It seems the Food and Drug Administration is not the only organization that is trying to take away our freedoms to choose natural health care options. Heath Canada, the government regulatory agency of our neighbor to the north, is in a battle with a company that produces a product composed of natural substances that has had marvelous success at treating bipolar disorder without the use of dangerous psychiatric drugs that afflict patients with many unpleasant and hazardous side effects.
Officials were claiming that the company, called Truehope, was violating the law by selling its vitamin and mineral products to mentally ill people, despite the fact that the results for patients have been very impressive. Truehope won a partial victory when most of the charges were dismissed, and were able to find a sympathetic judge that ruled in their favor. However, Health Canada now wants to do clinical trials so that they can officially approve or disapprove the legality of these supplements.
The thinking of these government agencies seems to be that something, even if it is found in nature, is not a treatment for disease unless they say it is. Even if a substance shows great merit at helping fight disease, they want to get their fingers in the pie by regulating how it is manufactured, who can make and sell it, and who is allowed to purchase and use it. If Health Canada is anything like the FDA, their decisions cannot be trusted due to a trail of conflict of interest, greed, and half-truths. If governments ever gain complete control of natural substances, as they are attempting to do with the international CODEX agreements, you can be sure that even if they allow the use of vitamins and minerals, they will likely be altered and artificial, thus losing their natural healing qualities. The FDA is currently attempting to control foods and the seeds to grow them, by producing genetically altered pseudo-foods that are not any thing close to the real thing. The danger of trifling with nature in such ways is a fearful thing. Unless rational people everywhere begin to take a stand against such manipulative behaviors as these, our ability to access natural foods and supplements may be lost forever.
Vitamins for bipolar: cure or quackery?
HEALTH I Controversial and unproven, a mix of vitamins formulated to calm aggressive pigs has apparently brought relief to thousands of people with bipolar disorder
Karen Gram, Vancouver Sun
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Monica Carsience says it's the answer to her prayers. David Hardy calls it good pig husbandry. Health Canada suggested it was quackery and spent years trying to shut it down.
A dry cocktail of vitamins and minerals that calms aggressive pigs and seems to have eradicated bipolar disorder symptoms in almost 10,000 North Americans, drives these strongly held views. Views that pit bureaucratic rules against a human need for relief and squeeze the scientists in the middle.
Could pig pills really heal a mental illness, the cure for which has long eluded medicine?
Maybe.
Psychiatric experts familiar with it say the widespread anecdotal success of the pig formula indicates research into mental illness should make a sharp shift away from pharmaceuticals to examine the potential of vitamin and mineral therapy. One goes so far as to say it has the potential to be the most significant breakthrough in mental health since the beginning of time.
Six years ago, the mood disorder came close to destroying the family life Carsience wanted more than anything.
But now, she loves her life in Abbotsford with her husband, Stuart, and their two children. Everyday she takes EMPowerplus, a nutritional supplement she says has so cleared her head she thinks she may finally be able to work as the teacher she was trained to be.
Over 500,000 Canadians suffer from bipolar affective disorder or about 2.2 per cent of the Canadian population, according to a recent study. Most take lithium, a mood stabilizer that is often combined with other drugs such as antidepressants and psychotrophics. They live with the side effects.
Looking back, Carsience thinks she had bipolar disorder long before she was diagnosed. Her manic states actually endeared her to her future husband Stuart.
But immediately after she gave birth to their daughter, Rebecca, she swung into a high the likes of which she'd never experienced. She didn't sleep-- not at all -- and it wasn't because her daughter kept her up. It was adrenalin.
So she'd do laundry, clean, organize, knit, sew, and make arrangements. With a new baby, there was plenty to do. Except sleep. For 10 straight days.
"I'm not a smoker," she said. "But I imagine that maybe it was like someone is having a nic fit. I was really frenetic."
Her husband Stuart didn't get it.
"You can't do this," he told her one night, exasperation framing his words. "You need your rest."
But she couldn't rest.
As well, her entire body felt bruised as if she were a cartoon character who'd been flattened by a steamroller. Only, unlike the cartoon character, Carsience didn't pop back to full recovery.
"I felt crippled up with pain," she said, noting the pain far exceeded what could be explained by the birth. "My muscles were all sore and knotted up and I just felt bruised."
The doctor gave her sleeping pills, but with sleep, came a deep depression.
Back at the doctor's office, the doctor didn't recognize the mood swings for what they were. She thought she had postpartum depression and prescribed Prozac. A year later, the little family moved from Regina to Abbotsford and Carsience let her prescription run out.
"That is when I realized I was really really depressed. It didn't matter how nice the day was. It didn't matter how great my life was, I couldn't shake it."
Carsience found a GP in Abbotsford, who referred her to a psychiatrist, who diagnosed her with fibromyalgia and Type Two bipolar disorder, the milder form of the disorder. She was never psychotic or suicidal, but she swung regularly from manic to depressed.
The psychiatrist prescribed various seratonin reuptake inhibitors or SRIs and lithium. But the cure wasn't much better than the condition.
"I became numb. I had no feelings. I became fat. My weight soared to 200 pounds from 150 pounds. What feelings I could feel were completely unreliable."
Stuart used to advise her on what emotion fit the situation.
She celebrated her child's milestones by scrapbooking, but she would have to intellectualize her feelings.
"I knew that this was exciting, but I couldn't feel excited."
Meanwhile, the fibromyalgia got so bad she couldn't do up her buttons or open baby food jars. Sometimes, it was all she could do to lay in front of the fireplace with the heat at her back to get some relief. She'd lay out toys around her for Rebecca to play with and they'd just stay there. For hours.
Stuart, meanwhile, spent more and more time at work.
"I couldn't deal with it," he said now. "I didn't want to deal with her in that state. I was travelling a lot and it was easy for me to get away and I did."
But he wanted another child. So did Monica, but lithium can kill a fetus and they weren't prepared to risk that. Carsience tried going off lithium under supervision, but she relapsed right away into depression. She endured for a couple of months, hoping to get pregnant. But she couldn't take it.
"I needed the relief of feeling nothing and being numb."
One day, she was reading the Bible, James 5: 14-16, which says if you are sick you should call the church elders to pray over you and annoint you with oil.
"I'm like; 'I'm really sick. I've got this problem with depression and mania and this problem with fibromyalgia and I've
had a digestive problem for a decade.' I felt like I was 80-years-old and I was getting close to 30."
She went to the church, and the elders prayed over her.
A RAY OF HOPE
Meanwhile, a family drama was unfolding in southern Alberta that would have a huge impact on Carsience and her family.
Autumn Stringam was a young Alberta woman with bipolar disorder who had also spiraled out of control with the birth of her first child. Experts now say pregnancy and birth can trigger bipolar disorder. Now the subject of a hot selling autobiography, called A Promise of Hope, The Astonishing True Story of a Woman with Bipolar Disorder and the Miraculous Treatment That Cured Her, Stringam tells the story of her own descent into psychosis, paranoia and extreme mood swings and how her dad and his friend, David Hardy, rescued her.
Stringam's mother committed suicide after living with bipolar disorder for years. She left 10 children behind. Stringam's grandfather also suffered with the disorder and took his life. Then Stringam and her brother Joseph got sick.
Her dad, Anthony Stephan, studied documents on the problem at the library and on the Internet and he met with numerous psychiatrists.
"I was in a situation where I was left with nothing," he recalls. "I was trying to find an answer in a hurry because my family was coming unglued before my eyes."
Then he met David Hardy, a biologist by training whose company supplied farmers with custom-made pig and cattle feed.
Stephan managed buildings, including one that Hardy's church owned. As they toured the building talking about ceiling tiles and carpet replacement, something about Hardy allowed Stephan tell him how bad it was getting at home with Joe. He weighed more than 200 pounds and frequently exploded with rage. Stephan's children were afraid of their brother.
Hardy was quiet for a minute and then he started thinking out loud.
"I don't know a lot about mental disorders," he told Stephan. "But I can tell you one thing. I spent 20 years working in the agriculture industry formulating feed stock.
"We used to see a thing called ear-and-tail-biting syndrome. The pigs would go into an explosive rage and tear off their ear or tail or rip off part of the rear flank. We had to separate them or they would kill each other."
Hardy developed a special feed enriched with vitamins and minerals specifically for ear-and-tail-biting syndrome and it pretty well always solved the problem. Maybe, he said, the same could work for humans.
Stephan felt a light go on in his dark world. All the psychiatrists he'd consulted had said his children had no hope of getting better. The best they could do was take drugs to suppress the symptoms, but the drugs would create their own set of unpleasant side effects. Stephan feared he'd have to put Joe in an institution.
The two men went off to the health food store and bought all the ingredients Hardy's pig formula contains. Returning to Stephan's kitchen, they began experimenting, using Joe as their guinea pig.
The first few blends showed about 15-per-cent improvement, but gradually they came upon a recipe that completely eliminated Joe's aggression in 30 days. It contained 14 vitamins, 16 minerals, three amino acids, and three botanicals. Except for ginko biloba, all are found in common foods.
They tried it on Autumn.
Autumn had been warned never to go off her meds. She was on a five-drug cocktail that may have improved things a little, but she was so unstable she was on suicide watch and not allowed to be alone with her son. She was also psychotic and wouldn't shower alone or naked because she feared demons would escape from her belly. Paranoid, she believed her husband was trying to kill her.
When Autumn was released from her third hospital stay into her father's care, Stephan insisted she try the formula.
She resisted and so did her husband, Dana, who had seen what going off her meds would do. There was no reason to think taking pig pills was a rational idea, she said. Dana whole-heartedly agreed.
"I knew things weren't great," recalled Dana. "But we were in the best care. We had the best psychiatrist in Edmonton. He was the specialist for bipolar. He told us specifically 'don't rock the boat. Give us a couple of years to work with her and find a balance.'"
But Stephan kept at it and Autumn finally agreed.
A MIRACULOUS RESULT
He gave her the first dose on Sunday. On Tuesday, she stopped hallucinating and on Friday, she had a shower. On her own, without clothing.
As the days went by, Autumn became more herself and Dana started to think his father-in-law might be on to something.
"I still had tons of hesitation, tons of reservation while at the same time seeing it's looking better," he said. "The better she did the more you want her to keep getting better, but you're scared this is just going to be a temporary thing and it's all going to fall apart."
After 40 days, she showed no symptoms of the disorder. They put away her meds and she dutifully ingested the 32 pill pigs each day.
Stephan and Hardy packaged up their formula, called it EMPower Plus and formed a company named Truehope to sell it to other needy folks. They didn't realize Health Canada would try to stop them.
Autumn has been symptom-free for 12 years. She's had three more children and enjoys a mental clarity the drugs never gave her.
"There was such an incredible sense of keeping my thoughts," she said, enjoying a drink in a Vancouver coffee shop.
"Both [drugs and formula] might do something to even out moods, but one leaves you feeling like yourself and the other makes you feel like you've got your head in a glass box."
It wasn't an instantaneous fix. The worst time was going through withdrawl from the medications. She said she would never recommend anyone stop their meds cold turkey. But most people seem able to replace the drugs with the formula gradually.
Carsience didn't read the autobiography. Instead, a friend knocked on the door with a news clipping headlined "Miracle cure for bipolar" about Truehope and EMPower Plus.
At about $200 per month at first, her husband worried about the cost, but if it meant they could have another child, he said he'd find a way.
Her doctor looked into it, too. He'd never heard of it and the scientific literature was pretty scant.
ENCOURAGING RESULTS
Bonnie Kaplan, a research psychologist at the University of Calgary, had conducted some preliminary trials. She found 80 per cent of her first 12 subjects experienced a significant reduction in symptoms. Half were off their prescriptions in six weeks.
But these were open trials where everyone knew what they were taking. The potential of subjects to experience the placebo effect was high, but it was reduced somewhat by the experiences of many who went off the supplement briefly and relapsed.
Next, Kaplan wanted to conduct a controlled double-blind study.
She received grant money from the Alberta government but Health Canada shut her down before she got started because it claimed she hadn't been authorized by them for a clinical trial.
Charles Popper, a prominent child and adolescent psycho-pharmacologist at Harvard Medical School, heard about Kaplan's work at a seminar she gave. It struck him as unlikely and far-fetched.
"This made no sense to me at all," he said on the phone from Boston. "In fact, it took some work to get me in the room."
Still when a bottle of the formula was pressed into his hand as he left, he took it and wound up observing the effects of the supplement on the son of colleagues who was having terrible tantrums.
"The results of the treatment were dumbfounding," says Popper who later published an article about the supplement in Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology. "There was a far more rapid and complete improvement in symptoms than conventional medicine ever produces."
Popper was still pretty doubtful and tried it on a few other patients who were resistant to conventional drugs.
Over six months, 22 patients used the formula and 19 experienced a positive response. Of the 15 who were on medication, 11 were able to gradually withdraw from the drugs and remain stable on the supplement alone.
"I saw more reason to be encouraged and gradually treated more of my patients using this approach."
Health Canada did not share Popper's enthusiasm. It which raided Truehope's office in the summer of 2003 and blocked the import of the supplement from the U.S. after a man with schizophrenia, who had no previous criminal record, was charged with assault, mischief and criminal harassment while off his prescription and on the vitamins.
No officials with the federal government would be interviewed, but its public relations department sent an e-mail outlining its position.
Since Truehope offered hope of recovery, Health Canada deemed it a drug, not a natural supplement. As such, it is subject to the rigorous tests all drugs must undergo to ensure they're safe before being sold.
"Health Canada's responsibility," the e-mail states, "is to ensure that drugs sold in Canada are safe and effective. To do that, we require drug manufacturers to provide us with scientific evidence that the drug is safe and effective at meeting its stated claims of effectiveness of treatment.
"Health Canada has identified risks associated with the use of Empowerplus -- the safety and efficacy of Empowerplus has not been shown. Health Canada is concerned that individuals using Empowerplus could be putting their health at risk."
AFOUL OF HEALTH CANADA
In July, 2004, EMPower Plus was charged with six counts of violating Section 31 of the Food and Drug Act, including the import for sale, sale, and the advertisement of a drug.
Then, just before the case went to trial, all counts were dropped, except for the charge of selling without a drug identification number or DIN. Despite repeated attempts, no Health Canada official would explain why the other charges were dropped.
The Alberta Provincial Court in July 2006, found the company not guilty and said "the defendants were overwhelmingly compelled to disobey the DIN regulation in order to protect the health, safety and well-being of the users of the supplement and the support program."
In fact, the judge said, the defendants could have been prosecuted if they had stopped providing the supplement.
Hardy and Stephan say they're victims of an abuse of power by Health Canada.
But Barbara Mintzes, an epidemiologist at the University of B.C. and a member of Theraputics Initiatives, which evaluates the scientific claims of pharmaceuticals, says Health Canada should interfere when a company promises a cure without backing it up with good science.
"There are a lot of charlatans out there and you want to protect people with serious diseases."
Mintzes said it sounds to her like EMPower Plus should go through the proper testing of the drug.
"If it is shown to be effective, it would be an enormous advance, but I want to see the evidence," she said, agreeing with Health Canada that suggesting people can stop taking their medications can be dangerous.
Kaplan has since been authorized by Health Canada to conduct a double-blind study in two sites, Calgary and San Diego for which recruitment is currently underway.
Popper says he agrees study is essential. Seeing a treatment approach appear to work in a clinical setting is very different from seeing it work in controlled trials, he says.
"If I see a patient for whom it works, I don't know if it works in one in a thousand, one in 20 or seven out of 10."
There's a good chance, he said, there will come a time when vitamins and minerals are viewed as effective treatments for a whole range of medical disorders.
"If these findings turn out to have merit -- and at present time that is a real if -- then this would be expected to attract a lot of research attention toward the mechanisms of disease physiology," he said.
"What that would mean is basically we would look at the diseases from a different point of view. We would think of them in terms of how vitamins and minerals play on the biochemical processes involved. And we'd look at treatment differently for the same reason."
There is logic to it, Popper said. Lithium is a mineral and it is the first line of treatment for bipolar disorder.
Dr. Estelle Goldstein, a psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist in San Diego who treats some of her patients with the formula and is participating in Kaplan's double-blind study, said that while the formula does suggest a shift in the way science looks at mental illness, she still accepts that bipolar is a chemical imbalance. But the micronutrients would correct the imbalance differently.
For example, a seratonin reuptake inhibitor drug prevents the existing seratonin in the brain from being reabsorbed into the cells thereby making it more available for therapy.
A natural formula would instead be a catalyst to producing more seratonin. The result would be similar except the drugs tend to have more side effects.
Neither Goldstein nor Popper observed side effects on patients who have not been on drug therapy before taking the supplement. On those transitioning from drugs, the side effects have been minor; a little stomach discomfort or high energy, which can be alleviated by slowing down the transition. The worst side effects occurred when patients stopped taking their prescriptions cold turkey.
NO MORE DRUGS, NO MORE SYMPTOMS
Monica Carsience started the formula in September six years ago and gradually reduced her prescription medications so that by November that year she was off them.
By December, she had no more bipolar symptoms and within six months, the fibromyalgia was gone.
Her son, Joshua, was born while she was taking the initial higher dose of EMPowerplus and was born so strong he could hold his head up at two days. Her daughter's weak muscle tone grew strong after Carsience started giving her the formula. It allowed Rebecca to stop physiotherapy and take up gymnastics.
Her doctor, Dr. Richard Welsh, said in a phone message that since Carsience began taking EMPowerplus, she's had no recurrences of bipolar or hypomanic symptoms.
It took a while to fully transition from drugs to supplement, but even in that first month on the formula, Carsience says she felt different.
"I just leapt out of bed each morning," she recalls. "I used to roll out in pain."
She dug up her front yard and planted a garden overjoyed at her energy. It wasn't manic, she insists. She just did a couple of hours a day when the baby slept. She calls it her Truehope garden.
Her emotions matched the context, too. And she had more emotion than she thought.
"I thought I was a patient person, but I learned that I was just medicated," she said with a laugh.
Stuart said it was a tough transition for both of them, but that now they are much more connected.
"I think it's really been a life saver, a marriage saver," he said. "It brought stability to her, it brought stability to the relationship and it brought me back to her."
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=26b385cf-a2a3-4f5f-a5b8-320206496759&k=20077&p=7
Copyright The Vancouver Sun 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Obesity Redefined
Who defines what is normal or within acceptable ranges when it comes to our health? Unfortunately, it is typically not hard science, but rather societal values and sometimes biased views from the conventional medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies. In the case of the article posted below, obesity is no longer an objective fact , but instead a concept that is individually determined by what each individual likes or thinks looks best regarding weight and body size.
An attitude like this is primarily fostered by our fast-food culture that constantly encourages overeating, especially amongst our young people. However, in this day and age of misinformation and manipulative double-speak, certain parties such as the government or Big Pharma are seeking to deceptively set standards to change other wellness parameters as well. For example, sales of statin drugs prescribed for high cholesterol have reached an all time high, being one of the most profitable drugs in the industry. They would have us convinced that just about every living person on earth should be using these harmful medications. Another example is the campaign to institute widespread vaccinations for any one of numerous diseases. The propaganda fed to the American people tries to convince them that they must submit themselves and their children to these toxic substances for their own health and welfare, when nothing could be further from the truth.
When decisions regarding our wellness are made based on the whims of fashion, the bottom line of a pharmaceutical company, or the agenda of governmental officials, both our health and our freedoms are at risk, and that is exactly the direction health care is going in this country.
Is fat the new normal?
Societal ideas of acceptable weight expanding as Americans get heavier
By Karen Collins, R.D.
updated 2:23 p.m. CT, Fri., Dec. 21, 2007
Is fat the new normal?
A study published in the July issue of Economic Inquiry raises that question. With roughly two-thirds of the American population overweight or obese, have our cultural ideals of what we consider normal weight changed?
The study looked at economic and social factors affecting obesity rates. One element explored was the impact of societal norms or standards. According to the studys authors, standards for acceptable body weight relax as the average weight of the population increases; in turn, peoples weights continue to rise in response to the lessening of social standards.
Public response to the study ranges from support to outrage. While some recognize the danger of normalizing unhealthy weights, others are angered by the insinuation that people are unable to differentiate between average and healthy.
This discussion echoes the misunderstanding that surrounded research published in 2000. One study, which was published in the journal Obesity Research, focused on body-size acceptance. In the study, subjects were presented with nine line drawings portraying various body shapes that ranged from very thin to obese. Participants were asked to identify those body sizes that looked okay as well as the one they liked best.
In the end, 86 percent of overweight study subjects and 48 percent of obese subjects said their own shape fell within the acceptable range. (It is important to note that study subjects did not identify overweight and obese figures as healthy or desirable, but as acceptable.) Furthermore, 80 percent of overweight subjects and 93 percent of obese subjects identified their actual shape as different from the shape they would most like to have.
Of course, the waters get muddied a bit when we attempt to differentiate normal weight from desirable weight without offending people. Although weight is an extremely sensitive subject, the separation between normal and desirable has been successfully defined in other areas. For example, evaluation of blood cholesterol was previously based on average levels. After research showed that typical levels in the U.S. were associated with increased heart disease, a healthy blood cholesterol level was identified and differentiated from average blood cholesterol.
Acknowledging that you are overweight is the first step in recognizing the health risks associated with obesity. A 2002 study, also published in Obesity Research, found that self perceptions of what is overweight were influenced by sex, race and socioeconomic status.
According to the study, Caucasian females were most likely to accurately identify themselves as overweight, while black and Hispanic men were least likely to accurately identify themselves as overweight. In summary, the study noted that only about half of all participating men correctly identified themselves as overweight compared to more than three quarters of the women. These findings are consistent with other research that suggests failure to recognize yourself as overweight is a greater problem in men.
Whether viewed as acceptable or not, overweight and obese are clearly becoming the norm in America.
This new normal is simply not healthy. In a culture that facilitates overeating, making life changes to promote a healthier weight can often seem overwhelming. While we may not be able to change the culture overnight, each of us can take small steps to ensure that our standard of reference is also the healthiest.
Copyright 2007 MSNBC Interactive
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20895509/
An attitude like this is primarily fostered by our fast-food culture that constantly encourages overeating, especially amongst our young people. However, in this day and age of misinformation and manipulative double-speak, certain parties such as the government or Big Pharma are seeking to deceptively set standards to change other wellness parameters as well. For example, sales of statin drugs prescribed for high cholesterol have reached an all time high, being one of the most profitable drugs in the industry. They would have us convinced that just about every living person on earth should be using these harmful medications. Another example is the campaign to institute widespread vaccinations for any one of numerous diseases. The propaganda fed to the American people tries to convince them that they must submit themselves and their children to these toxic substances for their own health and welfare, when nothing could be further from the truth.
When decisions regarding our wellness are made based on the whims of fashion, the bottom line of a pharmaceutical company, or the agenda of governmental officials, both our health and our freedoms are at risk, and that is exactly the direction health care is going in this country.
Is fat the new normal?
Societal ideas of acceptable weight expanding as Americans get heavier
By Karen Collins, R.D.
updated 2:23 p.m. CT, Fri., Dec. 21, 2007
Is fat the new normal?
A study published in the July issue of Economic Inquiry raises that question. With roughly two-thirds of the American population overweight or obese, have our cultural ideals of what we consider normal weight changed?
The study looked at economic and social factors affecting obesity rates. One element explored was the impact of societal norms or standards. According to the studys authors, standards for acceptable body weight relax as the average weight of the population increases; in turn, peoples weights continue to rise in response to the lessening of social standards.
Public response to the study ranges from support to outrage. While some recognize the danger of normalizing unhealthy weights, others are angered by the insinuation that people are unable to differentiate between average and healthy.
This discussion echoes the misunderstanding that surrounded research published in 2000. One study, which was published in the journal Obesity Research, focused on body-size acceptance. In the study, subjects were presented with nine line drawings portraying various body shapes that ranged from very thin to obese. Participants were asked to identify those body sizes that looked okay as well as the one they liked best.
In the end, 86 percent of overweight study subjects and 48 percent of obese subjects said their own shape fell within the acceptable range. (It is important to note that study subjects did not identify overweight and obese figures as healthy or desirable, but as acceptable.) Furthermore, 80 percent of overweight subjects and 93 percent of obese subjects identified their actual shape as different from the shape they would most like to have.
Of course, the waters get muddied a bit when we attempt to differentiate normal weight from desirable weight without offending people. Although weight is an extremely sensitive subject, the separation between normal and desirable has been successfully defined in other areas. For example, evaluation of blood cholesterol was previously based on average levels. After research showed that typical levels in the U.S. were associated with increased heart disease, a healthy blood cholesterol level was identified and differentiated from average blood cholesterol.
Acknowledging that you are overweight is the first step in recognizing the health risks associated with obesity. A 2002 study, also published in Obesity Research, found that self perceptions of what is overweight were influenced by sex, race and socioeconomic status.
According to the study, Caucasian females were most likely to accurately identify themselves as overweight, while black and Hispanic men were least likely to accurately identify themselves as overweight. In summary, the study noted that only about half of all participating men correctly identified themselves as overweight compared to more than three quarters of the women. These findings are consistent with other research that suggests failure to recognize yourself as overweight is a greater problem in men.
Whether viewed as acceptable or not, overweight and obese are clearly becoming the norm in America.
This new normal is simply not healthy. In a culture that facilitates overeating, making life changes to promote a healthier weight can often seem overwhelming. While we may not be able to change the culture overnight, each of us can take small steps to ensure that our standard of reference is also the healthiest.
Copyright 2007 MSNBC Interactive
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20895509/
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Hazards of Hospitals
If you think a hospital is a fairly safe place to be, especially when you are sick, you might want to think again. It is well-known that the risk of certain types of infections are greater in a hospital setting than many other places. And as we discussed yesterday regarding the reading of mammograms, there are perils involved with hospitalization simply due to poorly trained, over-worked, and incompetent staff. Throw in the dangers of surgery, medications, and other procedures, and you have an environment that is risky enough to give anyone a good dose of anxiety.
Now studies are confirming that even emergencies such as cardiac arrest may be better handled outside of a hospital setting. Your chances of surviving such an event in a public place like an airport or a casino are better than if your heart malfunctions in a hospital. It really makes you think twice about submitting to a hospital stay, especially as budget cuts typically result in under-staffing and long work hours, often with little sleep between shifts. The number of mistakes made in hospitals that lead to fatalities is on the rise, another indicator of the overall failure of the health care system here in America.
Hospitals have their limits
Study finds more people survive heart rhythm problems in airports, casinos
By Thomas H. Maugh II
Los Angeles Times
January 6, 2008
People who suffer a life-threatening alteration in heart rhythms are more likely to survive if they are in a casino or airport than if they are in a hospital, researchers have reported.
Doctors already knew that more than half of those who suffer such attacks in airports and casinos survive. But a new study in hospitals shows that only a third of victims there survive, primarily because patients do not receive life-saving defibrillation within the recommended two minutes.
Nearly 40 percent of hospitalized patients who received defibrillation within two minutes survived to leave the hospital, compared with only 22 percent of those for whom the response took longer, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.
As many as 750,000 people suffer such attacks in hospitals every year in the United States, and another quarter-million have them outside hospitals.
"It is probably fair to say that most patients assume -- unfortunately, incorrectly -- that a hospital would be the best place to survive a cardiac arrest," University of Southern California cardiologist Dr. Leslie Saxon wrote in an editorial accompanying the report.
People who suffer a heart attack in the middle of a crowded airport or casino, where defibrillators are widely available, are typically noticed immediately, whereas a lone patient suffering an attack in a hospital room may not be noticed for much of the crucial window of opportunity during which defibrillation is most effective.
The odds of survival are even lower in small hospitals with fewer than 250 beds, and on nights and weekends, according to the study by Dr. Paul S. Chan of St. Luke's Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., and Dr. Brahmajee K. Nallamothu of the University of Michigan.
At least part of the apparent discrepancy arises because hospitalized patients are sicker to begin with, while those who suffer attacks in airports and casinos generally don't have underlying medical illnesses or symptoms, said University of California-Los Angeles cardiologist Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, who was not involved in the study.
Still, he said, hospitals can do more to shorten the time needed to administer defibrillation.
Defibrillation is used when patients suffer either ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia. In the first case, the heart beats abnormally or intermittently, while in the second it beats extremely rapidly. In both cases, the result is the same: an inability to pump blood through the body effectively.
Applying a shock to the heart often restores normal heart rhythms. The devices found in public places, called automated external defibrillators, can be used by trained laymen to treat the condition rapidly.
Guidelines developed by major heart organizations call for administration of defibrillation within two minutes after the onset of an attack, but there is little hard data to support the need for a rapid response, the authors wrote.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/NATIONWORLD/801060360/1083/LIVING01
Now studies are confirming that even emergencies such as cardiac arrest may be better handled outside of a hospital setting. Your chances of surviving such an event in a public place like an airport or a casino are better than if your heart malfunctions in a hospital. It really makes you think twice about submitting to a hospital stay, especially as budget cuts typically result in under-staffing and long work hours, often with little sleep between shifts. The number of mistakes made in hospitals that lead to fatalities is on the rise, another indicator of the overall failure of the health care system here in America.
Hospitals have their limits
Study finds more people survive heart rhythm problems in airports, casinos
By Thomas H. Maugh II
Los Angeles Times
January 6, 2008
People who suffer a life-threatening alteration in heart rhythms are more likely to survive if they are in a casino or airport than if they are in a hospital, researchers have reported.
Doctors already knew that more than half of those who suffer such attacks in airports and casinos survive. But a new study in hospitals shows that only a third of victims there survive, primarily because patients do not receive life-saving defibrillation within the recommended two minutes.
Nearly 40 percent of hospitalized patients who received defibrillation within two minutes survived to leave the hospital, compared with only 22 percent of those for whom the response took longer, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.
As many as 750,000 people suffer such attacks in hospitals every year in the United States, and another quarter-million have them outside hospitals.
"It is probably fair to say that most patients assume -- unfortunately, incorrectly -- that a hospital would be the best place to survive a cardiac arrest," University of Southern California cardiologist Dr. Leslie Saxon wrote in an editorial accompanying the report.
People who suffer a heart attack in the middle of a crowded airport or casino, where defibrillators are widely available, are typically noticed immediately, whereas a lone patient suffering an attack in a hospital room may not be noticed for much of the crucial window of opportunity during which defibrillation is most effective.
The odds of survival are even lower in small hospitals with fewer than 250 beds, and on nights and weekends, according to the study by Dr. Paul S. Chan of St. Luke's Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., and Dr. Brahmajee K. Nallamothu of the University of Michigan.
At least part of the apparent discrepancy arises because hospitalized patients are sicker to begin with, while those who suffer attacks in airports and casinos generally don't have underlying medical illnesses or symptoms, said University of California-Los Angeles cardiologist Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, who was not involved in the study.
Still, he said, hospitals can do more to shorten the time needed to administer defibrillation.
Defibrillation is used when patients suffer either ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia. In the first case, the heart beats abnormally or intermittently, while in the second it beats extremely rapidly. In both cases, the result is the same: an inability to pump blood through the body effectively.
Applying a shock to the heart often restores normal heart rhythms. The devices found in public places, called automated external defibrillators, can be used by trained laymen to treat the condition rapidly.
Guidelines developed by major heart organizations call for administration of defibrillation within two minutes after the onset of an attack, but there is little hard data to support the need for a rapid response, the authors wrote.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/NATIONWORLD/801060360/1083/LIVING01
Monday, January 7, 2008
The Mammogram Scam
The dangers of mammograms have been well documented by many independent researchers, physicians, and scientists. These include exposure to toxic levels of radiation, physical trauma to the breast, and shoddy interpretation of the results. According to Dr. John R. Lee, MD: "Since there is no reliable evidence that mammography screening decreases breast cancer mortality, mammography screening for breast cancer is unjustified. This means that physicians should not order mammography screening, and insurance companies and HMOs should not pay for such tests. This conclusion is not as dismal as it might first appear. Mammography screening should be dropped because it does not work to save lives. We get by that hurdle by turning our attention to more promising research. First we must change our thinking to separate cause from effects. The cancer tumor is not the disease; the tumor is the result of an underlying metabolic imbalance. Removing the tumor is not treating the cause; it is merely removing an effect of the disease. If the underlying imbalance is not corrected, the disease has not been treated. When conventional medicine turns its attention to hormonal imbalance, nutrition and the effects of xenoestrogens, progress in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer is far more likely than it is if we continue on with our present fixation on mammograms, surgery, chemotherapy and radiation."
Now we have a study published by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a strong supporter of mammograms, that admits to the glaring incompetence of many radiologists who read and analyze mammogram images.
Despite many questions that surround the wide scale use of mammograms, they are still falsely purported by conventional medicine as the best defense a woman can have against breast cancer. Studies have shown that there are many more mammogram machines being built and installed in this country than the population warrants, even if one incorrectly believes all women over 40 should have an annual mammogram. The trail points to a profit motive that causes deceit and misinformation to abound regarding cancer care of all types, including mammograms. Perhaps the admission by an organization such as the NCI that such serious issues exist in the interpretation of mammograms may help to change the thinking regarding the use of these hazardous procedures.
Mammogram accuracy varies by radiologist
Breast cancer was missed 21 percent of the time, study found
Reuters
updated 3:41 p.m. CT, Tues., Dec. 11, 2007
CHICAGO - Women with lumps in their breasts rely on their radiologists to accurately read their mammograms, but the accuracy of those readings varies widely, U.S. researchers on Tuesday.
Earlier studies found variation in the quality of screening mammograms. But the new research found inconsistencies even when a lump was present, leaving some women open to false positive results or even missed diagnoses, said Diana Miglioretti, a researcher at the Group Health Center for Health Studies in Seattle, whose study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Miglioretti and her team evaluated 123 radiologists who looked at 36,000 diagnostic mammograms from 1996 through 2003 at 72 U.S. facilities, including six from Group Health, a nonprofit health maintenance organization in Washington.
They found that sensitivity - the ability to accurately detect cancer - ranged from 27 percent to 100 percent. False positives ranged from 0 to 16 percent.
"On average, 21 percent of breast cancers were missed and 4.3 percent of women underwent a biopsy even though they didn't have breast cancer," Miglioretti said in a telephone interview.
This variability was evident even after accounting for differences in physical characteristics.
Miglioretti said the results surprised her.
"I was expecting diagnostic mammograms to be less variable than screening mammograms," Miglioretti said. Diagnostic mammograms are those performed on women whose initial, screening mammograms led to breast concerns.
The study included data from rural hospitals, where radiologists may not handle a high volume of diagnostic mammograms.
Miglioretti said women might want to consider scheduling diagnostic exams at centers with breast imaging experts. "It might be worth driving the extra hour to find one. It is not always possible," she said.
The study was funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
There will be an estimated 178,000 new cases of breast cancer in the United States this year, with 40,000 deaths.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22205170/
Now we have a study published by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a strong supporter of mammograms, that admits to the glaring incompetence of many radiologists who read and analyze mammogram images.
Despite many questions that surround the wide scale use of mammograms, they are still falsely purported by conventional medicine as the best defense a woman can have against breast cancer. Studies have shown that there are many more mammogram machines being built and installed in this country than the population warrants, even if one incorrectly believes all women over 40 should have an annual mammogram. The trail points to a profit motive that causes deceit and misinformation to abound regarding cancer care of all types, including mammograms. Perhaps the admission by an organization such as the NCI that such serious issues exist in the interpretation of mammograms may help to change the thinking regarding the use of these hazardous procedures.
Mammogram accuracy varies by radiologist
Breast cancer was missed 21 percent of the time, study found
Reuters
updated 3:41 p.m. CT, Tues., Dec. 11, 2007
CHICAGO - Women with lumps in their breasts rely on their radiologists to accurately read their mammograms, but the accuracy of those readings varies widely, U.S. researchers on Tuesday.
Earlier studies found variation in the quality of screening mammograms. But the new research found inconsistencies even when a lump was present, leaving some women open to false positive results or even missed diagnoses, said Diana Miglioretti, a researcher at the Group Health Center for Health Studies in Seattle, whose study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Miglioretti and her team evaluated 123 radiologists who looked at 36,000 diagnostic mammograms from 1996 through 2003 at 72 U.S. facilities, including six from Group Health, a nonprofit health maintenance organization in Washington.
They found that sensitivity - the ability to accurately detect cancer - ranged from 27 percent to 100 percent. False positives ranged from 0 to 16 percent.
"On average, 21 percent of breast cancers were missed and 4.3 percent of women underwent a biopsy even though they didn't have breast cancer," Miglioretti said in a telephone interview.
This variability was evident even after accounting for differences in physical characteristics.
Miglioretti said the results surprised her.
"I was expecting diagnostic mammograms to be less variable than screening mammograms," Miglioretti said. Diagnostic mammograms are those performed on women whose initial, screening mammograms led to breast concerns.
The study included data from rural hospitals, where radiologists may not handle a high volume of diagnostic mammograms.
Miglioretti said women might want to consider scheduling diagnostic exams at centers with breast imaging experts. "It might be worth driving the extra hour to find one. It is not always possible," she said.
The study was funded by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
There will be an estimated 178,000 new cases of breast cancer in the United States this year, with 40,000 deaths.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22205170/
Friday, January 4, 2008
Irregularity Linked to Depression
There are few bodily systems that are more important to our overall health and wellness than the digestive tract. It is here that critical nutrients are absorbed and transported throughout the body, and just as importantly, toxins and waste products are eliminated from the body. If a person is constipated and does not have enough bowel movement activity, neither of these functions operates efficiently. The bowel is also the place where 70-80% of the immune system is located!
Not only does bowel health affect our physical status, but as the article below points out, it is crucial to our emotional wellness as well. It is a travesty the way that antidepressant drugs and other medications are thrown around in this country as the cure-all for everything from stumping your big toe to depression, with increasing efforts at targeting children for these toxic drugs. Instead of exposing people to the hazardous side-effects of these synthetic medications that often make matters worse instead of better, it would be much wiser to treat mood disorders in more natural ways that include improving bowel health through the relief of constipation. The first step in this process is to undergo a thorough and complete digestive tract cleanse. For safe and effective constipation relief and natural colon cleansing using Mag O7 is what I recommend. For more information see: http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/ask-doctor.html
Depression Via Constipation
By Dr. Jennifer Daniels
Anger, hate, unhappiness and depression are only a few of the emotions that often invade our lives, harming ourselves and the ones we love, as well as limiting our unique ability to grow and to evolve. Unfortunately, the clouds of depression and other so-called "emotional disorders" that canvas America today have led many to believe that it is acceptable to numb the pains and symptoms of our "illnesses" with drugs and other harmful therapies rather than addressing the root causes.
Decades ago, negative thinking was referred to as "stinkin thinkin", the reason for this being depression's link to constipation. Our brains are programmed for happiness, as there are several types of neurotransmitters which are made by the brain that facilitate and induce various feelings. Happiness is one of these feelings, and in order for the body to make neurotransmitters, it needs enough B-vitamins and minerals (only a few of the many key nutrients). If the human body goes without the necessary supply of B-vitamins and minerals, it cannot utilize glucose, often resulting in wide mood swings and depression, and if the brain has no access to any glucose or minerals, plain old depression will more than likely develop.
When someone is constipated, much of the residue from yesterday's meals remains in the intestines, hampering the absorption of nutrients ingested in today's meal as well as leading to toxicity. Regardless of how nutritious the meal is or how expensive the vitamins are, the nutrients needed for the brain to function optimally are not fully absorbed when the body is constipated. In addition, long standing constipation can result in an impermeable layer of toxins that line the small intestine, preventing nutrients from getting to the rest of the body.
If we delve deeper, looking to our brains and the interactions that lead to certain feelings and moods, we begin to realize how influential constipation can be in our everyday lives and that it isn't irrational to believe that the lack of frequent bowel movements can lead to negative emotions. When an emotion is experienced, neurotransmitters are released, and seconds later, the cell reabsorbs it and another chemical comes along to destroy what was not reabsorbed. The emotional system of the body naturally "resets" after each emotion as enzymes in the cell replenish the neurotransmitters to pre-emotion levels, readying the brain for the next emotion. This activity or mechanism of spontaneously resetting consumes a lot of B-vitamins and energy, and thus when B-vitamins are in short supply, it can lead to people having "mixed" emotions, due to the neurotransmitter from the last emotion still hanging around.
When someone is constipated, some of the chemicals in the intestine that are unable to exit into the toilet, are reabsorbed into the blood, which can spur depression and irritability. Furthermore, food that is eaten and not absorbed becomes food for bad bacteria.
Depression is also without a doubt very sensitive to the foods we eat. Food additives of any kind, such as artificial coloring, artificial flavoring, preservatives, pesticides and herbicides can all worsen depression. While the first step to improving depression is resolving constipation and having 3 bowel movements a day, further improvement can be achieved by reducing the amount of chemicals we ingest, increasing the amount of organic unprocessed foods in our diets and reducing the processed ones.
Much research still needs to be conducted in this field, and hopefully with an ever-increasing number of people who refuse to wade blindfolded in a sea of ignorance, together we will shed more light on this and other issues of great importance in our lives.
Jennifer Daniels, M.D., M.B.A is a graduate of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and the Wharton School of Business. Dr. Daniels loves receiving email, so feel free to drop her a line at jennifer@vitalitycapsules.com
Not only does bowel health affect our physical status, but as the article below points out, it is crucial to our emotional wellness as well. It is a travesty the way that antidepressant drugs and other medications are thrown around in this country as the cure-all for everything from stumping your big toe to depression, with increasing efforts at targeting children for these toxic drugs. Instead of exposing people to the hazardous side-effects of these synthetic medications that often make matters worse instead of better, it would be much wiser to treat mood disorders in more natural ways that include improving bowel health through the relief of constipation. The first step in this process is to undergo a thorough and complete digestive tract cleanse. For safe and effective constipation relief and natural colon cleansing using Mag O7 is what I recommend. For more information see: http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/ask-doctor.html
Depression Via Constipation
By Dr. Jennifer Daniels
Anger, hate, unhappiness and depression are only a few of the emotions that often invade our lives, harming ourselves and the ones we love, as well as limiting our unique ability to grow and to evolve. Unfortunately, the clouds of depression and other so-called "emotional disorders" that canvas America today have led many to believe that it is acceptable to numb the pains and symptoms of our "illnesses" with drugs and other harmful therapies rather than addressing the root causes.
Decades ago, negative thinking was referred to as "stinkin thinkin", the reason for this being depression's link to constipation. Our brains are programmed for happiness, as there are several types of neurotransmitters which are made by the brain that facilitate and induce various feelings. Happiness is one of these feelings, and in order for the body to make neurotransmitters, it needs enough B-vitamins and minerals (only a few of the many key nutrients). If the human body goes without the necessary supply of B-vitamins and minerals, it cannot utilize glucose, often resulting in wide mood swings and depression, and if the brain has no access to any glucose or minerals, plain old depression will more than likely develop.
When someone is constipated, much of the residue from yesterday's meals remains in the intestines, hampering the absorption of nutrients ingested in today's meal as well as leading to toxicity. Regardless of how nutritious the meal is or how expensive the vitamins are, the nutrients needed for the brain to function optimally are not fully absorbed when the body is constipated. In addition, long standing constipation can result in an impermeable layer of toxins that line the small intestine, preventing nutrients from getting to the rest of the body.
If we delve deeper, looking to our brains and the interactions that lead to certain feelings and moods, we begin to realize how influential constipation can be in our everyday lives and that it isn't irrational to believe that the lack of frequent bowel movements can lead to negative emotions. When an emotion is experienced, neurotransmitters are released, and seconds later, the cell reabsorbs it and another chemical comes along to destroy what was not reabsorbed. The emotional system of the body naturally "resets" after each emotion as enzymes in the cell replenish the neurotransmitters to pre-emotion levels, readying the brain for the next emotion. This activity or mechanism of spontaneously resetting consumes a lot of B-vitamins and energy, and thus when B-vitamins are in short supply, it can lead to people having "mixed" emotions, due to the neurotransmitter from the last emotion still hanging around.
When someone is constipated, some of the chemicals in the intestine that are unable to exit into the toilet, are reabsorbed into the blood, which can spur depression and irritability. Furthermore, food that is eaten and not absorbed becomes food for bad bacteria.
Depression is also without a doubt very sensitive to the foods we eat. Food additives of any kind, such as artificial coloring, artificial flavoring, preservatives, pesticides and herbicides can all worsen depression. While the first step to improving depression is resolving constipation and having 3 bowel movements a day, further improvement can be achieved by reducing the amount of chemicals we ingest, increasing the amount of organic unprocessed foods in our diets and reducing the processed ones.
Much research still needs to be conducted in this field, and hopefully with an ever-increasing number of people who refuse to wade blindfolded in a sea of ignorance, together we will shed more light on this and other issues of great importance in our lives.
Jennifer Daniels, M.D., M.B.A is a graduate of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and the Wharton School of Business. Dr. Daniels loves receiving email, so feel free to drop her a line at jennifer@vitalitycapsules.com
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Junk Science Benefits Big Pharma
Hundreds of thousands of pre and postmenopausal women are prescribed antidepressant drugs for depression, and research indicates that these women have a lower bone density and are thus at greater risk for osteoporosis than women who do not use these medications. You would think the connection would be easy to make between antidepressants and lower bone density, but the researchers discussed in the following article deduced that depression was the factor that increased the incidence of osteoporosis, not the antidepressants. This kind of pseudo-science must make the drug companies jump for joy. Instead of being forced to face the fact that their drugs are causing a problem, they instead can recommend the use of an additional medication to treat low bone density in their antidepressant customers.
Unfortunately, this type of pretzel logic often typifies the thinking of the pharmaceutical companies and the physicians who push their drugs. Instead of dealing with the underlying problems that are causing disorders, their philosophy is to just give patients one or more drugs to deal with the symptoms (and the side-effects that often accompany them). It is tragic to see the trust of so many people betrayed by this kind of nonsense. It is also an outrage that so many depressed people are given harmful medications that often do more harm than good, especially when there are natural options available to fight depression. These include a healthy diet, exercise (especially walking), natural sunlight, and supplements such as SamE and Lithium Orotate. Also, be sure to read tomorrows blog for the relationship between depression and constipation!
The Old Shell Game
Does depression contribute to bone loss?
Take nearly 90 women (all premenopausal, under the age of 46) who have major depressive disorder (MDD), and about 45 women of the same age who don't suffer from depression. Use a special x-ray technique to assess their bone density.
Results: Compared to subjects who aren't depressed, the depressed subjects have significantly greater thinning of the bone in the femoral neck (the section of the femur that's most vulnerable to fracture), and depressed subjects have a significantly higher incidence of low bone mass in the lower back and lumbar spine.
The conclusion is obvious, of course: Low bone mineral density is more prevalent in premenopausal women with MDD, so depression may be a risk factor for osteoporosis, right along with smoking and calcium deficiency.
Before we go on, can you spot what's wrong with this picture? It's easy - just follow the money.
Sleight of hand
Safe to say, a large majority of patients diagnosed with MDD end up taking antidepressants for extended periods.
In the study described above (funded by the National Institutes of Health and published last month in Archives of Internal Medicine), all of the MDD subjects were taking antidepressants. So does it seem more likely that their bone loss was prompted by depression, or prompted by antidepressant drugs?
In the Product Prescribing Information for Prozac, a list of "events" observed in clinical trials notes that osteoporosis was one of the side effects. It's considered a rare side effect, but still, there it is. The Prozac web site also notes that the drug impaired bone development in early animal studies.
And yet, most of the reports about this study would like us to believe that antidepressant drugs had no effect at all on subjects' bone health.
Ivanhoe Newswire: "Although the depressed women were on anti-depressant medication, the study indicated that was not a factor in increased bone loss."
Science Daily: "A previous study suggested that older adults taking antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors had more bone fractures than others. However, the current study showed that these medications were not linked to low bone mass in premenopausal women." How did the current study show no link? Science Daily doesn't open that can of worms.
Things start to get humorous with this from MedPage Today: "The investigators noted that the usefulness of antidepressants for bone mineral loss in major depression should be evaluated."
At first I thought I'd read that incorrectly, but then I came across this howler from HealthDay News: "It's not clear what role antidepressants might play, but by relieving the depression, the drugs may also help bone mineral density, the researchers said."
Riiiight. So what are we looking at here? Is the NIH kindly laying the groundwork for drug companies to sell osteoporosis drugs to depressed patients and antidepressant drugs to osteoporosis patients? That's a sweet win-win…provided you're not one of the patients.
Let's get real
What a difference five months make.
The MedPage Today report I mentioned above appeared on 11/26/07. And a MedPage Today report that appeared on 6/27/07, written by the same reporter, opened with this sentence: "Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been linked to decreased bone density in older women and men, two related studies found."
Granted, these two studies looked at older subjects, but does it seem logical that antidepressant drugs would benefit bone health in someone who's 45, then harm bone health in someone who's 55? It's preposterous!
The June MedPage Today article included this "Action Point": "Explain to interested patients that older depressed patients who benefit from taking SSRIs should be screened regularly for osteoporosis and for possible preventive drug therapy."
"Preventive drug therapy"? Hmmm. Here's an Action Point for you: Explain to any doctor that tries to sell you a preventive osteoporosis drug to go along with your antidepressant drug that you're a patient, not a dollar sign.
http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ealerts/ea200712/ea20071212a.html
Unfortunately, this type of pretzel logic often typifies the thinking of the pharmaceutical companies and the physicians who push their drugs. Instead of dealing with the underlying problems that are causing disorders, their philosophy is to just give patients one or more drugs to deal with the symptoms (and the side-effects that often accompany them). It is tragic to see the trust of so many people betrayed by this kind of nonsense. It is also an outrage that so many depressed people are given harmful medications that often do more harm than good, especially when there are natural options available to fight depression. These include a healthy diet, exercise (especially walking), natural sunlight, and supplements such as SamE and Lithium Orotate. Also, be sure to read tomorrows blog for the relationship between depression and constipation!
The Old Shell Game
Does depression contribute to bone loss?
Take nearly 90 women (all premenopausal, under the age of 46) who have major depressive disorder (MDD), and about 45 women of the same age who don't suffer from depression. Use a special x-ray technique to assess their bone density.
Results: Compared to subjects who aren't depressed, the depressed subjects have significantly greater thinning of the bone in the femoral neck (the section of the femur that's most vulnerable to fracture), and depressed subjects have a significantly higher incidence of low bone mass in the lower back and lumbar spine.
The conclusion is obvious, of course: Low bone mineral density is more prevalent in premenopausal women with MDD, so depression may be a risk factor for osteoporosis, right along with smoking and calcium deficiency.
Before we go on, can you spot what's wrong with this picture? It's easy - just follow the money.
Sleight of hand
Safe to say, a large majority of patients diagnosed with MDD end up taking antidepressants for extended periods.
In the study described above (funded by the National Institutes of Health and published last month in Archives of Internal Medicine), all of the MDD subjects were taking antidepressants. So does it seem more likely that their bone loss was prompted by depression, or prompted by antidepressant drugs?
In the Product Prescribing Information for Prozac, a list of "events" observed in clinical trials notes that osteoporosis was one of the side effects. It's considered a rare side effect, but still, there it is. The Prozac web site also notes that the drug impaired bone development in early animal studies.
And yet, most of the reports about this study would like us to believe that antidepressant drugs had no effect at all on subjects' bone health.
Ivanhoe Newswire: "Although the depressed women were on anti-depressant medication, the study indicated that was not a factor in increased bone loss."
Science Daily: "A previous study suggested that older adults taking antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors had more bone fractures than others. However, the current study showed that these medications were not linked to low bone mass in premenopausal women." How did the current study show no link? Science Daily doesn't open that can of worms.
Things start to get humorous with this from MedPage Today: "The investigators noted that the usefulness of antidepressants for bone mineral loss in major depression should be evaluated."
At first I thought I'd read that incorrectly, but then I came across this howler from HealthDay News: "It's not clear what role antidepressants might play, but by relieving the depression, the drugs may also help bone mineral density, the researchers said."
Riiiight. So what are we looking at here? Is the NIH kindly laying the groundwork for drug companies to sell osteoporosis drugs to depressed patients and antidepressant drugs to osteoporosis patients? That's a sweet win-win…provided you're not one of the patients.
Let's get real
What a difference five months make.
The MedPage Today report I mentioned above appeared on 11/26/07. And a MedPage Today report that appeared on 6/27/07, written by the same reporter, opened with this sentence: "Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been linked to decreased bone density in older women and men, two related studies found."
Granted, these two studies looked at older subjects, but does it seem logical that antidepressant drugs would benefit bone health in someone who's 45, then harm bone health in someone who's 55? It's preposterous!
The June MedPage Today article included this "Action Point": "Explain to interested patients that older depressed patients who benefit from taking SSRIs should be screened regularly for osteoporosis and for possible preventive drug therapy."
"Preventive drug therapy"? Hmmm. Here's an Action Point for you: Explain to any doctor that tries to sell you a preventive osteoporosis drug to go along with your antidepressant drug that you're a patient, not a dollar sign.
http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ealerts/ea200712/ea20071212a.html
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Poor Sleep May Contribute to Diabetes
It is no secret that the incidence of diabetes, especially Type 2 or Adult-onset diabetes, is on the rise in developed nations such as the UK and here in the US. There are many factors that contribute to this increase, including a high-sugar/high-fat diet, obesity, and a sedentary lifestyle, but a recently released study now indicates that a lack of quality sleep may also play a role.
The importance of getting enough of the right kinds of sleep cannot be understated regarding our overall health and wellness. Ongoing research continues to unveil how critical sleep is to the immune system and disease fighting functions of the body, as well as to our mental and emotional stability. In fact, the body does most of its healing and repair work between the hours of 10:00 PM and 2:00 AM. In all the hustle-bustle of our hectic schedules, getting insufficient amounts of good sleep is a common problem for many in this day and age. People are burning the midnight oil in front of computers or the TV, which adds bright light at a time during the day when light should be at a minimum. This wreaks havoc with the natural circadian rhythms of the body. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate our priorities and better understand the necessity of securing the sleep we need to function at our best from day to day. A very important New Years Resolution to possibly add to your 2008 Goal List would be to get in bed every night by 10:00 PM in order to allow your body the time it needs for critical healing and repair work. Chances are you will experience results that will astound you! Should you find yourself experiencing difficulty in getting a good nights sleep, the following article from the OAW Health Knowledge Base may help: http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/great-night-sleep.html
Disturbed sleep brings risk of type 2 diabetes, says study
James Randerson, science correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday January 1 2008
Successive nights of disturbed sleep appear to put people at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes, according to research in which scientists interfered with volunteers' sleep patterns.
The research is the first to show that disturbed sleep can affect the production of insulin, and consequently a person's ability to metabolise glucose. It could have huge implications for understanding and tackling the diabetes epidemic that is predicted to grip western countries due to increasingly obese populations.
According to the leading charity Diabetes UK, there are more than 2.3 million people with diabetes in the UK, and up to 750,000 more who have the condition but do not know it.
Between 85% and 95% of diabetes cases are type 2, which typically develops later in life and is linked to obesity.
Eve Van Cauter, a professor at the University of Chicago, and colleagues studied five healthy men and four healthy women aged between 20 and 31. The volunteers received two consecutive nights of undisturbed sleep and three nights during which they were prevented from entering the most restorative stages three and four of slow-wave sleep - a time when you do not dream.
The scientists achieved this by monitoring the volunteers' brain waves and jolting them out of slow-wave sleep with recorded sounds that were not loud enough to actually interrupt sleep. On average, the volunteers needed 250 to 300 interventions a night.
After allowing the volunteers either normal or impaired sleep, the researchers injected a standard amount of glucose into their bloodstreams and monitored how well they dealt with it.
The team reports today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that after three nights of disturbed sleep the volunteers were significantly glucose-intolerant: they had, on average, 23% more glucose in their blood. That is a decrease in insulin sensitivity comparable to that caused by gaining 9-13kg (20-30lb) in weight. Also, those with low baseline levels of slow-wave sleep had the lowest levels after having their sleep patterns disrupted; they also experienced the greatest decrease in insulin sensitivity.
"These findings demonstrate a clear role for slow-wave sleep in maintaining normal glucose control," said team member Esra Tasali. "A profound decrease in slow-wave sleep had an immediate and significant adverse effect on insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance."
The results suggest obesity and a lack of quality sleep may interact to cause type 2 diabetes.
"Since reduced amounts of deep sleep are typical of ageing and of common obesity-related sleep disorders such as obstructive sleep apnoea, these results suggest that strategies to improve sleep quality, as well as quantity, may help to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes in populations at risk," said Van Cauter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jan/01/medicalresearch.health/print
The importance of getting enough of the right kinds of sleep cannot be understated regarding our overall health and wellness. Ongoing research continues to unveil how critical sleep is to the immune system and disease fighting functions of the body, as well as to our mental and emotional stability. In fact, the body does most of its healing and repair work between the hours of 10:00 PM and 2:00 AM. In all the hustle-bustle of our hectic schedules, getting insufficient amounts of good sleep is a common problem for many in this day and age. People are burning the midnight oil in front of computers or the TV, which adds bright light at a time during the day when light should be at a minimum. This wreaks havoc with the natural circadian rhythms of the body. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate our priorities and better understand the necessity of securing the sleep we need to function at our best from day to day. A very important New Years Resolution to possibly add to your 2008 Goal List would be to get in bed every night by 10:00 PM in order to allow your body the time it needs for critical healing and repair work. Chances are you will experience results that will astound you! Should you find yourself experiencing difficulty in getting a good nights sleep, the following article from the OAW Health Knowledge Base may help: http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/great-night-sleep.html
Disturbed sleep brings risk of type 2 diabetes, says study
James Randerson, science correspondent
The Guardian, Tuesday January 1 2008
Successive nights of disturbed sleep appear to put people at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes, according to research in which scientists interfered with volunteers' sleep patterns.
The research is the first to show that disturbed sleep can affect the production of insulin, and consequently a person's ability to metabolise glucose. It could have huge implications for understanding and tackling the diabetes epidemic that is predicted to grip western countries due to increasingly obese populations.
According to the leading charity Diabetes UK, there are more than 2.3 million people with diabetes in the UK, and up to 750,000 more who have the condition but do not know it.
Between 85% and 95% of diabetes cases are type 2, which typically develops later in life and is linked to obesity.
Eve Van Cauter, a professor at the University of Chicago, and colleagues studied five healthy men and four healthy women aged between 20 and 31. The volunteers received two consecutive nights of undisturbed sleep and three nights during which they were prevented from entering the most restorative stages three and four of slow-wave sleep - a time when you do not dream.
The scientists achieved this by monitoring the volunteers' brain waves and jolting them out of slow-wave sleep with recorded sounds that were not loud enough to actually interrupt sleep. On average, the volunteers needed 250 to 300 interventions a night.
After allowing the volunteers either normal or impaired sleep, the researchers injected a standard amount of glucose into their bloodstreams and monitored how well they dealt with it.
The team reports today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that after three nights of disturbed sleep the volunteers were significantly glucose-intolerant: they had, on average, 23% more glucose in their blood. That is a decrease in insulin sensitivity comparable to that caused by gaining 9-13kg (20-30lb) in weight. Also, those with low baseline levels of slow-wave sleep had the lowest levels after having their sleep patterns disrupted; they also experienced the greatest decrease in insulin sensitivity.
"These findings demonstrate a clear role for slow-wave sleep in maintaining normal glucose control," said team member Esra Tasali. "A profound decrease in slow-wave sleep had an immediate and significant adverse effect on insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance."
The results suggest obesity and a lack of quality sleep may interact to cause type 2 diabetes.
"Since reduced amounts of deep sleep are typical of ageing and of common obesity-related sleep disorders such as obstructive sleep apnoea, these results suggest that strategies to improve sleep quality, as well as quantity, may help to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes in populations at risk," said Van Cauter.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jan/01/medicalresearch.health/print
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
