infinite Mind." A Glaxo spokesperson said that the responsibility for disclosing its payments to Goodwin lay with the doctor. "We continue to believe that healthcare professionals are responsible for making disclosures to their employers and other entities, in this case National Public Radio and its listeners."
http://www.fiercepharma.com/node/10068/print
This scandal comes on the tail of a government investigation culminated this fall that found drug maker Cephalon guilty of serious false marketing practices and other charges such as urging physicians to prescribe certain drugs for unsafe and unauthorized applications, including their use on children and mentally ill patients. The bulk of evidence against Cephalon came from a sales rep that agreed to wear a wire tap during a company conference. It appears Big Pharma has more in common with the Mafia than the free enterprise system.
Let's hope that revelations such as these will infuriate and motivate the American people to demand changes in a system that allows for such corruption. In the meantime, if your doctor prescribes any medication for any reason, do not take it for granted that its use is safe or appropriate.
NPR doc didn't disclose pharma payments
By tracy
Created Nov 21 2008 - 12:25pm
We've heard about drugmaker's payments and grants to prescribing doctors, researchers, medical societies, teaching hospitals, CME companies... and now, a radio host. The psychiatrist and former NIMH director Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, whose radio program "The Infinite Mind" airs on NPR, collected some $1.3 million from drugmakers between 2000 and 2007. Goodwin never mentioned those payments to listeners, despite the fact that some of his programs dealt with subjects "important to the commercial interests of the companies for which he consults," the New York Times reports.
The payments have come to light as part of a Congressional investigation into drugmakers' potential influence on prescribing habits. For instance, Goodwin told listeners that children with untreated bipolar disorder could suffer brain damage (a view not universally shared in psychiatry). During the same program, Goodwin touted the safety and efficacy of treatments for the disease, particularly mood stabilizing drugs. And the same day, GlaxoSmithKline paid the psychiatrist $2,500 to give a promotional lecture for its mood stabilizer Lamictal, just part of the $329,000 he collected for promoting Lamictal that year, Congressional records show.
Goodwin told the NYT that the radio show's producer knew about his consulting with drugmakers, but that neither he nor the producer realized at the time that they should have disclosed the relationships. "In retrospect, that should have been disclosed," Goodwin told the paper. But the NPR producer told the paper that Goodwin had denied getting money from drugmakers. "The fact that he was out on the stump for pharmaceutical companies was not something we were aware of. It would have violated our agreements," producer Bill Lichtenstein said in an interview.
NPR now says it's pulling the program as soon as possible and that, had it been aware of Goodwin's financial relationships, it would not have aired "The Infinite Mind." A Glaxo spokesperson said that the responsibility for disclosing its payments to Goodwin lay with the doctor. "We continue to believe that healthcare professionals are responsible for making disclosures to their employers and other entities, in this case National Public Radio and its listeners."
http://www.fiercepharma.com/node/10068/print
Friday, November 21, 2008
Physicians Sick of Health Care System
Here on this blog, we have often discussed dissatisfaction with allopathic medicine from a patient's point of view. Well, it appears that they are not the only group who are singing the blues about health care in this country. Today's post references a recent survey of family practice physicians that indicate a whopping 50% are considering (or would like to if they could) changing careers.
Some of the reasons cited for this high level of dismay in the field are excessive amounts of paperwork and bookkeeping, poor care for patients with chronic conditions, and lack of time to spend treating patients. It's no wonder doctors whip out their prescription pads as their customers file through on the assembly line. Many are not able to take the time and effort necessary to individually care for their patients' needs.
Some would have us believe that socialized medicine is the answer to all of our healthcare woes. This is just not so. Many hospitals are now implementing some of these standards, one of which is "Short Term Stay" wards. These are set up like an ICU with a nurse's station in the middle of stall-like rooms. There are usually no doors to the very small stalls, just a curtain across the front of the box-like room. You do get a TV and a sink. But the worst part is that there is usually only one "community" bathroom (down the hall) ,including a shower, for all patients to share. So if you didn't have something communicable before, you may get something while doing your "short term stay." You will also find that your care will most likely be sub-par, and that you will have to remind the nurses/workers about what your doctor has ordered. Hospitals say it is all about saving money, but I beg to differ. It is all about herding people in and out and even leaving you out in the hall if you don't qualify for a "short term room." Now you must meet certain qualifications in order to be put in a regular hospital room. This is exactly what socialized medicine is about and it's no wonder some docs are quickly seeing the writing-on-the-wall.
Perhaps some good can come from this crisis. As more people become disillusioned with the Big Pharma type of "medicine," there will be a need for more natural medicine practitioners to meet the increased demand for such care. Maybe some of these unhappy doctors can find their true calling and follow their dream of being a healer by helping people discover preventative medicine based on nutrition and other wellness lifestyle choices.
Half of primary-care doctors in survey would leave medicine
By Val WillinghamCNN Medical Producer
(CNN) -- Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.
The survey, released this week by the Physicians' Foundation, which promotes better doctor-patient relationships, sought to find the reasons for an identified exodus among family doctors and internists, widely known as the backbone of the health industry.
A U.S. shortage of 35,000 to 40,000 primary care physicians by 2025 was predicted at last week's American Medical Association annual meeting.
In the survey, the foundation sent questionnaires to more than 270,000 primary care doctors and more than 50,000 specialists nationwide.
Of the 12,000 respondents, 49 percent said they'd consider leaving medicine. Many said they are overwhelmed with their practices, not because they have too many patients, but because there's too much red tape generated from insurance companies and government agencies.
And if that many physicians stopped practicing, that could be devastating to the health care industry.
"We couldn't survive that," says Dr. Walker Ray, vice president of the Physicians Foundation. "We are only producing in this country a thousand to two thousand primary doctors to replace them. Medical students are not choosing primary care."
Dr. Alan Pocinki has been practicing medicine for 17 years. He began his career around the same time insurance companies were turning to the PPO and HMO models. So he was a little shocked when he began spending more time on paperwork than patients and found he was running a small business, instead of a practice. He says it's frustrating.
"I had no business training, as far as how to run a business, or how to evaluate different plans," Pocinki says. "It was a whole brave new world and I had to sort of learn on the fly."
To manage their daily work schedules, many survey respondents reported making changes. With lower reimbursement from insurance companies and the cost of malpractice insurance skyrocketing, these health professionals say it's not worth running a practice and are changing careers. Others say they're going into so-called boutique medicine, in which they charge patients a yearly fee up front and don't take insurance.
And some like Pocinki are limiting the type of insurance they'll take and the number of patients on Medicare and Medicaid. According to the foundation's report, over a third of those surveyed have closed their practices to Medicaid patients and 12 percent have closed their practices to Medicare patients That can leave a lot of patients looking for a doctor.
And as Ray mentioned, med school students are shying away from family medicine. In a survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in September, only 2 percent of current medical students plan to take up primary care. That's because these students are wary of the same complaints that are causing existing doctors to flee primary care: hectic clinics, burdensome paperwork and systems that do a poor job of managing patients with chronic illness.
So what to do? Physicians don't have a lot of answers. But doctors say it's time to make some changes, not only in the health care field but also with the insurance industry. And they're looking to the new administration for guidance.
One of President-elect Barack Obama's health care promises is to provide a primary care physician for every American. But some health experts, including Pocinki, are skeptical.
"People who have insurance can't find a doctor, so suddenly we are going to give insurance to a whole bunch of people who haven't had it, without increasing the number of physicians?" he says. "It's going to be a problem."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/
Some of the reasons cited for this high level of dismay in the field are excessive amounts of paperwork and bookkeeping, poor care for patients with chronic conditions, and lack of time to spend treating patients. It's no wonder doctors whip out their prescription pads as their customers file through on the assembly line. Many are not able to take the time and effort necessary to individually care for their patients' needs.
Some would have us believe that socialized medicine is the answer to all of our healthcare woes. This is just not so. Many hospitals are now implementing some of these standards, one of which is "Short Term Stay" wards. These are set up like an ICU with a nurse's station in the middle of stall-like rooms. There are usually no doors to the very small stalls, just a curtain across the front of the box-like room. You do get a TV and a sink. But the worst part is that there is usually only one "community" bathroom (down the hall) ,including a shower, for all patients to share. So if you didn't have something communicable before, you may get something while doing your "short term stay." You will also find that your care will most likely be sub-par, and that you will have to remind the nurses/workers about what your doctor has ordered. Hospitals say it is all about saving money, but I beg to differ. It is all about herding people in and out and even leaving you out in the hall if you don't qualify for a "short term room." Now you must meet certain qualifications in order to be put in a regular hospital room. This is exactly what socialized medicine is about and it's no wonder some docs are quickly seeing the writing-on-the-wall.
Perhaps some good can come from this crisis. As more people become disillusioned with the Big Pharma type of "medicine," there will be a need for more natural medicine practitioners to meet the increased demand for such care. Maybe some of these unhappy doctors can find their true calling and follow their dream of being a healer by helping people discover preventative medicine based on nutrition and other wellness lifestyle choices.
Half of primary-care doctors in survey would leave medicine
By Val WillinghamCNN Medical Producer
(CNN) -- Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.
The survey, released this week by the Physicians' Foundation, which promotes better doctor-patient relationships, sought to find the reasons for an identified exodus among family doctors and internists, widely known as the backbone of the health industry.
A U.S. shortage of 35,000 to 40,000 primary care physicians by 2025 was predicted at last week's American Medical Association annual meeting.
In the survey, the foundation sent questionnaires to more than 270,000 primary care doctors and more than 50,000 specialists nationwide.
Of the 12,000 respondents, 49 percent said they'd consider leaving medicine. Many said they are overwhelmed with their practices, not because they have too many patients, but because there's too much red tape generated from insurance companies and government agencies.
And if that many physicians stopped practicing, that could be devastating to the health care industry.
"We couldn't survive that," says Dr. Walker Ray, vice president of the Physicians Foundation. "We are only producing in this country a thousand to two thousand primary doctors to replace them. Medical students are not choosing primary care."
Dr. Alan Pocinki has been practicing medicine for 17 years. He began his career around the same time insurance companies were turning to the PPO and HMO models. So he was a little shocked when he began spending more time on paperwork than patients and found he was running a small business, instead of a practice. He says it's frustrating.
"I had no business training, as far as how to run a business, or how to evaluate different plans," Pocinki says. "It was a whole brave new world and I had to sort of learn on the fly."
To manage their daily work schedules, many survey respondents reported making changes. With lower reimbursement from insurance companies and the cost of malpractice insurance skyrocketing, these health professionals say it's not worth running a practice and are changing careers. Others say they're going into so-called boutique medicine, in which they charge patients a yearly fee up front and don't take insurance.
And some like Pocinki are limiting the type of insurance they'll take and the number of patients on Medicare and Medicaid. According to the foundation's report, over a third of those surveyed have closed their practices to Medicaid patients and 12 percent have closed their practices to Medicare patients That can leave a lot of patients looking for a doctor.
And as Ray mentioned, med school students are shying away from family medicine. In a survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in September, only 2 percent of current medical students plan to take up primary care. That's because these students are wary of the same complaints that are causing existing doctors to flee primary care: hectic clinics, burdensome paperwork and systems that do a poor job of managing patients with chronic illness.
So what to do? Physicians don't have a lot of answers. But doctors say it's time to make some changes, not only in the health care field but also with the insurance industry. And they're looking to the new administration for guidance.
One of President-elect Barack Obama's health care promises is to provide a primary care physician for every American. But some health experts, including Pocinki, are skeptical.
"People who have insurance can't find a doctor, so suddenly we are going to give insurance to a whole bunch of people who haven't had it, without increasing the number of physicians?" he says. "It's going to be a problem."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Media Admits to Obvious Disease Prevention Measures
I got a kick out of the article below because of the way the mainstream media has approached the "breaking news" that diet and exercise "may" prevent cancer. It's a bit like a weather forecaster peeking out the window during a torrential downpour and reporting a slight chance of rain for the day. At least more stories are starting to appear regarding nutritional and lifestyle changes that can keep us well, but conventional medicine and the pharmaceutical companies are still a long way from giving up on the use of toxic chemicals to "treat" diseases, often conditions that they have invented themselves.
I also found it sadly ironic that the lead author of the study labeled only obesity as a preventable risk factor for breast cancer (highlighted in red below). That is totally ludicrous! Breast cancer would not even be an issue if many risk factors were eliminated such as artificial hormones; toxic chemical and hormonal exposure in the food, water, and air; nutritionally-poor foods; medications such as birth control and others, only to name a few. The media, many allopathic physicians, and Big Pharma have all jumped on the "obesity" bandwagon in a big way without addressing the fundamental issues behind it: a lack of healthy, toxin-free, nutrient-dense food that the body needs to prevent disease and repair itself. This obsession with obesity has spawned a slew of new and faddish weight-loss drugs and regimens that again only make the drug companies wealthy without improving the wellness of the masses.
Those in the cancer industry like to make this disease sound like an inevitable part of life that some people may be lucky enough to avoid if they get enough "preventative diagnostics" like mammograms, for example. The idea of prevention by living a natural lifestyle and eating "as close to nature as possible", a philosophy that has ruled throughout most of human history, is looked upon as a radical, ridiculous, and outdated approach to medical care. But perhaps enough people are becoming fed up with this madness that we call "medicine", and we as a society are poised to return to the traditional ways of health based on nutrition instead of a cocktail of pharmaceuticals that only make us sicker.
Diet, Exercise May Modify Breast Cancer Risks
Combined, they produce more potent anti-disease effect in postmenopausal women, study says
Posted November 18, 2008
TUESDAY, Nov. 18 (HealthDay News) -- Scientists believe they have found out why diet and exercise affect a women's chance of breast cancer after she's past menopause, a new study says.
Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin found that cutting calories and exercise affect pathways to mTOR, a molecule that integrates energy balance with cell growth and can contribute to various human diseases when it is not functioning properly.
The research team, expected to present its findings Nov. 18 at the American Association for Cancer Research's annual conference on cancer prevention research, in National Harbor, Md., said these pathways are different, though. Calorie restriction affects more upstream pathways, which may explain why cutting calories delays tumor growth better than exercise when tested on animals.
"One of the few breast cancer modifiable risk factors is obesity," study lead author Leticia M. Nogueira, a research graduate assistant at the University of Texas, said in a news release issued by the conference organizers. "Our study may provide a good scientific basis for medical recommendations. If you're obese, and at high risk for breast cancer, diet and exercise could help prevent tumor growth."
Past research has suggested that consuming fewer calories or increasing exercise levels creates a "negative energy balance" where less energy is taken in than expended, and this lowers the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer associated with obesity. While scientists have thought hormones may play a part in this, it has never been proven.
For the new study, researchers studied 45 obese mice that had their ovaries surgically removed to model the post-menopausal state. After eight weeks, mice fed a calorie-restricted diet had significantly lower blood levels of leptin, a hormone that plays a role in fat metabolism, than those mice only put on an exercise program or those allowed to eat at will with no forced exercise. The calorie-restricted mice also had increased levels of adiponectin, a hormone produced in fat tissue that regulates some metabolic processes, the researchers said.
Some of the cell signaling pathways these hormones manage converge at mTOR, and the researchers found that the key proteins found downstream of mTOR were less active in both the calorie-restricted and exercised mice compared to the controls.
"These data suggest that although exercise can act on similar pathways as caloric restriction, caloric restriction possesses a more global effect on cell signaling and, therefore, may produce a more potent anti-cancer effect," Nogueira said.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/11/18/diet-exercise-may-modify-breast-cancer-risks_print.htm
I also found it sadly ironic that the lead author of the study labeled only obesity as a preventable risk factor for breast cancer (highlighted in red below). That is totally ludicrous! Breast cancer would not even be an issue if many risk factors were eliminated such as artificial hormones; toxic chemical and hormonal exposure in the food, water, and air; nutritionally-poor foods; medications such as birth control and others, only to name a few. The media, many allopathic physicians, and Big Pharma have all jumped on the "obesity" bandwagon in a big way without addressing the fundamental issues behind it: a lack of healthy, toxin-free, nutrient-dense food that the body needs to prevent disease and repair itself. This obsession with obesity has spawned a slew of new and faddish weight-loss drugs and regimens that again only make the drug companies wealthy without improving the wellness of the masses.
Those in the cancer industry like to make this disease sound like an inevitable part of life that some people may be lucky enough to avoid if they get enough "preventative diagnostics" like mammograms, for example. The idea of prevention by living a natural lifestyle and eating "as close to nature as possible", a philosophy that has ruled throughout most of human history, is looked upon as a radical, ridiculous, and outdated approach to medical care. But perhaps enough people are becoming fed up with this madness that we call "medicine", and we as a society are poised to return to the traditional ways of health based on nutrition instead of a cocktail of pharmaceuticals that only make us sicker.
Diet, Exercise May Modify Breast Cancer Risks
Combined, they produce more potent anti-disease effect in postmenopausal women, study says
Posted November 18, 2008
TUESDAY, Nov. 18 (HealthDay News) -- Scientists believe they have found out why diet and exercise affect a women's chance of breast cancer after she's past menopause, a new study says.
Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin found that cutting calories and exercise affect pathways to mTOR, a molecule that integrates energy balance with cell growth and can contribute to various human diseases when it is not functioning properly.
The research team, expected to present its findings Nov. 18 at the American Association for Cancer Research's annual conference on cancer prevention research, in National Harbor, Md., said these pathways are different, though. Calorie restriction affects more upstream pathways, which may explain why cutting calories delays tumor growth better than exercise when tested on animals.
"One of the few breast cancer modifiable risk factors is obesity," study lead author Leticia M. Nogueira, a research graduate assistant at the University of Texas, said in a news release issued by the conference organizers. "Our study may provide a good scientific basis for medical recommendations. If you're obese, and at high risk for breast cancer, diet and exercise could help prevent tumor growth."
Past research has suggested that consuming fewer calories or increasing exercise levels creates a "negative energy balance" where less energy is taken in than expended, and this lowers the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer associated with obesity. While scientists have thought hormones may play a part in this, it has never been proven.
For the new study, researchers studied 45 obese mice that had their ovaries surgically removed to model the post-menopausal state. After eight weeks, mice fed a calorie-restricted diet had significantly lower blood levels of leptin, a hormone that plays a role in fat metabolism, than those mice only put on an exercise program or those allowed to eat at will with no forced exercise. The calorie-restricted mice also had increased levels of adiponectin, a hormone produced in fat tissue that regulates some metabolic processes, the researchers said.
Some of the cell signaling pathways these hormones manage converge at mTOR, and the researchers found that the key proteins found downstream of mTOR were less active in both the calorie-restricted and exercised mice compared to the controls.
"These data suggest that although exercise can act on similar pathways as caloric restriction, caloric restriction possesses a more global effect on cell signaling and, therefore, may produce a more potent anti-cancer effect," Nogueira said.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/11/18/diet-exercise-may-modify-breast-cancer-risks_print.htm
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Brave New World for Health Care in U.S.?
Yesterday I talked about some natural alternatives that are starting to become more popular. The article in today's post does an excellent job of summarizing why we may be on the edge of a societal shift away from the abusive overuse of dangerous prescriptions by the American people. It appears that due to several key factors -- including prohibitively expensive drugs during these tough economic times and a huge increase in reports of serious side effects and fatalities from prescription drugs -- that the sales and profits of Big Pharma are declining for the first time in over a decade.
People are doing more research than ever and are challenging doctors to provide side-effects (short and long-term) of any meds that are prescribed. Many are saying NO to the myriad of childhood vaccinations imposed upon our children, along with refusing the all "too available" flu vaccine. In other words, people are beginning to step out of the traditional medicine box, thus taking responsibility for their own health and well-being. Nope, most doctors don't appreciate this, but it's not THEIR money that is being spent. It is OUR money, and more and more of us are deciding to spend OUR money in a way that promotes health and healing. Many healthcare professionals conveniently forget this.
This article also addresses what real change in our healthcare system should involve -- a popular topic lately during this election year -- and why this change must be about a switch to preventative medicine that focuses on lifestyle changes (instead of toxic chemicals) to heal us, and more importantly to keep us well. If there is any silver lining in this economic recession we are currently in, perhaps it is the opportunity for people to rediscover nutritional healthcare, natural healing, and preventative remedies that could revolutionize the welfare of the American people and radically change our healthcare system that is so desperately in need of an overhaul.
Will the Down Economy Herald the Use of Natural Medicine?
For the first time in a decade or more, U.S. consumers are trying to get by on fewer prescription drugs. As people around the country respond to financial hard times, drugs are sometimes having to wait.
The drug giant Pfizer, which makes Lipitor, the world's top-selling prescription medicine, said U.S. sales of that drug were down 13 percent in the third quarter of this year. And although the overall decline in total prescriptions was less than 1 percent, it represents the first downturn after more than a decade of steady increases in prescriptions. From 1997 to 2007, the number of prescriptions filled increased 72 percent.
In some cases, the cutbacks might not hurt. According to Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "A lot of people think there's probably over-prescribing in the United States."
The American health care system is more than twice as expensive as the health care system of any other industrial country, yet premature deaths caused by its inappropriate, and overpriced, interventions are increasing at an exponential rate.
Despite the fact that Americans pay $7,600 a year per person for healthcare -- 16 percent of the GDP -- it produces remarkably poor results. We actually rank LAST out of 19 countries for unnecessary deaths, despite the vastly increased use of a wide variety of "wonder drugs" and vaccines.
How can this be?
Because Americans have been successfully brainwashed into believing the fairytale that prescription drugs can prevent and cure disease.
But as I reported earlier this week, fatalities now account for 23 percent of all reported adverse effects of prescription drugs! And overall reports of side effects increased a whopping 38 percent in the first quarter of this year, compared to the previous four quarters.
There is no doubt in my mind that a vast majority of the population is severely overmedicated with expensive and nearly always unnecessary drugs, considering the multitude of natural therapeutic options.
The only way to turn this devastating situation around is to remind the public of the basic truths that nearly all their ancestors knew:
Health has nothing to do with pills, and everything to do with sensible lifestyles that include a healthy diet, stress relief, and exercise.
What's Missing in Talks About Health Care Reform?
What's missing in all of the debates about health care reform for the United States is a holistic approach.
The reason the U.S. ranks so poorly is because our system focuses on disease mongering and sickness care, whereas the health care systems in most other countries rely heavier on prevention. As a result, the people in those countries live longer, healthier lives.
Whether or not to provide universal health care or health insurance to every American is not the question that needs to be answered. What we need to ask is how to give Americans more time to relax, exercise, cook healthy meals, and get enough sleep and healthy doses of sunshine.
Rather than subsidizing agribusiness that produces mostly junk food and permitting direct-to-consumer drug advertising, it would be far wiser to focus on providing Americans access to healthy foods, and opportunity to exercise and rest.
Escalating Drug Sales Have Plunged Americans' Health Into State of Sickness and Premature Death
Just 50 years ago, according to IMS Health (a company that tracks the pharmaceutical industry), the two biggest sellers were over-the-counter drugs Bufferin and Geritol. At that time the prescription drug business was microscopic.
In 1954, Johnson & Johnson had $204 million in revenue. By 2004 it had grown to about $36 billion. Merck's drug sales in 1954 were a minuscule $1.5 million; by 2002, that figure was $52 billion.
The New York Times states,
"If enough people try to save money by forgoing drugs, controllable conditions could escalate into major medical problems. That could eventually raise the nation's total health care bill and lower the nation's standard of living."
I disagree, and if you don't, I suspect you haven't viewed the Town of Allopath Video.
If enough people realize that they don't need many of the drugs they're on, that would eventually lower the nation's health care bill and increase the nation's standard of living.
Last year, 3.8 billion prescriptions were filled. That's a 72 percent increase in prescriptions in just ten years, from 1997 to 2007.
In that same period, the average number of prescriptions filled by each person in the U.S. increased from about 9 a year in 1997, to almost 11 in 2006, and 13 in 2007!
The average annual prescription rate for seniors is 28 prescriptions per person.
Please understand that there is no possible way to preserve or improve your health by taking a dozen or more prescription drugs. That is a misconception; a fairytale complete with a story-book happy ending, concocted by shrewd marketing professionals acting in the best interest of the industry that signs their paychecks.
It's a myth that simply must be dispelled.
Curing Disease Means Finding Health
If you make drugs a last option, not a first choice, you will have taken a major step in the right direction.
For example, if you suffer from any of the conditions listed below, please understand that you can treat or prevent all of them with relatively simple, inexpensive LIFESTYLE CHANGES.
Most people who are prescribed drugs for these conditions are spending their dwindling cash reserves on drugs they don't really need to be well:
Type 2 diabetes
Heart disease
High blood pressure
High cholesterol
Insomnia
Arthritis
Cognitive decline
Depression
Osteoporosis
I realize that it takes a massive shift in thinking to realize that your body can heal itself, and that often drugs only hinder the process. But I can't stress enough the importance of the most basic principle of HOW to resolve an illness: finding the underlying cause of the problem. Masking it with a drug that lessens your symptoms does not fix anything.
Taking Control of Your Health
More government involvement doesn't hold the answer to the health care crisis. What is needed is more personal involvement -- your personal involvement -- in the form of a commitment to your own health.If you carefully follow some basic health principles -- simple things like exercising, eating whole foods, sleeping enough, getting sun exposure, reducing stress in your life, and nurturing personal relationships -- you will drastically reduce your need for conventional medical care.
You could also carefully analyze newer health insurance options such as HRAs and HSAs if you live in the United States. The basic concept here is to provide protection against medical catastrophes, but to have a high deductible to lower your costs. If you stay healthy, the premium savings would more than pay for the higher deductible -- IF you ever need it.And that is really the bottom line.As drug sales are now dwindling due to a depressed economy, you and your children are likely to be bombarded with increasingly aggressive pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising, and lobbying for more forced drugging and mandatory vaccinations.
Don't fall for the scare tactics and disease mongering! And don't believe the fairy tale that taking a pill with a laundry list of side effects will somehow make you feel as glowing and wonderful as the well-paid actors in the commercial.
The more you take responsibility for your own health -- in the form of nurturing your body to prevent disease -- the less you need to rely on the "disease care" that passes for health care in the United States in the first place.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/11/15/will-the-down-economy-herald-the-use-of-natural-medicine.aspx
People are doing more research than ever and are challenging doctors to provide side-effects (short and long-term) of any meds that are prescribed. Many are saying NO to the myriad of childhood vaccinations imposed upon our children, along with refusing the all "too available" flu vaccine. In other words, people are beginning to step out of the traditional medicine box, thus taking responsibility for their own health and well-being. Nope, most doctors don't appreciate this, but it's not THEIR money that is being spent. It is OUR money, and more and more of us are deciding to spend OUR money in a way that promotes health and healing. Many healthcare professionals conveniently forget this.
This article also addresses what real change in our healthcare system should involve -- a popular topic lately during this election year -- and why this change must be about a switch to preventative medicine that focuses on lifestyle changes (instead of toxic chemicals) to heal us, and more importantly to keep us well. If there is any silver lining in this economic recession we are currently in, perhaps it is the opportunity for people to rediscover nutritional healthcare, natural healing, and preventative remedies that could revolutionize the welfare of the American people and radically change our healthcare system that is so desperately in need of an overhaul.
Will the Down Economy Herald the Use of Natural Medicine?
For the first time in a decade or more, U.S. consumers are trying to get by on fewer prescription drugs. As people around the country respond to financial hard times, drugs are sometimes having to wait.
The drug giant Pfizer, which makes Lipitor, the world's top-selling prescription medicine, said U.S. sales of that drug were down 13 percent in the third quarter of this year. And although the overall decline in total prescriptions was less than 1 percent, it represents the first downturn after more than a decade of steady increases in prescriptions. From 1997 to 2007, the number of prescriptions filled increased 72 percent.
In some cases, the cutbacks might not hurt. According to Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, "A lot of people think there's probably over-prescribing in the United States."
The American health care system is more than twice as expensive as the health care system of any other industrial country, yet premature deaths caused by its inappropriate, and overpriced, interventions are increasing at an exponential rate.
Despite the fact that Americans pay $7,600 a year per person for healthcare -- 16 percent of the GDP -- it produces remarkably poor results. We actually rank LAST out of 19 countries for unnecessary deaths, despite the vastly increased use of a wide variety of "wonder drugs" and vaccines.
How can this be?
Because Americans have been successfully brainwashed into believing the fairytale that prescription drugs can prevent and cure disease.
But as I reported earlier this week, fatalities now account for 23 percent of all reported adverse effects of prescription drugs! And overall reports of side effects increased a whopping 38 percent in the first quarter of this year, compared to the previous four quarters.
There is no doubt in my mind that a vast majority of the population is severely overmedicated with expensive and nearly always unnecessary drugs, considering the multitude of natural therapeutic options.
The only way to turn this devastating situation around is to remind the public of the basic truths that nearly all their ancestors knew:
Health has nothing to do with pills, and everything to do with sensible lifestyles that include a healthy diet, stress relief, and exercise.
What's Missing in Talks About Health Care Reform?
What's missing in all of the debates about health care reform for the United States is a holistic approach.
The reason the U.S. ranks so poorly is because our system focuses on disease mongering and sickness care, whereas the health care systems in most other countries rely heavier on prevention. As a result, the people in those countries live longer, healthier lives.
Whether or not to provide universal health care or health insurance to every American is not the question that needs to be answered. What we need to ask is how to give Americans more time to relax, exercise, cook healthy meals, and get enough sleep and healthy doses of sunshine.
Rather than subsidizing agribusiness that produces mostly junk food and permitting direct-to-consumer drug advertising, it would be far wiser to focus on providing Americans access to healthy foods, and opportunity to exercise and rest.
Escalating Drug Sales Have Plunged Americans' Health Into State of Sickness and Premature Death
Just 50 years ago, according to IMS Health (a company that tracks the pharmaceutical industry), the two biggest sellers were over-the-counter drugs Bufferin and Geritol. At that time the prescription drug business was microscopic.
In 1954, Johnson & Johnson had $204 million in revenue. By 2004 it had grown to about $36 billion. Merck's drug sales in 1954 were a minuscule $1.5 million; by 2002, that figure was $52 billion.
The New York Times states,
"If enough people try to save money by forgoing drugs, controllable conditions could escalate into major medical problems. That could eventually raise the nation's total health care bill and lower the nation's standard of living."
I disagree, and if you don't, I suspect you haven't viewed the Town of Allopath Video.
If enough people realize that they don't need many of the drugs they're on, that would eventually lower the nation's health care bill and increase the nation's standard of living.
Last year, 3.8 billion prescriptions were filled. That's a 72 percent increase in prescriptions in just ten years, from 1997 to 2007.
In that same period, the average number of prescriptions filled by each person in the U.S. increased from about 9 a year in 1997, to almost 11 in 2006, and 13 in 2007!
The average annual prescription rate for seniors is 28 prescriptions per person.
Please understand that there is no possible way to preserve or improve your health by taking a dozen or more prescription drugs. That is a misconception; a fairytale complete with a story-book happy ending, concocted by shrewd marketing professionals acting in the best interest of the industry that signs their paychecks.
It's a myth that simply must be dispelled.
Curing Disease Means Finding Health
If you make drugs a last option, not a first choice, you will have taken a major step in the right direction.
For example, if you suffer from any of the conditions listed below, please understand that you can treat or prevent all of them with relatively simple, inexpensive LIFESTYLE CHANGES.
Most people who are prescribed drugs for these conditions are spending their dwindling cash reserves on drugs they don't really need to be well:
Type 2 diabetes
Heart disease
High blood pressure
High cholesterol
Insomnia
Arthritis
Cognitive decline
Depression
Osteoporosis
I realize that it takes a massive shift in thinking to realize that your body can heal itself, and that often drugs only hinder the process. But I can't stress enough the importance of the most basic principle of HOW to resolve an illness: finding the underlying cause of the problem. Masking it with a drug that lessens your symptoms does not fix anything.
Taking Control of Your Health
More government involvement doesn't hold the answer to the health care crisis. What is needed is more personal involvement -- your personal involvement -- in the form of a commitment to your own health.If you carefully follow some basic health principles -- simple things like exercising, eating whole foods, sleeping enough, getting sun exposure, reducing stress in your life, and nurturing personal relationships -- you will drastically reduce your need for conventional medical care.
You could also carefully analyze newer health insurance options such as HRAs and HSAs if you live in the United States. The basic concept here is to provide protection against medical catastrophes, but to have a high deductible to lower your costs. If you stay healthy, the premium savings would more than pay for the higher deductible -- IF you ever need it.And that is really the bottom line.As drug sales are now dwindling due to a depressed economy, you and your children are likely to be bombarded with increasingly aggressive pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising, and lobbying for more forced drugging and mandatory vaccinations.
Don't fall for the scare tactics and disease mongering! And don't believe the fairy tale that taking a pill with a laundry list of side effects will somehow make you feel as glowing and wonderful as the well-paid actors in the commercial.
The more you take responsibility for your own health -- in the form of nurturing your body to prevent disease -- the less you need to rely on the "disease care" that passes for health care in the United States in the first place.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/11/15/will-the-down-economy-herald-the-use-of-natural-medicine.aspx
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Natural Remedies -- Tried and True -- for IBS
It was encouraging to find the article below covered in the media. It suggests peppermint oil and fiber (best from organic food) -- natural remedies without the excessive cost and hazardous side effects of many modern medications -- that can very effectively help to heal and relieve digestive conditions such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome. But it also points out that people -- both physicians and patients -- are beginning to take another glance at alternative forms of health care that have slidden into obscurity over the last 50 years or so, since Big Pharma has convinced the public that drugs are the answer for every and all ailments.
IBS symptoms can seemingly be brought about by high stress levels although nothing has been proven in this area. It was once considered ridiculous that daily stress or severe panic could actually be the cause of sudden diarrhea or constipation. However, there are many physiological factors that can actually aggravate the colon, even if the exact cause cannot be pinned down.
Probiotics are highly recommended to help manage the symptoms of IBS. I would suggest Latero-Flora and/or Primal Defense.
Nutritional medicine and nutritional supplements are far safer and more cost-effective than the toxic drugs typically prescribed by conventional medical practitioners. With the outrageous cost of medications and the large amount of recent publicity about the hazards of these drugs, could it be that a quiet revolution may be taking place that involves a switch from the blind trust of modern medicine that has existed for so long? More on that in tomorrow's post.
Peppermint Oil, Fiber Can Fight Irritable Bowel
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter
Friday, November 14, 2008; 12:00 AM
THURSDAY, Nov. 13 (HealthDay News) -- For some patients, the best therapy for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) may be older, cheaper drugs such as fiber, antispasmodics and peppermint oil, a new study finds.
According to researchers, these simple treatments have fallen out of favor because of the availability of newer (and more expensive) drugs, some of which have been taken off the market due to safety concerns.
But more traditional therapies should become first-line treatments in guidelines for the treatment of IBS, the experts say.
"IBS can be difficult for physicians to treat," noted lead researcher Dr. Alex Ford, from McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre in Ontario, Canada.
"New drugs are always being developed, but recent ones such as alosetron and tegaserod have been withdrawn, and are now only available on a restricted basis, and renzapride has not been shown to be effective," he said. On the other hand "older drugs, which are cheap, safe, and in some cases available over the counter, appear to be effective in IBS."
The report is published in the Nov. 14 online edition of the BMJ.
As many as 45 million Americans may have IBS, the International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders reports. Between 60 percent and 65 percent of IBS sufferers are women.
In addition to pain and discomfort, people with IBS experience chronic or recurrent constipation or diarrhea -- or bouts of both. While the exact cause of the condition isn't known, symptoms seem to result from a disturbance in the interaction of the gut, brain and nervous system, according to the foundation.
For the study, Ford's team reviewed trials that compared IBS treatment with fiber antispasmodics and peppermint oil to a placebo or no treatment. The trials included more than 2,500 IBS patients.
The researchers found that fiber, antispasmodics and peppermint oil were effective treatments for IBS. Specifically, that meant that to prevent IBS symptoms in one patient, 11 needed to be treated with fiber, five with antispasmodics, and 2.5 with peppermint oil.
There were no serious side effects associated with any of these treatments, the researchers note.
Peppermint oil appeared to be the most effective therapy of those reviewed, the researchers found.
In trials comparing fiber with placebo, insoluble fiber such as bran was not effective. Instead, only soluble fiber, such as ispaghula husk, reduced symptoms. For antispasmodics, the most effective was hyoscine. This should be used first among antispasmodics, Ford's group advised.
"Physicians, particularly those in primary care, who are being asked to take increasing responsibility for the management of IBS, should consider the use of these agents as first-line therapies for IBS," Ford said.
Dr. Roger Jones, from Kings College London and author of an accompanying journal editorial, welcomed the study. "These treatments might be slightly more effective than recently thought and they are worth trying," Jones said.
For some patients with pain and diarrhea the antispasmodics may be useful. Patients with constipation should try fiber and for other patients, peppermint oil may be helpful, Jones said.
"If you have IBS which is not under reasonably good control or you are not happy with your symptom profile, you should see your primary-care doc or gastroenterologist for review and perhaps remind them that there is new evidence about the effectiveness of these traditional medicines and you would like to give it a go," Jones said.
"Alternatively, if you feel sufficiently well-informed and confident, you can go do it yourself and get these treatments at the pharmacy," Jones added.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303704_pf.html
IBS symptoms can seemingly be brought about by high stress levels although nothing has been proven in this area. It was once considered ridiculous that daily stress or severe panic could actually be the cause of sudden diarrhea or constipation. However, there are many physiological factors that can actually aggravate the colon, even if the exact cause cannot be pinned down.
Probiotics are highly recommended to help manage the symptoms of IBS. I would suggest Latero-Flora and/or Primal Defense.
Nutritional medicine and nutritional supplements are far safer and more cost-effective than the toxic drugs typically prescribed by conventional medical practitioners. With the outrageous cost of medications and the large amount of recent publicity about the hazards of these drugs, could it be that a quiet revolution may be taking place that involves a switch from the blind trust of modern medicine that has existed for so long? More on that in tomorrow's post.
Peppermint Oil, Fiber Can Fight Irritable Bowel
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter
Friday, November 14, 2008; 12:00 AM
THURSDAY, Nov. 13 (HealthDay News) -- For some patients, the best therapy for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) may be older, cheaper drugs such as fiber, antispasmodics and peppermint oil, a new study finds.
According to researchers, these simple treatments have fallen out of favor because of the availability of newer (and more expensive) drugs, some of which have been taken off the market due to safety concerns.
But more traditional therapies should become first-line treatments in guidelines for the treatment of IBS, the experts say.
"IBS can be difficult for physicians to treat," noted lead researcher Dr. Alex Ford, from McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre in Ontario, Canada.
"New drugs are always being developed, but recent ones such as alosetron and tegaserod have been withdrawn, and are now only available on a restricted basis, and renzapride has not been shown to be effective," he said. On the other hand "older drugs, which are cheap, safe, and in some cases available over the counter, appear to be effective in IBS."
The report is published in the Nov. 14 online edition of the BMJ.
As many as 45 million Americans may have IBS, the International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders reports. Between 60 percent and 65 percent of IBS sufferers are women.
In addition to pain and discomfort, people with IBS experience chronic or recurrent constipation or diarrhea -- or bouts of both. While the exact cause of the condition isn't known, symptoms seem to result from a disturbance in the interaction of the gut, brain and nervous system, according to the foundation.
For the study, Ford's team reviewed trials that compared IBS treatment with fiber antispasmodics and peppermint oil to a placebo or no treatment. The trials included more than 2,500 IBS patients.
The researchers found that fiber, antispasmodics and peppermint oil were effective treatments for IBS. Specifically, that meant that to prevent IBS symptoms in one patient, 11 needed to be treated with fiber, five with antispasmodics, and 2.5 with peppermint oil.
There were no serious side effects associated with any of these treatments, the researchers note.
Peppermint oil appeared to be the most effective therapy of those reviewed, the researchers found.
In trials comparing fiber with placebo, insoluble fiber such as bran was not effective. Instead, only soluble fiber, such as ispaghula husk, reduced symptoms. For antispasmodics, the most effective was hyoscine. This should be used first among antispasmodics, Ford's group advised.
"Physicians, particularly those in primary care, who are being asked to take increasing responsibility for the management of IBS, should consider the use of these agents as first-line therapies for IBS," Ford said.
Dr. Roger Jones, from Kings College London and author of an accompanying journal editorial, welcomed the study. "These treatments might be slightly more effective than recently thought and they are worth trying," Jones said.
For some patients with pain and diarrhea the antispasmodics may be useful. Patients with constipation should try fiber and for other patients, peppermint oil may be helpful, Jones said.
"If you have IBS which is not under reasonably good control or you are not happy with your symptom profile, you should see your primary-care doc or gastroenterologist for review and perhaps remind them that there is new evidence about the effectiveness of these traditional medicines and you would like to give it a go," Jones said.
"Alternatively, if you feel sufficiently well-informed and confident, you can go do it yourself and get these treatments at the pharmacy," Jones added.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303704_pf.html
Monday, November 17, 2008
Knee Surgery? Get a Second Opinion First
It is always prudent to educate yourself about the benefits and risks of any medical procedure -- surgery, medication, or others -- before you submit to it, and today's article discusses an excellent example of why this is so. According to a newly released study, one of the most popular types of knee surgery -- performed on countless patients over the years -- provides no improvement for individuals with osteoarthritis. How many operations have been done unnecessarily and how many dollars of profit have resulted from these surgeries on patients who blindly trusted their doctor's advice? We may never know.
An excellent nutritional therapy for osteoarthritis -- that avoids both surgery and dangerous medications -- is supplementation with a high-quality omega-3 product. Omega-3's have many beneficial qualities, one of which is reduction of inflammation, a major factor in arthritis and numerous other illnesses.
Landmark Study Finds Popular Surgery Provides No Relief For Osteoarthritis Of The Knee
A landmark study conducted in London, Canada at The University of Western Ontario and Lawson Health Research Institute shows that a routinely practiced knee surgery is ineffective at reducing joint pain or improving joint function for sufferers of osteoarthritis. The study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"This study provides definitive evidence that arthroscopic surgery provides no additional therapeutic value when added to physical therapy and medication for patients with moderate osteoarthritis of the knee," says study co-author Dr. Brian Feagan, Clinical Trials Director at the Robarts Research Institute at Western. Feagan is also a professor of Medicine, and Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Western's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry.
Arthroscopic surgery is widely accepted as an effective treatment for osteoarthritis of the knee. It's a minimally invasive surgical procedure involving insertion of an arthroscope and other instruments into the joint through small incisions in order to remove cartilage fragments and smooth the joint surfaces. Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis affecting one in ten Canadians and 27 million Americans.
The study was designed by the late Sandy Kirkley, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in arthroscopic surgery. It was coordinated by the Clinical Trials Group at Robarts Research Institute and conducted by orthopedic surgeons at the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC). The research team also included rheumatologists and physiotherapists.
Running from 1999 to 2007, the study treated 178 London-area men and women with an average age of 60. All study participants received physical therapy as well as medications such as ibuprofen or acetaminophen, but 86 of the patients also received surgery consisting of lavage and arthroscopic debridement at LHSC. At several time intervals post-treatment, the researchers found both patient groups experienced comparable improvements in joint pain, stiffness, and function, but surgery provided no additional benefit.
Orthopedic surgeon and study co-author Dr. Bob Litchfield emphasizes this study addresses only arthritis-related knee problems. "Although this study did not show a significant therapeutic benefit of arthroscopic debridement in this patient population, knee arthroscopy is still beneficial in many other conditions affecting the knee, such as meniscal repair and resection, and ligament reconstruction." Litchfield is the Medical Director of the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic. He's also a professor In the Department of Surgery at Western's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry and a scientist with the Lawson Health Research Institute. "As surgeons, we need to know when things are working and when they're not. If this particular technique is not working for this subgroup of patients, we better come up with something else that does."
A 2002 study demonstrating similar results to this study was broadly dismissed by the medical community, and arthroscopic surgery of the knee remains a common treatment for joint pain and stiffness. But in this latest study the researchers conclude "based on the available evidence, we believe that the resources currently allocated towards arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis would be better directed elsewhere."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=121146
An excellent nutritional therapy for osteoarthritis -- that avoids both surgery and dangerous medications -- is supplementation with a high-quality omega-3 product. Omega-3's have many beneficial qualities, one of which is reduction of inflammation, a major factor in arthritis and numerous other illnesses.
Landmark Study Finds Popular Surgery Provides No Relief For Osteoarthritis Of The Knee
A landmark study conducted in London, Canada at The University of Western Ontario and Lawson Health Research Institute shows that a routinely practiced knee surgery is ineffective at reducing joint pain or improving joint function for sufferers of osteoarthritis. The study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"This study provides definitive evidence that arthroscopic surgery provides no additional therapeutic value when added to physical therapy and medication for patients with moderate osteoarthritis of the knee," says study co-author Dr. Brian Feagan, Clinical Trials Director at the Robarts Research Institute at Western. Feagan is also a professor of Medicine, and Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Western's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry.
Arthroscopic surgery is widely accepted as an effective treatment for osteoarthritis of the knee. It's a minimally invasive surgical procedure involving insertion of an arthroscope and other instruments into the joint through small incisions in order to remove cartilage fragments and smooth the joint surfaces. Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis affecting one in ten Canadians and 27 million Americans.
The study was designed by the late Sandy Kirkley, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in arthroscopic surgery. It was coordinated by the Clinical Trials Group at Robarts Research Institute and conducted by orthopedic surgeons at the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC). The research team also included rheumatologists and physiotherapists.
Running from 1999 to 2007, the study treated 178 London-area men and women with an average age of 60. All study participants received physical therapy as well as medications such as ibuprofen or acetaminophen, but 86 of the patients also received surgery consisting of lavage and arthroscopic debridement at LHSC. At several time intervals post-treatment, the researchers found both patient groups experienced comparable improvements in joint pain, stiffness, and function, but surgery provided no additional benefit.
Orthopedic surgeon and study co-author Dr. Bob Litchfield emphasizes this study addresses only arthritis-related knee problems. "Although this study did not show a significant therapeutic benefit of arthroscopic debridement in this patient population, knee arthroscopy is still beneficial in many other conditions affecting the knee, such as meniscal repair and resection, and ligament reconstruction." Litchfield is the Medical Director of the Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic. He's also a professor In the Department of Surgery at Western's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry and a scientist with the Lawson Health Research Institute. "As surgeons, we need to know when things are working and when they're not. If this particular technique is not working for this subgroup of patients, we better come up with something else that does."
A 2002 study demonstrating similar results to this study was broadly dismissed by the medical community, and arthroscopic surgery of the knee remains a common treatment for joint pain and stiffness. But in this latest study the researchers conclude "based on the available evidence, we believe that the resources currently allocated towards arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis would be better directed elsewhere."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=121146
Friday, November 14, 2008
Obama's "Change" Looks Like More of the Same
Rumors in our nation's capital have president-elect Obama leaning towards Tom Vilsack as the head honcho of the USDA in his upcoming administration. As the post below points out, this man is no friend of American farmers (except perhaps the huge corporate ones), and has very questionable connections to biotech groups and corporations such as Monsanto that are aggressively supporting and marketing genetically modified foods and agricultural practices that are nutritionally and ecologically disastrous.
Apparently the big-bucks behind those that support control of the food supply have bought and paid for access and influence within the Obama camp. Despite campaigning against the status quo and "Old Boy Network" in Washington, it appears for now that Obama is practicing business as usual. When one analyzes the massive financial advantage that Obama had over his Republican opponent, along with some of the questionable moves that were made by the McCain camp during the election, it is no small stretch of the imagination to suspect that perhaps Obama was picked for the job far before the voting took place. Only time will tell, but it will be interesting to keep an eye on how much real change will occur over the next four years.
Six Reasons Why Obama Appointing Monsanto's Buddy, Former Iowa Governor Vilsack, for USDA Head is a Terrible Idea
From: National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture & the OCA
Nov. 12, 2008
* Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn.
* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.
* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.
* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.
* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocates across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid, and there was controversy because Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet.
*Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.
http://www.grassrootsnetroots.org/articles/article_15573.cfm
Apparently the big-bucks behind those that support control of the food supply have bought and paid for access and influence within the Obama camp. Despite campaigning against the status quo and "Old Boy Network" in Washington, it appears for now that Obama is practicing business as usual. When one analyzes the massive financial advantage that Obama had over his Republican opponent, along with some of the questionable moves that were made by the McCain camp during the election, it is no small stretch of the imagination to suspect that perhaps Obama was picked for the job far before the voting took place. Only time will tell, but it will be interesting to keep an eye on how much real change will occur over the next four years.
Six Reasons Why Obama Appointing Monsanto's Buddy, Former Iowa Governor Vilsack, for USDA Head is a Terrible Idea
From: National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture & the OCA
Nov. 12, 2008
* Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn.
* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.
* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.
* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.
* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocates across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid, and there was controversy because Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet.
*Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.
http://www.grassrootsnetroots.org/articles/article_15573.cfm
Thursday, November 13, 2008
A Refreshingly Different Perspective on Flu Vaccine
The dreaded "cold and flu season" is upon us, and the media makes sure we don"t forget about it! As I passed a sign in a grocery store the other day that advertised flu shots for $25 each and pneumonia vaccines for $50 a piece, I was reminded what a ridiculous scam these mass vaccines are, and how the huge amounts of money that are made motivate misinformation and media-induced panic that causes otherwise sensible people to subject their children and elderly family members to these toxic injections.
Once again we turn to the National Vaccine Information Center to bring some sanity into this situation by being a voice for truth amidst all the propaganda. The article below points out many facts that are generally not presented to the public regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and the issues surrounding the need for them in the first place. The stakes are getting higher every year, as now the push is on to vaccinate preschoolers and some states are making this mandatory (an issue we discussed on an earlier blog). As the author points out, we must become educated and informed in order to protect the health and welfare of our families because if we leave it up to the powers that be, we will all become victims of a system that is profit-driven and by nature seeks to trample on the healthcare rights of the public in order to push through their agenda.
Flu & You: Know Your Options
by Barbara Loe Fisher
These days you can't turn around without being reminded that the "flu" season is just around the corner and it is time for every American - but especially infants, kindergarteners through high school graduates and anyone over 50 - to get a shot of influenza vaccine. But there are lots of new questions about whether the influenza vaccine is ineffective in children and whether it is also ineffective in the elderly at the same time there are growing doubts about whether many doctors and health officials have told the public the truth and nothing but the truth about the risks associated with infectious disease and the risks associated with vaccination.
Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) has produced several investigative reports on vaccination during the past several years and a recent CBN report on influenza vaccine examined the validity of the annual influenza mortality figure that the CDC routinely uses (36,000 deaths per year in the U.S. from influenza). The report also presented several perspectives about getting a flu shot versus using a more natural approach to staying well in the flu season. (See VIDEO of report as well as VIDEO outtakes not included in the broadast story featuring Vitamin D Council Executive Director John Cannell, M.D. on pandemic influenza, Heather Maurer on how she made an educated flu shot decision for her child; Virginia Health Commissioner Karen Remley, M.D. on why public health officials like flu shots; and my comments on "cradle-to-grave" vaccine policies and development of a "supervaccine.")
Joseph Mercola, M.D., a champion of the holistic health and wellness lifestyle and strong advocate for the informed consent ethic in medicine, frequently offers alternative perspectives about infectious disease and vaccination. See Dr. Mercola's past newsletters discussing flu vaccination and other vaccination topics at www.mercola.com and view a speech I gave at the Natural Living Conference sponsored by Holistic Moms Network on his website.
In the coming months, the push for Americans to get flu shots will increase but how many will understand the government-acknowledged risks and precautions for inactivated, injected influenza vaccine or the live virus nasal influenza vaccine which are more fully outlined in the manufacturer's product inserts available on the web and at pharmacies and in doctor's offices?
How many Americans know there are practical steps to take during the flu season that will not only help protect against all infections, including actual influenza as well as other "flu-like illnesses" that can often be mistaken for influenza? (Only about 20 percent of all "flu-like" illness is actually influenza and only three strains of the many strains of type A and type B influenza that may be circulating during the year are actually included in the influenza vaccine).
To prevent and treat influenza or flu-like respiratory illness that does not involve fever over 103 F., pneumonia or serious complications which may require medical intervention, the National Vaccine Information Center offers the following non- toxic suggestions:
1. Wash your hands frequently.
2. Avoid close contact with those who are sick.
3. If you are sick, avoid close contact with those who are well.
4. Cover your mouth if you cough or sneeze.
5. Drink plenty of fluids, especially water.
6. Get adequate sleep.
7. Eat a healthy diet rich in vitamins and minerals, especially foods containing vitamin C (such as citrus fruits) and vitamin D (such as cod liver oil) and spend a few minutes a day in sunlight to help your body make and store vitamin D.
8. Exercise regularly when you are well.
9. Lower stress.
10. Consider including holistic alternatives in your wellness or healing plan, such as chiropractic adjustments, homeopathic and naturopathic remedies, acupuncture and other health care options.
Whatever you do this flu season - whether or not you choose to vaccinate - become vaccine educated and know your options.
Knowledge is power and an informed, empowered consumer is one who can stand up for the right to freely exercise informed preventive health options.
See www.NVIC.org and www.StandUpBeCounted.org for more information.
Please email PaulNVIC@gmail.com if you would like to volunteer to work in your state to help NVIC educate Americans about vaccination or have special expertise you would like to share. NVIC is also looking for volunteers in the Northern Virginia and greater Washington, D.C. area to assist our staff with many exciting and challenging projects.
Source: The November 12, 2008 Issue of the NVIC Vaccine E-Newsletter
Once again we turn to the National Vaccine Information Center to bring some sanity into this situation by being a voice for truth amidst all the propaganda. The article below points out many facts that are generally not presented to the public regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and the issues surrounding the need for them in the first place. The stakes are getting higher every year, as now the push is on to vaccinate preschoolers and some states are making this mandatory (an issue we discussed on an earlier blog). As the author points out, we must become educated and informed in order to protect the health and welfare of our families because if we leave it up to the powers that be, we will all become victims of a system that is profit-driven and by nature seeks to trample on the healthcare rights of the public in order to push through their agenda.
Flu & You: Know Your Options
by Barbara Loe Fisher
These days you can't turn around without being reminded that the "flu" season is just around the corner and it is time for every American - but especially infants, kindergarteners through high school graduates and anyone over 50 - to get a shot of influenza vaccine. But there are lots of new questions about whether the influenza vaccine is ineffective in children and whether it is also ineffective in the elderly at the same time there are growing doubts about whether many doctors and health officials have told the public the truth and nothing but the truth about the risks associated with infectious disease and the risks associated with vaccination.
Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) has produced several investigative reports on vaccination during the past several years and a recent CBN report on influenza vaccine examined the validity of the annual influenza mortality figure that the CDC routinely uses (36,000 deaths per year in the U.S. from influenza). The report also presented several perspectives about getting a flu shot versus using a more natural approach to staying well in the flu season. (See VIDEO of report as well as VIDEO outtakes not included in the broadast story featuring Vitamin D Council Executive Director John Cannell, M.D. on pandemic influenza, Heather Maurer on how she made an educated flu shot decision for her child; Virginia Health Commissioner Karen Remley, M.D. on why public health officials like flu shots; and my comments on "cradle-to-grave" vaccine policies and development of a "supervaccine.")
Joseph Mercola, M.D., a champion of the holistic health and wellness lifestyle and strong advocate for the informed consent ethic in medicine, frequently offers alternative perspectives about infectious disease and vaccination. See Dr. Mercola's past newsletters discussing flu vaccination and other vaccination topics at www.mercola.com and view a speech I gave at the Natural Living Conference sponsored by Holistic Moms Network on his website.
In the coming months, the push for Americans to get flu shots will increase but how many will understand the government-acknowledged risks and precautions for inactivated, injected influenza vaccine or the live virus nasal influenza vaccine which are more fully outlined in the manufacturer's product inserts available on the web and at pharmacies and in doctor's offices?
How many Americans know there are practical steps to take during the flu season that will not only help protect against all infections, including actual influenza as well as other "flu-like illnesses" that can often be mistaken for influenza? (Only about 20 percent of all "flu-like" illness is actually influenza and only three strains of the many strains of type A and type B influenza that may be circulating during the year are actually included in the influenza vaccine).
To prevent and treat influenza or flu-like respiratory illness that does not involve fever over 103 F., pneumonia or serious complications which may require medical intervention, the National Vaccine Information Center offers the following non- toxic suggestions:
1. Wash your hands frequently.
2. Avoid close contact with those who are sick.
3. If you are sick, avoid close contact with those who are well.
4. Cover your mouth if you cough or sneeze.
5. Drink plenty of fluids, especially water.
6. Get adequate sleep.
7. Eat a healthy diet rich in vitamins and minerals, especially foods containing vitamin C (such as citrus fruits) and vitamin D (such as cod liver oil) and spend a few minutes a day in sunlight to help your body make and store vitamin D.
8. Exercise regularly when you are well.
9. Lower stress.
10. Consider including holistic alternatives in your wellness or healing plan, such as chiropractic adjustments, homeopathic and naturopathic remedies, acupuncture and other health care options.
Whatever you do this flu season - whether or not you choose to vaccinate - become vaccine educated and know your options.
Knowledge is power and an informed, empowered consumer is one who can stand up for the right to freely exercise informed preventive health options.
See www.NVIC.org and www.StandUpBeCounted.org for more information.
Please email PaulNVIC@gmail.com if you would like to volunteer to work in your state to help NVIC educate Americans about vaccination or have special expertise you would like to share. NVIC is also looking for volunteers in the Northern Virginia and greater Washington, D.C. area to assist our staff with many exciting and challenging projects.
Source: The November 12, 2008 Issue of the NVIC Vaccine E-Newsletter
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Flawed Study Falsely Slams Vitamin E
Just when you might have thought conventional medicine could not stoop any lower, they have outdone themselves again. The American Heart Association and the Journal of American Medical Association (the propaganda arm of the AMA) have cooperated to publish a very skewed study that suggests Vitamins E and C are useless for fighting coronary disease. The real reason they were able to conclude this is that the Vitamin E product used in the research was synthetic junk that the human body is not able to recognize as anything of nutritional value.
It is sad but true that most research linking any kind of wellness and disease prevention to natural products is squelched, minimized, and discredited by modern medicine and the media. (Linus Pauling and his excellent studies regarding the benefits of Vitamin C is one of many clear examples.) As we have often pointed out on this blog, if you track the money trail, you will find organizations such as the AHA, AMA, FDA, and others that are supposedly in place to protect our health with highly questionable connections that scream conflict of interest when it comes to credible research and information. Did you see the story the other day about Big Pharma's preferences and influence regarding the choice of the next head of the FDA? The way it is being presented in the press, no one is questioning why this should even be an issue. I can't think of a better example of the fox guarding the hen house, but they unashamedly pull these stunts and nobody, including the media, seems to blink an eye.
Politicians can talk until they are blue in the face about health care reform, but until this unholy alliance of profiteering at the expense of the health of Americans is exposed and brought down, no substantial change is likely to take place.
AHA to Launch Another Vitamin E Attack
Monday, November 10, 2008
Byron Richards, CCN
The script reads like a bad Hollywood movie: make vitamin E look bad so men will line up like robots for their statins. Producer: the American Heart Association (AHA). The actors are all worthless no-names on Big Pharma's payroll. The story never ends; but the damage to health is very real.
JAMA released their "big" vitamin E study just in time for this week's AHA meeting. The study shows that vitamin E and C don't help heart disease in a large group of doctors. Poetic justice I guess -- giving synthetic and useless vitamins to the pill-pushers of America.
Consumer beware: scare tactics will be employed, as the puppets writing about the data say "This data provides no support for the use of these supplements [vitamin E and C] for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in middle-aged and older men." This is one big fat lie.
The vitamin E used in the study is a worthless synthetic produced from coal tar by the German drug company BASF. Yes, this is the same NAZI company that produced chemical weapons from coal tar and also produces all the food coloring in your food from coal tar. BASF has been poisoning Americans for decades, with blessings from their friends at the FDA.
Don't think for a moment that their synthetic vitamins actually do anything for your health. Calling the synthetic chemical compound used in this study "vitamin E" is a disgrace. Expect the media to run headlines, as they did a few weeks ago with another bogus vitamin E story.
If you would like to read the glorious history of the AHA scam attack on vitamin E so as to promote the sales of statins, then check out my previous article, The Statin Scam Marches On.
By the way, natural vitamin E, especially tocotrienols, is one of the top cardiovascular nutrients and vital to the health of middle aged and older men.
http://www.wellnessresources.com/content/printable/aha_to_launch_another_vitamin_e_attack/
It is sad but true that most research linking any kind of wellness and disease prevention to natural products is squelched, minimized, and discredited by modern medicine and the media. (Linus Pauling and his excellent studies regarding the benefits of Vitamin C is one of many clear examples.) As we have often pointed out on this blog, if you track the money trail, you will find organizations such as the AHA, AMA, FDA, and others that are supposedly in place to protect our health with highly questionable connections that scream conflict of interest when it comes to credible research and information. Did you see the story the other day about Big Pharma's preferences and influence regarding the choice of the next head of the FDA? The way it is being presented in the press, no one is questioning why this should even be an issue. I can't think of a better example of the fox guarding the hen house, but they unashamedly pull these stunts and nobody, including the media, seems to blink an eye.
Politicians can talk until they are blue in the face about health care reform, but until this unholy alliance of profiteering at the expense of the health of Americans is exposed and brought down, no substantial change is likely to take place.
AHA to Launch Another Vitamin E Attack
Monday, November 10, 2008
Byron Richards, CCN
The script reads like a bad Hollywood movie: make vitamin E look bad so men will line up like robots for their statins. Producer: the American Heart Association (AHA). The actors are all worthless no-names on Big Pharma's payroll. The story never ends; but the damage to health is very real.
JAMA released their "big" vitamin E study just in time for this week's AHA meeting. The study shows that vitamin E and C don't help heart disease in a large group of doctors. Poetic justice I guess -- giving synthetic and useless vitamins to the pill-pushers of America.
Consumer beware: scare tactics will be employed, as the puppets writing about the data say "This data provides no support for the use of these supplements [vitamin E and C] for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in middle-aged and older men." This is one big fat lie.
The vitamin E used in the study is a worthless synthetic produced from coal tar by the German drug company BASF. Yes, this is the same NAZI company that produced chemical weapons from coal tar and also produces all the food coloring in your food from coal tar. BASF has been poisoning Americans for decades, with blessings from their friends at the FDA.
Don't think for a moment that their synthetic vitamins actually do anything for your health. Calling the synthetic chemical compound used in this study "vitamin E" is a disgrace. Expect the media to run headlines, as they did a few weeks ago with another bogus vitamin E story.
If you would like to read the glorious history of the AHA scam attack on vitamin E so as to promote the sales of statins, then check out my previous article, The Statin Scam Marches On.
By the way, natural vitamin E, especially tocotrienols, is one of the top cardiovascular nutrients and vital to the health of middle aged and older men.
http://www.wellnessresources.com/content/printable/aha_to_launch_another_vitamin_e_attack/
Eating Mostly Alkaline Foods Produces Wellness
One of the best preventative measures anyone can take to stay healthy and avoid disease is to choose foods that are alkaline in nature. It is also important to understand that some foods that we would consider acidic actually become alkaline when digested. Today's article presents a simple plan for eating that will help to support the immune system, thus preventing many types of disease.
When many people think about the wholesale change that must often accompany improvements to their health, it can become overwhelming when considering all that must be done and the level of lifestyle changes involved. If one would follow the list below of foods to eat and to avoid, as well as the simple advice offered, a major step towards wellness can be gained. Once you have some success at changing your diet in this manner, it will be easier and you will have greater confidence about tackling other health challenges. As the saying goes: "Success breeds success."
Prevent Disease by Eating More Alkaline Foods
by Sheryl Walters
Originally published November 9 2008
(NaturalNews) Maintaining a balanced PH is one of the most important things we can do to enjoy vibrant health and avoid disease. Unfortunately, most people are far too acidic, which creates an environment open to unwanted invaders and ill health. The incredible rise in modern day diseases is a symptom of our overly acidic diets.
Eating from a list of alkaline foods keep us vibrant and younger looking and will allow the immune system perform at its best.
Here is a list of Alkaline foods for Optimum health:
* Alfalfa
* Barley Grass
* Beets
* Broccoli
* Cabbage
* Carrot
* Cauliflower
* Celery
* Collard Greens
* Cucumber
* Dulce
* Eggplant
* Garlic
* Green Beans
* Green Peas
* Kale
* Lettuce
* Mushrooms
* Onions
* Parsnips
* Peas
* Pumpkin
* Radishes
* Spinach
* Spirulina
* Sprouts
* Sweet Potatoes
* Tomatoes
* Watercress
* Almonds
* Grapes
* Amaranth
* Apples
* Apricots
* Kiwi
* Artichokes
* Leeks
* Asparagus
* Limes
* Bananas
* Mangos
* Olive oil
* Berries
* Onions
* Brussels sprouts
* Oranges
* Buckwheat
* Okra
* Pears
* Pineapple
* Quinoa
* Fennel
* Swiss chard
* Flaxseed oil
* Wheat grass
* Grapefruit
* Watermelon
Some of the most acidic foods are:
* White flour
* sugar
* artificial sweeteners
* ready made meals
* processed meats
* alcohol
* carbonated drinks
* cakes
* ice cream
* cheese
* milk
* MSG
Some of the healthiest acidic foods are brown rice, oats, fish, beans and lentils.
Most experts suggest eating four times more from the list of alkaline foods than from the acidic foods. Don't get stressed if you don't achieve this, it's an ideal to shoot for.
The most important thing we can do is to ensure that the majority of foods that we eat are fruits and vegetables.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z024755.html
When many people think about the wholesale change that must often accompany improvements to their health, it can become overwhelming when considering all that must be done and the level of lifestyle changes involved. If one would follow the list below of foods to eat and to avoid, as well as the simple advice offered, a major step towards wellness can be gained. Once you have some success at changing your diet in this manner, it will be easier and you will have greater confidence about tackling other health challenges. As the saying goes: "Success breeds success."
Prevent Disease by Eating More Alkaline Foods
by Sheryl Walters
Originally published November 9 2008
(NaturalNews) Maintaining a balanced PH is one of the most important things we can do to enjoy vibrant health and avoid disease. Unfortunately, most people are far too acidic, which creates an environment open to unwanted invaders and ill health. The incredible rise in modern day diseases is a symptom of our overly acidic diets.
Eating from a list of alkaline foods keep us vibrant and younger looking and will allow the immune system perform at its best.
Here is a list of Alkaline foods for Optimum health:
* Alfalfa
* Barley Grass
* Beets
* Broccoli
* Cabbage
* Carrot
* Cauliflower
* Celery
* Collard Greens
* Cucumber
* Dulce
* Eggplant
* Garlic
* Green Beans
* Green Peas
* Kale
* Lettuce
* Mushrooms
* Onions
* Parsnips
* Peas
* Pumpkin
* Radishes
* Spinach
* Spirulina
* Sprouts
* Sweet Potatoes
* Tomatoes
* Watercress
* Almonds
* Grapes
* Amaranth
* Apples
* Apricots
* Kiwi
* Artichokes
* Leeks
* Asparagus
* Limes
* Bananas
* Mangos
* Olive oil
* Berries
* Onions
* Brussels sprouts
* Oranges
* Buckwheat
* Okra
* Pears
* Pineapple
* Quinoa
* Fennel
* Swiss chard
* Flaxseed oil
* Wheat grass
* Grapefruit
* Watermelon
Some of the most acidic foods are:
* White flour
* sugar
* artificial sweeteners
* ready made meals
* processed meats
* alcohol
* carbonated drinks
* cakes
* ice cream
* cheese
* milk
* MSG
Some of the healthiest acidic foods are brown rice, oats, fish, beans and lentils.
Most experts suggest eating four times more from the list of alkaline foods than from the acidic foods. Don't get stressed if you don't achieve this, it's an ideal to shoot for.
The most important thing we can do is to ensure that the majority of foods that we eat are fruits and vegetables.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z024755.html
Monday, November 10, 2008
Beware of Lead Contamination in Wild Game
As we settle into hunting season in many parts of the country, some state health departments and the CDC are reminding people that toxic exposure to lead may occur when consuming animals killed with lead bullets. It is best to avoid any meat that may be contaminated by only eating deer and other game that is shot with unleaded ammunition, taken with a bow, or carefully butchered to remove the meat near the wound.
There is a certain amount of irony here because most commercial meats that are government inspected are probably much more dangerous than venison, for example. Venison is very lean, and free of antibiotics, hormones, and other chemicals. If you choose to eat meat, and are careful with the way it is hunted and processed, wild game is definitely the way to go.
Study: Lead in blood linked to wild game
By DOUG SMITH, Star Tribune
November 5, 2008
People who eat wild game killed with lead bullets tend to have higher levels of lead in their blood than people who don't, according to a first-of-its-kind study of 738 North Dakotans.
"People who ate a lot of wild game tended to have higher lead levels than those who ate little or none," Dr. Stephen Pickard, epidemiologist for the North Dakota Department of Health, said Wednesday.
The study also showed that the more recent the consumption of wild game killed with lead bullets, the higher the level of lead in the blood.
The blood lead levels of those tested were considered low, but even low levels can have adverse health effects, especially for children and pregnant women.
Officials recommended that pregnant women and children under 6 not eat any venison from deer killed with lead bullets -- the same recommendation made last month by the Minnesota Health Department.
"Children under 6 are particularly vulnerable because their brains are still developing," Pickard said. "It causes permanent brain damage even in very small quantities. There is no safe exposure level for small children. We see children with permanent lower intelligence and changes in behavior."
Lead can increase the risk that a pregnant woman could lose her baby or deliver it prematurely, Pickard said. In adults, lead can cause high blood pressure, hearing loss and infertility, though usually with higher lead levels.
The study, done by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the North Dakota Department of Health, appears to add to the evidence that using lead bullets can pose potential health problems for hunters and their families. A Minnesota study last summer showed lead bullets fired from high-powered rifles scatter lead fragments -- many too small to see or feel -- up to 18 inches from the wound.
The North Dakota blood samples were taken in May and June, and the study results were released just days before deer seasons open in North Dakota and Minnesota. Some 500,000 people are expected to hunt deer in Minnesota this fall. The study was conducted after lead particles were found in venison donated to food shelves last spring. Venison in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin also was found to contain lead. North Dakota is limiting venison donations this year to deer shot by archers.
The study was limited in scope. It didn't determine if careful butchering practices would reduce lead levels and didn't examine whether people were having adverse health effects from the lead.
The lead levels ranged from virtually none to 9.82 micrograms per deciliter. Health officials consider 10 micrograms per deciliter in a child to be the level when "intervention" should occur. That "intervention" level for an adult is 25 micrograms per deciliter.
"But any level of lead in children below age 6 is of concern," said John Stine of the Minnesota Department of Health.
After ingesting lead, a person will slowly get rid of it. Pickard noted the blood samples were taken last spring, months after the North Dakota hunting season. Had they been taken during or shortly after the hunting season, he suspects the blood levels would have been higher.
North Dakota also recommended that older children and other adults should take steps to minimize their potential exposure to lead.
"There is reason to be concerned,'' Pickard said. "And if you're concerned, there is one sure way to avoid having lead contamination: Use non-lead bullets."
Doug Smith -- 612-673-7667
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/33934504.html?page=1&c=y
There is a certain amount of irony here because most commercial meats that are government inspected are probably much more dangerous than venison, for example. Venison is very lean, and free of antibiotics, hormones, and other chemicals. If you choose to eat meat, and are careful with the way it is hunted and processed, wild game is definitely the way to go.
Study: Lead in blood linked to wild game
By DOUG SMITH, Star Tribune
November 5, 2008
People who eat wild game killed with lead bullets tend to have higher levels of lead in their blood than people who don't, according to a first-of-its-kind study of 738 North Dakotans.
"People who ate a lot of wild game tended to have higher lead levels than those who ate little or none," Dr. Stephen Pickard, epidemiologist for the North Dakota Department of Health, said Wednesday.
The study also showed that the more recent the consumption of wild game killed with lead bullets, the higher the level of lead in the blood.
The blood lead levels of those tested were considered low, but even low levels can have adverse health effects, especially for children and pregnant women.
Officials recommended that pregnant women and children under 6 not eat any venison from deer killed with lead bullets -- the same recommendation made last month by the Minnesota Health Department.
"Children under 6 are particularly vulnerable because their brains are still developing," Pickard said. "It causes permanent brain damage even in very small quantities. There is no safe exposure level for small children. We see children with permanent lower intelligence and changes in behavior."
Lead can increase the risk that a pregnant woman could lose her baby or deliver it prematurely, Pickard said. In adults, lead can cause high blood pressure, hearing loss and infertility, though usually with higher lead levels.
The study, done by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the North Dakota Department of Health, appears to add to the evidence that using lead bullets can pose potential health problems for hunters and their families. A Minnesota study last summer showed lead bullets fired from high-powered rifles scatter lead fragments -- many too small to see or feel -- up to 18 inches from the wound.
The North Dakota blood samples were taken in May and June, and the study results were released just days before deer seasons open in North Dakota and Minnesota. Some 500,000 people are expected to hunt deer in Minnesota this fall. The study was conducted after lead particles were found in venison donated to food shelves last spring. Venison in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin also was found to contain lead. North Dakota is limiting venison donations this year to deer shot by archers.
The study was limited in scope. It didn't determine if careful butchering practices would reduce lead levels and didn't examine whether people were having adverse health effects from the lead.
The lead levels ranged from virtually none to 9.82 micrograms per deciliter. Health officials consider 10 micrograms per deciliter in a child to be the level when "intervention" should occur. That "intervention" level for an adult is 25 micrograms per deciliter.
"But any level of lead in children below age 6 is of concern," said John Stine of the Minnesota Department of Health.
After ingesting lead, a person will slowly get rid of it. Pickard noted the blood samples were taken last spring, months after the North Dakota hunting season. Had they been taken during or shortly after the hunting season, he suspects the blood levels would have been higher.
North Dakota also recommended that older children and other adults should take steps to minimize their potential exposure to lead.
"There is reason to be concerned,'' Pickard said. "And if you're concerned, there is one sure way to avoid having lead contamination: Use non-lead bullets."
Doug Smith -- 612-673-7667
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/33934504.html?page=1&c=y
Friday, November 7, 2008
Drug Barons Falsify Research Studies
We have previously discussed on this blog how corrupt the drug company / FDA / academia network is, and today's article gives some fascinating details into how this whole system works for the benefit of all, except patients, of course. It is particularly interesting how research that supports nutritional therapies is suppressed in favor of the mass marketing of dangerous drugs that often do more harm than good and do little to heal or prevent illness.
No matter what one's opinion is regarding the outcome of the recent elections, let's hope that these cozy business relationships that are reaping windfall profits at the expense of the health and welfare of the American people can be shattered by the new administration. It's all about change, according to the Obama camp, so let's see if any long-overdue changes will occur in the disastrous health care system here in our country.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, November 5, 2008
Rigged Trials: Drug Studies Favor The Manufacturer
(OMNS, November 5, 2008) If you have often suspected that drug studies are rigged by the pharmaceutical manufacturer, you are right. "Drug studies skewed toward study sponsors," reported The Washington Post. (1) "Industry-funded research often favors patent-holders, study finds." Specifically, the American Journal of Psychiatry study authors said, "In 90% of the studies, the reported overall outcome was in favor of the sponsor's drug. . . On the basis of these contrasting findings in head-to-head trials, it appears that whichever company sponsors the trial produces the better antipsychotic drug." (2)
Marcia Angell, MD, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, agrees. "Is there some way (drug) companies can rig clinical trials to make their drugs look better than they are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time." One "way to load the dice," she writes, "is to enroll only young subjects in trials, even if the drugs being tested are meant to be used mainly in older people. Because young people generally experience fewer side effects, drugs will look safer."
Another of the "common ways to bias trials is to present only part of the data - the part that makes the product look good - and ignore the rest." She adds, "The most dramatic form of bias is out-and-out suppression of negative results." (3)
You will rarely hear academia complain. Why? Because they are aboard the gravy train. Dr. Angell: "Columbia University, which patented the technology used in the manufacture of Epogen and Cerezyme, collected nearly $300 million in royalties" in 17 years. "The patent was based on NIH-funded research." That means you, the taxpayer, footed the bill. Harvard is in just as deep. In its own Faustian dealings with the drug companies, "a Harvard hospital has a deal that gives Novartis rights to discoveries that lead to new cancer drugs. . . Merck is building a twelve-story research facility next door to Harvard Medical School . . . In Harvard Medical School 's Dean's Report for 2003-4, the list of benefactors included about a dozen of the largest drug companies."
Clearly drug companies are more concerned with profits than with patients. The psychiatric drug market is a very big business. American doctors prescribe $10 billion worth of antipsychotic drugs every single year. The pharmaceutical industry, says Angell, is "primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit." Big pharma is "taking us for a ride." And it is no mere jaunt around the park. Total drug industry worldwide sales are in excess of $500 billion per year, half of which are in North America. Profit margins are typically 20 per cent, so high that "the combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together."
But more cash does not buy more cures. In fact, said the Washington Post: "When the federal government recently compared a broader range of drugs in typical schizophrenia patients in a lengthy trial, the two medications that stood out were cheaper drugs not under patent." (1) It gets even more interesting when we broaden our list of treatment options to include nutrition. With the therapeutic use of vitamin supplements, the cost goes down much further, and the success rate goes way up. Orthomolecular (nutritional) therapy, says psychiatrist Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD, is many times more effective than drug therapy. He says that niacin (vitamin B-3) in sufficiently high doses is the most effective, least expensive, and safest treatment for schizophrenia and a number of other very serious mental illnesses. Hoffer and colleagues demonstrated this decades ago when, in the early 1950s, they successfully conducted the very first double-blind, placebo-controlled nutritional studies i! n the history of psychiatry. (4)
Niacin is a clinically proven therapy for serious mental illness, and yet the medical profession has delayed endorsing it for over fifty years. Instead, drug treatments dominate. But drugs are not doing the job. A double-blind study of schizophrenics showed that three-quarters of them stopped taking pharmaceutical medication either because of intolerability or inefficacy. That means that either the drug side effects were unbearable, or the drug just plain did not work. (5)
Perhaps drugs are not the answer because mental illness is not caused by drug deficiency. But much illness, especially mental illness, may indeed be caused by nutrient deficiency or nutrient dependency. Only nutrients can correct this problem. This not only makes sense, it has stood up to clinical trial again and again. (6) Vitamins like niacin are cheap, safe and effective. Modern "wonder drugs" are none of those. But they do make money. Especially when the drug makers control the research, the advertising, and the doctors. No wonder which approach you've heard more about.
We've all been carefully taught that drugs cure illness, not vitamins. The system is remarkably well-entrenched. 2.3 million Americans per year serve as human subjects for pharmaceutical company drug testing. Pharmaceutical companies set up patient support or advocacy groups to attract specific subjects for their clinical trials. Doctors are paid an average of $7,000 per patient for every patient they enroll in a drug study. Drug companies pay nearly two-thirds of the costs of continuing medical education. While the pharmaceutical industry's reach into education is bad enough, its grip on research is scandalous. For example: Drug company "publications strategies" have them "sponsor minimal research, prepare journal articles based on it, and pay academic researchers to put their names on those articles." So bad is it that Dr. Angell wrote an editorial in NEJM (7) entitled "Is Academic Medicine for Sale?" A reader wryly responded, "No. The current owner is very happy with i! t."
The result? "Bias is now rampant in drug trials. . . (Pharmaceutical) industry-sponsored research was nearly four times as likely to be favorable to the company's product as NIH-sponsored research." (3) Remember, "NIH-sponsored" means "taxpayer-funded." And then, when they need to use a drug, those same taxpayers pay again, and way too much, for the drug they already paid out grant money to develop, in a rigged trial, for a high-profit company.
What a sweet system for the pharmaceutical industry.
No matter what one's opinion is regarding the outcome of the recent elections, let's hope that these cozy business relationships that are reaping windfall profits at the expense of the health and welfare of the American people can be shattered by the new administration. It's all about change, according to the Obama camp, so let's see if any long-overdue changes will occur in the disastrous health care system here in our country.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, November 5, 2008
Rigged Trials: Drug Studies Favor The Manufacturer
(OMNS, November 5, 2008) If you have often suspected that drug studies are rigged by the pharmaceutical manufacturer, you are right. "Drug studies skewed toward study sponsors," reported The Washington Post. (1) "Industry-funded research often favors patent-holders, study finds." Specifically, the American Journal of Psychiatry study authors said, "In 90% of the studies, the reported overall outcome was in favor of the sponsor's drug. . . On the basis of these contrasting findings in head-to-head trials, it appears that whichever company sponsors the trial produces the better antipsychotic drug." (2)
Marcia Angell, MD, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, agrees. "Is there some way (drug) companies can rig clinical trials to make their drugs look better than they are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time." One "way to load the dice," she writes, "is to enroll only young subjects in trials, even if the drugs being tested are meant to be used mainly in older people. Because young people generally experience fewer side effects, drugs will look safer."
Another of the "common ways to bias trials is to present only part of the data - the part that makes the product look good - and ignore the rest." She adds, "The most dramatic form of bias is out-and-out suppression of negative results." (3)
You will rarely hear academia complain. Why? Because they are aboard the gravy train. Dr. Angell: "Columbia University, which patented the technology used in the manufacture of Epogen and Cerezyme, collected nearly $300 million in royalties" in 17 years. "The patent was based on NIH-funded research." That means you, the taxpayer, footed the bill. Harvard is in just as deep. In its own Faustian dealings with the drug companies, "a Harvard hospital has a deal that gives Novartis rights to discoveries that lead to new cancer drugs. . . Merck is building a twelve-story research facility next door to Harvard Medical School . . . In Harvard Medical School 's Dean's Report for 2003-4, the list of benefactors included about a dozen of the largest drug companies."
Clearly drug companies are more concerned with profits than with patients. The psychiatric drug market is a very big business. American doctors prescribe $10 billion worth of antipsychotic drugs every single year. The pharmaceutical industry, says Angell, is "primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit." Big pharma is "taking us for a ride." And it is no mere jaunt around the park. Total drug industry worldwide sales are in excess of $500 billion per year, half of which are in North America. Profit margins are typically 20 per cent, so high that "the combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together."
But more cash does not buy more cures. In fact, said the Washington Post: "When the federal government recently compared a broader range of drugs in typical schizophrenia patients in a lengthy trial, the two medications that stood out were cheaper drugs not under patent." (1) It gets even more interesting when we broaden our list of treatment options to include nutrition. With the therapeutic use of vitamin supplements, the cost goes down much further, and the success rate goes way up. Orthomolecular (nutritional) therapy, says psychiatrist Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD, is many times more effective than drug therapy. He says that niacin (vitamin B-3) in sufficiently high doses is the most effective, least expensive, and safest treatment for schizophrenia and a number of other very serious mental illnesses. Hoffer and colleagues demonstrated this decades ago when, in the early 1950s, they successfully conducted the very first double-blind, placebo-controlled nutritional studies i! n the history of psychiatry. (4)
Niacin is a clinically proven therapy for serious mental illness, and yet the medical profession has delayed endorsing it for over fifty years. Instead, drug treatments dominate. But drugs are not doing the job. A double-blind study of schizophrenics showed that three-quarters of them stopped taking pharmaceutical medication either because of intolerability or inefficacy. That means that either the drug side effects were unbearable, or the drug just plain did not work. (5)
Perhaps drugs are not the answer because mental illness is not caused by drug deficiency. But much illness, especially mental illness, may indeed be caused by nutrient deficiency or nutrient dependency. Only nutrients can correct this problem. This not only makes sense, it has stood up to clinical trial again and again. (6) Vitamins like niacin are cheap, safe and effective. Modern "wonder drugs" are none of those. But they do make money. Especially when the drug makers control the research, the advertising, and the doctors. No wonder which approach you've heard more about.
We've all been carefully taught that drugs cure illness, not vitamins. The system is remarkably well-entrenched. 2.3 million Americans per year serve as human subjects for pharmaceutical company drug testing. Pharmaceutical companies set up patient support or advocacy groups to attract specific subjects for their clinical trials. Doctors are paid an average of $7,000 per patient for every patient they enroll in a drug study. Drug companies pay nearly two-thirds of the costs of continuing medical education. While the pharmaceutical industry's reach into education is bad enough, its grip on research is scandalous. For example: Drug company "publications strategies" have them "sponsor minimal research, prepare journal articles based on it, and pay academic researchers to put their names on those articles." So bad is it that Dr. Angell wrote an editorial in NEJM (7) entitled "Is Academic Medicine for Sale?" A reader wryly responded, "No. The current owner is very happy with i! t."
The result? "Bias is now rampant in drug trials. . . (Pharmaceutical) industry-sponsored research was nearly four times as likely to be favorable to the company's product as NIH-sponsored research." (3) Remember, "NIH-sponsored" means "taxpayer-funded." And then, when they need to use a drug, those same taxpayers pay again, and way too much, for the drug they already paid out grant money to develop, in a rigged trial, for a high-profit company.
What a sweet system for the pharmaceutical industry.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Halloween Candy: Spread the Wealth??
I must admit I had very mixed feelings when reading the article below. It discusses a program to collect the Halloween candy of American kids and ship it overseas as a sign of support for our troops. I believe it is important to remember, encourage, and pray for our men and women who are in the military, but doing this using toxic junk like candy poses a bit of a problem.
American kids certainly do not need more candy. I believe it is valuable to teach them about sacrificing in order to meet the needs of others, and in that sense this program has some merit. Sending candy may deliver a message of comfort to the troops, and I'm sure the children overseas who receive it will be happy about it, but nobody should be feeding on this junk. Foreign children will only develop a taste for sweets, and that is not helping them at all in the long run.
Consuming mass amount of sugar is never a good nutritional approach, but the concerns over candy are even greater now due to revelations that some Halloween candy dispersed this year may be contaminated with a chemical called melamine that can cause severe kidney and liver damage, and may potentially cause fatal reactions. It is most often found in candies made in China, and as more imports pour in from China, this is becoming a bigger problem. Please be aware of this potential hazard, and do not let your children consume Halloween candy. It is also advisable to warn others so that they and their children are not exposed. Unfortunately, even though they are aware of this issue, the FDA has chosen not to address it.
Dentists' candy buyback nets half-ton
By Cliff Radel
cradel@enquirer.com
The morning after the night before, hundreds of trick or treaters went to the dentist.
No cavities were filled Saturday at the Covedale office of Dr. Larry Hagen or the Blue Ash office of Dr. Eric Henize.
But bag after bag of candy -- weighing nearly half a ton -- was emptied into boxes bound for American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As part of Hagen's second annual day after Halloween Candy Buyback, the dentists offered to pay $1 per pound of candy.
"But, like last year," Hagen said, "most people just made a donation."
Most people acted like Kerri Kuhn of Loveland. When offered money for her 14-pound bag of sweets, she just gave Henize's staffers a wave of her hand."There is so little I can do for the troops," she said, "I can't take any money."
The dentists only paid out a combined $346 while collecting 964 pounds of candy. Henize received 588 pounds to Hagen's 376 pounds of candy bars and assorted lollipops and bags of pretzels.
The dentists also took in $665 in donations for shipping. Last year, Hagen spent $4,000 of his own money to send 5,940 pounds of candy overseas.
"It's wonderful Dr. Hagen's doing this," said Valerie Miller. She drove to Covedale from Fairfield Township with her children, 6-year-old Kayla and 4-year-old Sydney. They dropped off nine pounds of candy.
"We hope this brings joy to the troops," Miller said. "We know it's going to bring joy to the kids over there because the troops share."
Miller told her children it was better to give the candy than eat it. "This will help kids," she said, "who have a rough, tough life." Kayla and Sydney nodded. But they still eyed their candy as members of Hagen's staff used assembly line efficiency to box, seal and address their sweet gifts.
Each box included thank-you notes from donors to the troops.
After depositing the 14 pounds of Halloween candy her four children gathered in Delhi Township, Mary Meyer added her thanks.
"I thanked the troops and their families for their sacrifices," Meyer said as she sealed the note before it was placed in a box. "I told them to keep up the good work. They are in our prayers."
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081101/NEWS01/311010043
American kids certainly do not need more candy. I believe it is valuable to teach them about sacrificing in order to meet the needs of others, and in that sense this program has some merit. Sending candy may deliver a message of comfort to the troops, and I'm sure the children overseas who receive it will be happy about it, but nobody should be feeding on this junk. Foreign children will only develop a taste for sweets, and that is not helping them at all in the long run.
Consuming mass amount of sugar is never a good nutritional approach, but the concerns over candy are even greater now due to revelations that some Halloween candy dispersed this year may be contaminated with a chemical called melamine that can cause severe kidney and liver damage, and may potentially cause fatal reactions. It is most often found in candies made in China, and as more imports pour in from China, this is becoming a bigger problem. Please be aware of this potential hazard, and do not let your children consume Halloween candy. It is also advisable to warn others so that they and their children are not exposed. Unfortunately, even though they are aware of this issue, the FDA has chosen not to address it.
Dentists' candy buyback nets half-ton
By Cliff Radel
cradel@enquirer.com
The morning after the night before, hundreds of trick or treaters went to the dentist.
No cavities were filled Saturday at the Covedale office of Dr. Larry Hagen or the Blue Ash office of Dr. Eric Henize.
But bag after bag of candy -- weighing nearly half a ton -- was emptied into boxes bound for American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As part of Hagen's second annual day after Halloween Candy Buyback, the dentists offered to pay $1 per pound of candy.
"But, like last year," Hagen said, "most people just made a donation."
Most people acted like Kerri Kuhn of Loveland. When offered money for her 14-pound bag of sweets, she just gave Henize's staffers a wave of her hand."There is so little I can do for the troops," she said, "I can't take any money."
The dentists only paid out a combined $346 while collecting 964 pounds of candy. Henize received 588 pounds to Hagen's 376 pounds of candy bars and assorted lollipops and bags of pretzels.
The dentists also took in $665 in donations for shipping. Last year, Hagen spent $4,000 of his own money to send 5,940 pounds of candy overseas.
"It's wonderful Dr. Hagen's doing this," said Valerie Miller. She drove to Covedale from Fairfield Township with her children, 6-year-old Kayla and 4-year-old Sydney. They dropped off nine pounds of candy.
"We hope this brings joy to the troops," Miller said. "We know it's going to bring joy to the kids over there because the troops share."
Miller told her children it was better to give the candy than eat it. "This will help kids," she said, "who have a rough, tough life." Kayla and Sydney nodded. But they still eyed their candy as members of Hagen's staff used assembly line efficiency to box, seal and address their sweet gifts.
Each box included thank-you notes from donors to the troops.
After depositing the 14 pounds of Halloween candy her four children gathered in Delhi Township, Mary Meyer added her thanks.
"I thanked the troops and their families for their sacrifices," Meyer said as she sealed the note before it was placed in a box. "I told them to keep up the good work. They are in our prayers."
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081101/NEWS01/311010043
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Study Confirms Mind-Body Connection
Too often the mindset of Western medicine tends to categorize health into compartments labeled "physical" and "mental," but those of us who believe in natural wellness understand that our overall health is a holistic concern, and that our emotions are deeply intertwined with physiological aspects. In other words, what happens in the body affects the mind and vice-versa. The article below covers an interesting study that took a look at the effects of heat and cold on our impressions and treatment of others.
While it is not "hard science," the study does give us some insight into how many things can positively or negatively touch us, often on a subconscious level that we are not cognitively aware of. It reminds me that wellness must also be considered on a holistic basis, seeing the forest, so to speak, and not just the trees. For example, taking steps to address our mental and emotional needs, such as exercise or stress management techniques, is critically necessary for our health. However, if we ignore our nutritional needs and fill up on junk food and empty calories, we cannot hope to achieve maximal health. To be well and fit we must remember that the body, mind, and spirit must all be nurtured, and that this philosophy will benefit each of these areas both individually and as a whole.
Warm hands lead to warm hearts, sneaky study shows
AP News
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Time to update that old saying "cold hands, warm heart." New research shows touching something warm can make you feel and act more warmly toward others. Whether someone is deemed to have a "warm" or "cold" personality makes a powerful first impression. That led Yale University scientists to wonder if physical warmth could promote psychological warmth, by subconsciously priming people to think better of others.
It took a sneaky study to find out: Scientists recruited 41 college students for what they thought was personality research. A lab worker escorted each participant up the elevator of Yale's psychology building and casually asked for help holding her cup of coffee _ either hot or iced _ while she recorded the student's name on a clipboard.
Inside the lab, the students were given a description of a fictitious person described as industrious, cautious and determined, and then rated that person's presumed personality traits.
Students who had held the hot cup saw the person as more generous, sociable and good-natured than those who had held the cold cup _ all traits that psychologists consider part of a "warm" personality, the researchers report in Friday's edition of the journal Science. Yet there were no differences between the two groups on ratings of honesty, attractiveness or strength, traits not associated with either warm or cold personalities.
Then researchers recruited 53 different students for a second study, having them briefly hold one of those heat or ice pads sold in drugstores for pain, allegedly as part of product-testing. Really the test was which trinket the students chose as a thank you for participating: An ice-cream coupon or bottled drink for themselves, or one for a friend.
Students who held the hot pad were more likely to choose a reward for a friend, while those who held the ice pad were more likely to choose a reward for themselves.
So is the moral of the story to hand out hot drinks when you want to make a good first impression?
Not quite. The bigger message is that very subtle cues from our environment can significantly influence behavior and feelings, said lead researcher Dr. Lawrence Williams, who conducted the study while completing his psychology graduate degree at Yale.
Physical and psychological concepts "are much more closely aligned in the mind than we have previously appreciated," said Williams, now at the University of Colorado.
Indeed, other research has found that the same brain region that processes physical temperature changes, called the insula, also processes feelings of trust and empathy associated with social warmth.
"Parts of the brain that we know process physical attributes, whether it's motor movements or physical pain _ the same circuitry more and more is seen with more mental qualities," said Dr. Caroline Zink of the National Institute of Mental Health, which funded the new research. "It's very interesting from a neuroscientist's perspective that there are those similarities."
The whole concept of social warmth is learned in infancy, Williams said. He pointed to a classic psychology study that found attachment and affection were more dependent on hugs and cuddles that happen to be physically warm than on merely ensuring a baby is fed.
As for a practical use for the finding: Those free food samples distributed in grocery stores probably entice more shoppers if they're warm, advises Williams, now an assistant marketing professor.
http://srnnews.townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=281d14cb-490b-4f8b-b01d-16049fd2ee9f&t=c
While it is not "hard science," the study does give us some insight into how many things can positively or negatively touch us, often on a subconscious level that we are not cognitively aware of. It reminds me that wellness must also be considered on a holistic basis, seeing the forest, so to speak, and not just the trees. For example, taking steps to address our mental and emotional needs, such as exercise or stress management techniques, is critically necessary for our health. However, if we ignore our nutritional needs and fill up on junk food and empty calories, we cannot hope to achieve maximal health. To be well and fit we must remember that the body, mind, and spirit must all be nurtured, and that this philosophy will benefit each of these areas both individually and as a whole.
Warm hands lead to warm hearts, sneaky study shows
AP News
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Time to update that old saying "cold hands, warm heart." New research shows touching something warm can make you feel and act more warmly toward others. Whether someone is deemed to have a "warm" or "cold" personality makes a powerful first impression. That led Yale University scientists to wonder if physical warmth could promote psychological warmth, by subconsciously priming people to think better of others.
It took a sneaky study to find out: Scientists recruited 41 college students for what they thought was personality research. A lab worker escorted each participant up the elevator of Yale's psychology building and casually asked for help holding her cup of coffee _ either hot or iced _ while she recorded the student's name on a clipboard.
Inside the lab, the students were given a description of a fictitious person described as industrious, cautious and determined, and then rated that person's presumed personality traits.
Students who had held the hot cup saw the person as more generous, sociable and good-natured than those who had held the cold cup _ all traits that psychologists consider part of a "warm" personality, the researchers report in Friday's edition of the journal Science. Yet there were no differences between the two groups on ratings of honesty, attractiveness or strength, traits not associated with either warm or cold personalities.
Then researchers recruited 53 different students for a second study, having them briefly hold one of those heat or ice pads sold in drugstores for pain, allegedly as part of product-testing. Really the test was which trinket the students chose as a thank you for participating: An ice-cream coupon or bottled drink for themselves, or one for a friend.
Students who held the hot pad were more likely to choose a reward for a friend, while those who held the ice pad were more likely to choose a reward for themselves.
So is the moral of the story to hand out hot drinks when you want to make a good first impression?
Not quite. The bigger message is that very subtle cues from our environment can significantly influence behavior and feelings, said lead researcher Dr. Lawrence Williams, who conducted the study while completing his psychology graduate degree at Yale.
Physical and psychological concepts "are much more closely aligned in the mind than we have previously appreciated," said Williams, now at the University of Colorado.
Indeed, other research has found that the same brain region that processes physical temperature changes, called the insula, also processes feelings of trust and empathy associated with social warmth.
"Parts of the brain that we know process physical attributes, whether it's motor movements or physical pain _ the same circuitry more and more is seen with more mental qualities," said Dr. Caroline Zink of the National Institute of Mental Health, which funded the new research. "It's very interesting from a neuroscientist's perspective that there are those similarities."
The whole concept of social warmth is learned in infancy, Williams said. He pointed to a classic psychology study that found attachment and affection were more dependent on hugs and cuddles that happen to be physically warm than on merely ensuring a baby is fed.
As for a practical use for the finding: Those free food samples distributed in grocery stores probably entice more shoppers if they're warm, advises Williams, now an assistant marketing professor.
http://srnnews.townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=281d14cb-490b-4f8b-b01d-16049fd2ee9f&t=c
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Medications Used for Acne -- and All Conditions -- Can Be Deadly
Our society has been so conditioned to popping a pill for any and all health problems that most of us do so without thinking twice. However, the fact is that literally all drugs have potentially serious side effects, and those that manufacture, sell, and regulate these concoctions know it. Today's post discusses an article highlighting the unfortunate death of a healthy teenager who used an antibiotic to "treat" his acne.
This tragic story brings several points to light. First off, the use of medications to treat acne does not address the true causes of this most common condition. Acne, as well as other skin conditions, in most situations, is a holistic concern that needs to be managed and prevented by pursuing a lifestyle that incorporates a natural and healthy diet, plenty of pure water, and proper cleansing of the intestinal tract, liver, and gallbladder. Proper attention should also be paid to hormonal balance. In addition, the skin should be kept clean using natural skin care products that are free of toxic chemicals and abrasives. Despite the many millions of dollars that are spent on acne treatments every year, both prescription and over-the-counter, the condition cannot be healed by these drugs, and the consequences of their use can be very serious indeed. The use of antibiotics to treat acne is quite common, but many in the health field are now stating that such practices can actually worsen acne because bacteria become stronger by building up a resistance to such drugs.
Whether its acne or any other health concern, do not casually use or give to your children any drug without thoroughly researching the potential side effects, or without determining if the concoction will actually help with healing or simply cover up the symptoms without addressing the core issues that are causing the condition. It is sad, but very true, that deaths such as those of this Welsh young man are not isolated. Thousands of people are killed or seriously affected by pharmaceutical drugs every year.
Teenager dies after suffering allergic reaction to acne tablets
Sarah Boseley, health editor
The Guardian
Thursday October 30 2008
A 14-year-old boy has died after suffering an allergic reaction to the acne medication he was given by his doctor, his father said yesterday.
An inquest into the death of Shaun Jones, from Rhydyfelin in Pontypridd, south Wales, has been opened and adjourned while further inquiries are made. Jones was said to be a fit and healthy rugby player, but appeared to suffer a severe reaction on October 21 after taking the first dose of antibiotic tablets.
Graeme Jones, the boy's father, said nobody was to blame and it was just "one of those terrible things."
"He was popular with the girls and had a couple of spots, so the doctor gave him some antibiotic acne tablets. A lot of his friends are taking them," Jones told BBC online news.
"It was the first time he'd taken them and he developed breathing difficulties. We called 999 and he went to hospital - but it was too late. The doctors couldn't save him.
"The doctor that gave him the tablets is really upset, but we don't blame him. It was just one of those terrible things. We're still coming to terms with losing him. One minute he was here and now he's gone.
"Shaun's little sister is devastated. She can't bear to leave our sides because she thinks something will happen to us too."
Jones declined to name the tablets while inquiries are ongoing. Many antibiotics commonly used to treat acne do have warnings of the possibility of allergic reactions, which can cause breathing difficulties, but deaths are rare.
Teresa Bates, a local councillor and governor at Hawthorn high school, which Shaun attended, said: "I understand he had acne and was given medication and had a massive allergic reaction to it.
"I know his grandmother and the family is devastated. So is the whole community."
Shaun played for his village rugby club. Rhydyfelin coach Dai Watkins said: "He was an awesome player whose name was first on the teamsheet."
"The fact that he was so fit and strong makes it all the harder to take. He was so dedicated and talented."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/30/health-antibiotic
This tragic story brings several points to light. First off, the use of medications to treat acne does not address the true causes of this most common condition. Acne, as well as other skin conditions, in most situations, is a holistic concern that needs to be managed and prevented by pursuing a lifestyle that incorporates a natural and healthy diet, plenty of pure water, and proper cleansing of the intestinal tract, liver, and gallbladder. Proper attention should also be paid to hormonal balance. In addition, the skin should be kept clean using natural skin care products that are free of toxic chemicals and abrasives. Despite the many millions of dollars that are spent on acne treatments every year, both prescription and over-the-counter, the condition cannot be healed by these drugs, and the consequences of their use can be very serious indeed. The use of antibiotics to treat acne is quite common, but many in the health field are now stating that such practices can actually worsen acne because bacteria become stronger by building up a resistance to such drugs.
Whether its acne or any other health concern, do not casually use or give to your children any drug without thoroughly researching the potential side effects, or without determining if the concoction will actually help with healing or simply cover up the symptoms without addressing the core issues that are causing the condition. It is sad, but very true, that deaths such as those of this Welsh young man are not isolated. Thousands of people are killed or seriously affected by pharmaceutical drugs every year.
Teenager dies after suffering allergic reaction to acne tablets
Sarah Boseley, health editor
The Guardian
Thursday October 30 2008
A 14-year-old boy has died after suffering an allergic reaction to the acne medication he was given by his doctor, his father said yesterday.
An inquest into the death of Shaun Jones, from Rhydyfelin in Pontypridd, south Wales, has been opened and adjourned while further inquiries are made. Jones was said to be a fit and healthy rugby player, but appeared to suffer a severe reaction on October 21 after taking the first dose of antibiotic tablets.
Graeme Jones, the boy's father, said nobody was to blame and it was just "one of those terrible things."
"He was popular with the girls and had a couple of spots, so the doctor gave him some antibiotic acne tablets. A lot of his friends are taking them," Jones told BBC online news.
"It was the first time he'd taken them and he developed breathing difficulties. We called 999 and he went to hospital - but it was too late. The doctors couldn't save him.
"The doctor that gave him the tablets is really upset, but we don't blame him. It was just one of those terrible things. We're still coming to terms with losing him. One minute he was here and now he's gone.
"Shaun's little sister is devastated. She can't bear to leave our sides because she thinks something will happen to us too."
Jones declined to name the tablets while inquiries are ongoing. Many antibiotics commonly used to treat acne do have warnings of the possibility of allergic reactions, which can cause breathing difficulties, but deaths are rare.
Teresa Bates, a local councillor and governor at Hawthorn high school, which Shaun attended, said: "I understand he had acne and was given medication and had a massive allergic reaction to it.
"I know his grandmother and the family is devastated. So is the whole community."
Shaun played for his village rugby club. Rhydyfelin coach Dai Watkins said: "He was an awesome player whose name was first on the teamsheet."
"The fact that he was so fit and strong makes it all the harder to take. He was so dedicated and talented."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/30/health-antibiotic
Monday, November 3, 2008
Incidence of Food Allergies Soaring
It seems the dietary suicide that many Americans have been exposing themselves and their children to for decades is taking another measureable toll on their health. A steady supply of junk food and genetically altered nutrition is producing more and more allergies of all types in our society, but it tends to impact children harder than the rest of the population due to their immature bodies and immune systems.
Now that this dietary madness has continued for several generations in many cases, kids are not getting proper nutrition even before they are born. Much of the groundwork for a healthy (or unhealthy) immune system is laid in the womb. Allergies of all types, including those to food, are ultimately the result of a weakened immune system that does not respond properly to the body. Much of this could be avoided and prevented from ever happening if families dined on natural, whole-foods that contain the nutritional building blocks we need and are designed to eat instead of high-calorie foods that are often void of any nutritional value.
The allergy answer is not the latest medication proffered by your local pharmacy, which can often lead to very hazardous side effects, especially in children. Allergies are a holistic problem, and can only be cured and prevented by following a comprehensive lifestyle that leads towards wellness.
Food allergies increasing in US kids, study says
AP News
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Food allergies in American children seem to be on the rise, now affecting about 3 million kids, according to the first federal study of the problem.
Experts said that might be because parents are more aware and quicker to have their kids checked out by a doctor.
About 1 in 26 children had food allergies last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Wednesday. That's up from 1 in 30 kids in 1997.
The 18 percent increase is significant enough to be considered more than a statistical blip, said Amy Branum of the CDC, the study's lead author.
Nobody knows for sure what's driving the increase. A doubling in peanut allergies _ noted in earlier studies _ is one factor, some experts said. Also, children seems to be taking longer to outgrow milk and egg allergies than they did in decades past.
But also figuring into the equation are parents and doctors who are more likely to consider food as the trigger for symptoms like vomiting, skin rashes and breathing problems.
"A couple of decades ago, it was not uncommon to have kids sick all the time and we just said 'They have a weak stomach' or 'They're sickly,'" said Anne Munoz-Furlong, chief executive of the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network, a Virginia-based advocacy organization.
Parents today are quicker to take their kids to specialists to check out the possibility of food allergies, said Munoz-Furlong, who founded the nonprofit in 1991.
The CDC results came from an in-person, door-to-door survey in 2007 of the households of 9,500 U.S. children under age 18.
When asked if a child in the house had any kind of food allergy in the previous 12 months, about 4 percent said yes. The parents were not asked if a doctor had made the diagnosis, and no medical records were checked. Some parents may not know the difference between immune system-based food allergies and digestive disorders like lactose intolerance, so it's possible the study's findings are a bit off, Branum said.
However, the study's results mirror older national estimates that were extrapolated from smaller, more intensive studies, said Dr. Hugh Sampson, a food allergy researcher at the Mount Sinai School of medicine.
"This tells us those earlier extrapolations were fairly close," Sampson said.
The CDC study did not give a breakdown of which foods were to blame for the allergies. Other research suggests that about 1 in 40 Americans will have a milk allergy at some point in their lives, and 1 in 50 percent will be allergic to eggs. Most people outgrow these allergies in childhood.
About 1 in 50 are allergic to shellfish and nearly 1 in 100 react to peanuts, allergies that generally persist for a lifetime, according to Sampson.
Some people have more than one food allergy, he said, explaining why the overall food allergy prevalence is about 4 percent.
Children with food allergies also were more likely to have asthma, eczema and respiratory problems than kids without food allergies, the CDC study found, confirming previous research.
The study also found that the number of children hospitalized for food allergies was up. The number of hospital discharges jumped from about 2,600 a year in the late 1990s to more than 9,500 annually in recent years, the CDC results showed.
Also, Hispanic children had lower rates of food allergies than white or black children _ the first such racial/ethnic breakdown in a national study.
The reason for that last finding may not be genetics, said Munoz-Furlong. She is Hispanic and said people in her own family have been unwilling to consider food allergies as the reason for children's illnesses. "It's a question of awareness," she said.
http://srnnews.townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=d9fdff19-995f-486a-a23a-f2a8cf7cef71&t=c
Now that this dietary madness has continued for several generations in many cases, kids are not getting proper nutrition even before they are born. Much of the groundwork for a healthy (or unhealthy) immune system is laid in the womb. Allergies of all types, including those to food, are ultimately the result of a weakened immune system that does not respond properly to the body. Much of this could be avoided and prevented from ever happening if families dined on natural, whole-foods that contain the nutritional building blocks we need and are designed to eat instead of high-calorie foods that are often void of any nutritional value.
The allergy answer is not the latest medication proffered by your local pharmacy, which can often lead to very hazardous side effects, especially in children. Allergies are a holistic problem, and can only be cured and prevented by following a comprehensive lifestyle that leads towards wellness.
Food allergies increasing in US kids, study says
AP News
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Food allergies in American children seem to be on the rise, now affecting about 3 million kids, according to the first federal study of the problem.
Experts said that might be because parents are more aware and quicker to have their kids checked out by a doctor.
About 1 in 26 children had food allergies last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Wednesday. That's up from 1 in 30 kids in 1997.
The 18 percent increase is significant enough to be considered more than a statistical blip, said Amy Branum of the CDC, the study's lead author.
Nobody knows for sure what's driving the increase. A doubling in peanut allergies _ noted in earlier studies _ is one factor, some experts said. Also, children seems to be taking longer to outgrow milk and egg allergies than they did in decades past.
But also figuring into the equation are parents and doctors who are more likely to consider food as the trigger for symptoms like vomiting, skin rashes and breathing problems.
"A couple of decades ago, it was not uncommon to have kids sick all the time and we just said 'They have a weak stomach' or 'They're sickly,'" said Anne Munoz-Furlong, chief executive of the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network, a Virginia-based advocacy organization.
Parents today are quicker to take their kids to specialists to check out the possibility of food allergies, said Munoz-Furlong, who founded the nonprofit in 1991.
The CDC results came from an in-person, door-to-door survey in 2007 of the households of 9,500 U.S. children under age 18.
When asked if a child in the house had any kind of food allergy in the previous 12 months, about 4 percent said yes. The parents were not asked if a doctor had made the diagnosis, and no medical records were checked. Some parents may not know the difference between immune system-based food allergies and digestive disorders like lactose intolerance, so it's possible the study's findings are a bit off, Branum said.
However, the study's results mirror older national estimates that were extrapolated from smaller, more intensive studies, said Dr. Hugh Sampson, a food allergy researcher at the Mount Sinai School of medicine.
"This tells us those earlier extrapolations were fairly close," Sampson said.
The CDC study did not give a breakdown of which foods were to blame for the allergies. Other research suggests that about 1 in 40 Americans will have a milk allergy at some point in their lives, and 1 in 50 percent will be allergic to eggs. Most people outgrow these allergies in childhood.
About 1 in 50 are allergic to shellfish and nearly 1 in 100 react to peanuts, allergies that generally persist for a lifetime, according to Sampson.
Some people have more than one food allergy, he said, explaining why the overall food allergy prevalence is about 4 percent.
Children with food allergies also were more likely to have asthma, eczema and respiratory problems than kids without food allergies, the CDC study found, confirming previous research.
The study also found that the number of children hospitalized for food allergies was up. The number of hospital discharges jumped from about 2,600 a year in the late 1990s to more than 9,500 annually in recent years, the CDC results showed.
Also, Hispanic children had lower rates of food allergies than white or black children _ the first such racial/ethnic breakdown in a national study.
The reason for that last finding may not be genetics, said Munoz-Furlong. She is Hispanic and said people in her own family have been unwilling to consider food allergies as the reason for children's illnesses. "It's a question of awareness," she said.
http://srnnews.townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=d9fdff19-995f-486a-a23a-f2a8cf7cef71&t=c
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
