It's undeniable that the objectivity of major media outlets has been compromised by loyalty to advertisers, many of their biggest customers being companies in the pharmaceutical industry. The following article is a clear-cut example of how Big Pharma's financial prowess can cause the truth to be distorted to the American people.
The greed of powerful drug companies such as Merck is combined with strong political ties that make for a shameful display of racketeering-like behavior that should not exist in a free country. It seems that some companies in the drug industry will stop at nothing when it comes to discrediting natural, drug-free health initiatives such as vitamin supplementation. This is not free enterprise, but rather bold-faced abuse of the American system that seems to be largely overlooked by or even enabled by governmental regulatory agencies. When you follow the trail of money and connections, such behavior mimics the tactics of underworld organizations such as the Mafia. This is a gross violation or our rights to seek out and practice healthcare freedoms in this country.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service,
August 7, 2008
AOL Shills For Big Pharma
(OMNS, August 7, 2008) Drug Company Propaganda on AOL's Health Page
"AOL's Dangerous Vitamins" (1) is loaded with much more than your recommended daily dose of misinformation. "Medical experts are concerned that you may be at risk for vitamin overload"! "Be wary of high doses"! "Increased risk of all-cause mortality"!
Yes, AOL surely wants you to stop taking vitamins. Dangerous, they say. Overdoses, they say.
Baloney. Where are the bodies? According to 24 years of nation-wide data collected by the American Association of Poison Control Centers, there is not even one death per year from vitamin "overdosing." (2) Half of the population takes them, and the more they take, the healthier they are. (3) Vitamins have long been proven exceptionally safe, even in high doses. (4)
How come AOL does not know that vitamin supplements are safe and effective? Or do they? Let's take a closer look. A small webpage note indicates that the "Dangerous Vitamins" article is "presented by Journey for Control." Say, guess who "Journey for Control" really is? Click the link and see for yourself: "Journey for Control is a trademark of Merck & Co., Inc." Yes, that is indeed the huge drug conglomerate. How about that: an anti-vitamin article promoted by a drug company.
One word question: Why? One word answer: Cash. At the Merck website, you can get a load of their dollar-driven agenda. Merck is on a "journey for control," to be sure. They want information control to consumers. For instance, Merck believes that "Direct-to-Consumer Advertising contributes to greater public awareness about conditions and diseases, as well as available treatments." And as for lobbying, Merck believes it just fine "where government initiatives to control health care costs and regulate the health care system will directly affect the Company's business and the incentives for pharmaceutical innovation."
Note that telling last phrase, "directly affect the Company's business and the incentives for pharmaceutical innovation." The biggest threat to big pharma profits is a healthy populace that does not use their expensive drugs. People who take more vitamins are healthier than people than people who take too few: it is just that simple. Thousands of peer-reviewed research studies show this over and over again: Vitamin therapy is very safe and very effective. Merck Pharmaceutical and their mercenary information-puppet AOL don't much like it.
Conspiracy thinking, you say? Unfortunately, no. The US Food and Drug Administration, whose task is supposedly to regulate the drug industry, agrees that high-dose vitamin preparations are direct competition for their pet clients, the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing new there. FDA Deputy Commissioner for Policy David Adams, at the Drug Information Association Annual Meeting, back in July 12, 1993, said:
"Pay careful attention to what is happening with dietary supplements in the legislative arena... If these efforts are successful, there could be created a class of products to compete with approved drugs. The establishment of a separate regulatory category for supplements could undercut exclusivity rights enjoyed by the holders of approved drug applications."
And the FDA Dietary Task Force Report, released June 15, 1993, said:
"The task force considered many issues in its deliberations including to ensure that the existence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive for drug development."
This is the real reason Merck Pharmaceutical seeks shills to generate anti-vitamin propaganda. Since Merck Pharmaceutical can't get this control without media help, they get AOL's editorial staff to do their work for them. There is no mistake about it: the author of "Dangerous Vitamins" is Caroline Howard, who, says her AOL bio, is a "senior editor on AOL's Health site." Neither her previous job experience "as photo editor for the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, AP, and the Village Voice," nor her bachelor's degree in social science and photography, nor even her master's in journalism especially qualify her as a nutrition expert. And yet there it is; nutritional nonsense online for millions to see. "Dangerous Vitamins" is crude vitamin-bashing, written by AOL, bankrolled by Merck, and read by you. And your friends and your family.
It is time to say it out loud: AOL is on the take. Now you know. Click away from AOL. Get your nutrition news elsewhere, somewhere where the "information" is not bought and paid for by big pharma.
References:
(1) http://www.aolhealth.com/healthy-living/nutrition/vitamin-safety? [be sure to include the question mark in the link]
(2) Annual Reports of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poisoning and Exposure Database (AAPCC), 3201 New Mexico Avenue, Ste. 330, Washington, DC 20016. Download any report from1983-2006 at http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NationalPoisonDataSystem/AnnualReports/tabid/125/Default.aspx free of charge. The "Vitamin" category is usually near the end of the report.
(3) http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v03n11.shtml Block G, Jensen CD, Norkus EP, Dalvi TB, Wong LG, McManus JF, Hudes ML. Usage patterns, health, and nutritional status of long-term multiple dietary supplement users: a cross-sectional study. Nutr J. 2007 Oct 24;6(1):30
(4) http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/index.shtml
Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org/
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.
Editorial Review Board:
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D.
Damien Downing, M.D.
Harold D. Foster, Ph.D.
Steve Hickey, Ph.D.
Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D.
James A. Jackson, PhD
Bo H. Jonsson, MD, Ph.D
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D.
Erik Paterson, M.D.
Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D.
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D., Editor and contact person.
Email: omns@orthomolecular.org
Monday, August 11, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
Big Tobacco Calling the Shots on Legislation
As the old saying goes: "Politics makes strange bedfellows," and the issue we are focusing on in today's post is about as strange as they come. Congress is considering a bill that involves the tobacco industry, black Americans, the AMA, the FDA, and even Big Pharma.
The purpose of this bill is to give the FDA greater regulatory authority over tobacco, which in itself is ridiculous enough. With their track record in the drug business, it does not seem wise to allow them to work more closely with cigarette makers. However, the plot thickens because this bill also includes a ban on flavored cigarettes. Except for menthol smokes, which just happen to be the favorite choice for about 75% of black smokers.
The article highlights many jaw-dropping aspects of this controversy, such us support for the menthol exemption by such groups as the AMA and major black political groups. However, what I find to be the most shocking is that politicians are balking at dropping the menthol exemption for fear they will lose the support of Phillip Morris USA, a major tobacco company that sells billions of dollars worth of menthol cigarettes annually! The saddest thing about it all is that the press and the powers that be don't even seem to wince at this obviously gross conflict of interest. It's all just business as usual.
July 25, 2008
Blacks in Congress Split Over Menthol Cigarettes
By STEPHANIE SAUL
Free cigarettes are no longer handed out at Congressional Black Caucus functions. And it has been years since anyone referred to Edolphus Towns, Democrat of Brooklyn, as the "Marlboro Man" for his campaign contributions from the tobacco industry.
But the Congressional Black Caucus has not severed its financial ties to big tobacco. And that can complicate matters when the political discussion involves smoking's impact on African-Americans.
A rift has opened in the 43-member caucus over a menthol provision in legislation that would enable the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. To reduce smoking's appeal to teenagers, the legislation would outlaw flavored cigarettes -- except for menthol cigarettes, which are specifically exempted.
With menthol brands making up about 28 percent of the $70 billion American cigarette market, the exemption was seen as a necessary compromise to win broad backing for the legislation.
But menthol has become a politically charged subject in Washington because an estimated 75 percent of black smokers choose mentholated brands.
Scientists have long wondered whether menthol might play a role in the disproportionate share of smoking-related cancer among African-Americans -- if for no other reason than the additive may mask the harshness of the smoke, making it easier for teenagers to begin smoking.
Critics of the menthol exemption tend to denounce it as a sellout to the tobacco industry, and some members of the black caucus are pressing to narrow the exemption or ban menthol outright. But other caucus members oppose any changes, saying that pushing too hard now on menthol could endanger the legislation.
Concerns about the racial implications of menthol may have been heightened last week by a Harvard study stating that cigarette makers had deliberately manipulated menthol levels to attract young people.
As long as two decades ago, Brown & Williamson, then the maker of Kool cigarettes, concluded that the menthol cigarette was a "good starter product" because new smokers "already know what menthol tastes like, vis-a-vis candy," according to a company memo.
"It's a very emotional issue," said Elijah E. Cummings, a member of the caucus from Maryland who tells stories of the deadly impact of cigarette smoking in his hometown, Baltimore. He opposes the menthol exemption.
But the caucus's chairwoman, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, says its members, all Democrats, are deeply divided on the subject. "The caucus is split," she said. "We do want to see menthol regulated, but we're convinced that eliminating or prohibiting menthol would be a killer for the bill."
The legislation in its current form, with the menthol exemption, has broad support in the House. It also has the backing of many health groups, as well as the nation's biggest cigarette company, Philip Morris USA, whose support is considered crucial for passage. The company makes Marlboro Menthol, the second-biggest menthol brand.
Philip Morris over the years has been one of the biggest contributors to the caucus's nonprofit Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. That financial support, in some years exceeding $250,000, and lesser amounts at times from other cigarette makers, has been the reason some critics perceived an alliance between big tobacco and African-American members of Congress, some of whom were willing to help fend off antitobacco efforts.
Among them, some critics have said, was Charles B. Rangel of New York. Although he supported some antitobacco initiatives, until the last few years Mr. Rangel staunchly opposed federal tobacco tax increases. He has said his stand was based on the disproportionate effect of excise taxes on the poor, not the thousands of dollars he received in tobacco industry political action committee donations.
Some caucus members have always seen tobacco money as a Faustian bargain and refused to take such donations, urging their colleagues to do likewise. One of them, John Lewis of Georgia, once told a reporter, "People are reluctant to criticize the giver, to bite the hand that feeds them."
Black lawmakers who maintain strong tobacco industry ties include James E. Clyburn, who represents a tobacco-growing region of South Carolina and is majority whip of the House. Last year Altria, the parent of Philip Morris, donated $50,000 to an endowment he established at South Carolina State University, a historically black college.
And yet, even before the menthol controversy erupted, tobacco money was gradually becoming less crucial to the group, as it attracted more money from a broader segment of industries, including drug makers.
Last year the caucus unanimously supported legislation to finance the children's health insurance program, Schip, with a 45-cent tax increase on tobacco products. Mr. Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, sponsored the legislation. The caucus has sponsored college antismoking programs and smoking-cessation talks.
Ms. Kilpatrick, from Michigan, said the black caucus was drafting an amendment to the House tobacco regulation bill, possibly to call for a study of menthol. That is short of what some members had hoped for -- a phase-out of menthol cigarettes.
Philip Morris declined to say whether the company would continue its support for the bill if menthol were banned.
Some supporters of the legislation in its current form argue that an outright ban on menthol may drive menthol smokers to contraband imported cigarettes.
The Bush administration opposes the tobacco legislation, saying it would do more harm than good by seeming to give an F.D.A. imprimatur to smoking. In the Senate, the issue is not expected to be taken up until after a House floor vote, which could come before the end of July.
Tobacco companies opposed to the legislation include Lorillard, maker of the leading menthol brand, Newport, the favorite of African-American smokers. The company, which says there is no scientific evidence that menthol is harmful, argues that the legislation's marketing restrictions would place smaller companies at a competitive disadvantage against the giant, Philip Morris.
Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who is the House bill's sponsor, has indicated he is unwilling to risk the bill's passage by making major changes in its menthol language. He has said the bill gives the F.D.A. the power to regulate menthol if it is shown to be harmful. In transmitting the bill to the House of Representatives last week, the Energy and Commerce Committee included a note that urged the F.D.A. to "move quickly to address the unique public health issues posed by menthol cigarettes."
Two former federal health secretaries, Joseph A. Califano Jr. and Dr. Louis W. Sullivan, who is African-American, met recently with Mr. Waxman to argue against the menthol exemption. Because he said he was unlikely to change his mind, they later sent him a letter saying "the current version of the bill, which gives menthol a protected status, would have the effect of discriminating against the health interests of African-Americans." The letter was also signed by William S. Robinson, executive director of the National African-American Tobacco Prevention Network.
In response to a reporter's query, Mr. Waxman said in a written response, "I've clearly heard the concerns that we can and should do more to address the issue of menthol in cigarettes."
For his part, Mr. Cummings, listed as one of 234 co-sponsors of the legislation along with many other members of the black caucus, said he could not predict how he or the others would vote. Mr. Cummings, who formerly served as chairman of the caucus, acknowledged that tobacco contributions might have influenced caucus members in the past.
But he added, "When you look in a cancer patient's eye, I think it becomes much more difficult to look at the contributions that may be given to support the caucus and be swayed by them than it was before."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/business/25menthol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=health&pagewanted=print
The purpose of this bill is to give the FDA greater regulatory authority over tobacco, which in itself is ridiculous enough. With their track record in the drug business, it does not seem wise to allow them to work more closely with cigarette makers. However, the plot thickens because this bill also includes a ban on flavored cigarettes. Except for menthol smokes, which just happen to be the favorite choice for about 75% of black smokers.
The article highlights many jaw-dropping aspects of this controversy, such us support for the menthol exemption by such groups as the AMA and major black political groups. However, what I find to be the most shocking is that politicians are balking at dropping the menthol exemption for fear they will lose the support of Phillip Morris USA, a major tobacco company that sells billions of dollars worth of menthol cigarettes annually! The saddest thing about it all is that the press and the powers that be don't even seem to wince at this obviously gross conflict of interest. It's all just business as usual.
July 25, 2008
Blacks in Congress Split Over Menthol Cigarettes
By STEPHANIE SAUL
Free cigarettes are no longer handed out at Congressional Black Caucus functions. And it has been years since anyone referred to Edolphus Towns, Democrat of Brooklyn, as the "Marlboro Man" for his campaign contributions from the tobacco industry.
But the Congressional Black Caucus has not severed its financial ties to big tobacco. And that can complicate matters when the political discussion involves smoking's impact on African-Americans.
A rift has opened in the 43-member caucus over a menthol provision in legislation that would enable the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. To reduce smoking's appeal to teenagers, the legislation would outlaw flavored cigarettes -- except for menthol cigarettes, which are specifically exempted.
With menthol brands making up about 28 percent of the $70 billion American cigarette market, the exemption was seen as a necessary compromise to win broad backing for the legislation.
But menthol has become a politically charged subject in Washington because an estimated 75 percent of black smokers choose mentholated brands.
Scientists have long wondered whether menthol might play a role in the disproportionate share of smoking-related cancer among African-Americans -- if for no other reason than the additive may mask the harshness of the smoke, making it easier for teenagers to begin smoking.
Critics of the menthol exemption tend to denounce it as a sellout to the tobacco industry, and some members of the black caucus are pressing to narrow the exemption or ban menthol outright. But other caucus members oppose any changes, saying that pushing too hard now on menthol could endanger the legislation.
Concerns about the racial implications of menthol may have been heightened last week by a Harvard study stating that cigarette makers had deliberately manipulated menthol levels to attract young people.
As long as two decades ago, Brown & Williamson, then the maker of Kool cigarettes, concluded that the menthol cigarette was a "good starter product" because new smokers "already know what menthol tastes like, vis-a-vis candy," according to a company memo.
"It's a very emotional issue," said Elijah E. Cummings, a member of the caucus from Maryland who tells stories of the deadly impact of cigarette smoking in his hometown, Baltimore. He opposes the menthol exemption.
But the caucus's chairwoman, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, says its members, all Democrats, are deeply divided on the subject. "The caucus is split," she said. "We do want to see menthol regulated, but we're convinced that eliminating or prohibiting menthol would be a killer for the bill."
The legislation in its current form, with the menthol exemption, has broad support in the House. It also has the backing of many health groups, as well as the nation's biggest cigarette company, Philip Morris USA, whose support is considered crucial for passage. The company makes Marlboro Menthol, the second-biggest menthol brand.
Philip Morris over the years has been one of the biggest contributors to the caucus's nonprofit Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. That financial support, in some years exceeding $250,000, and lesser amounts at times from other cigarette makers, has been the reason some critics perceived an alliance between big tobacco and African-American members of Congress, some of whom were willing to help fend off antitobacco efforts.
Among them, some critics have said, was Charles B. Rangel of New York. Although he supported some antitobacco initiatives, until the last few years Mr. Rangel staunchly opposed federal tobacco tax increases. He has said his stand was based on the disproportionate effect of excise taxes on the poor, not the thousands of dollars he received in tobacco industry political action committee donations.
Some caucus members have always seen tobacco money as a Faustian bargain and refused to take such donations, urging their colleagues to do likewise. One of them, John Lewis of Georgia, once told a reporter, "People are reluctant to criticize the giver, to bite the hand that feeds them."
Black lawmakers who maintain strong tobacco industry ties include James E. Clyburn, who represents a tobacco-growing region of South Carolina and is majority whip of the House. Last year Altria, the parent of Philip Morris, donated $50,000 to an endowment he established at South Carolina State University, a historically black college.
And yet, even before the menthol controversy erupted, tobacco money was gradually becoming less crucial to the group, as it attracted more money from a broader segment of industries, including drug makers.
Last year the caucus unanimously supported legislation to finance the children's health insurance program, Schip, with a 45-cent tax increase on tobacco products. Mr. Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, sponsored the legislation. The caucus has sponsored college antismoking programs and smoking-cessation talks.
Ms. Kilpatrick, from Michigan, said the black caucus was drafting an amendment to the House tobacco regulation bill, possibly to call for a study of menthol. That is short of what some members had hoped for -- a phase-out of menthol cigarettes.
Philip Morris declined to say whether the company would continue its support for the bill if menthol were banned.
Some supporters of the legislation in its current form argue that an outright ban on menthol may drive menthol smokers to contraband imported cigarettes.
The Bush administration opposes the tobacco legislation, saying it would do more harm than good by seeming to give an F.D.A. imprimatur to smoking. In the Senate, the issue is not expected to be taken up until after a House floor vote, which could come before the end of July.
Tobacco companies opposed to the legislation include Lorillard, maker of the leading menthol brand, Newport, the favorite of African-American smokers. The company, which says there is no scientific evidence that menthol is harmful, argues that the legislation's marketing restrictions would place smaller companies at a competitive disadvantage against the giant, Philip Morris.
Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who is the House bill's sponsor, has indicated he is unwilling to risk the bill's passage by making major changes in its menthol language. He has said the bill gives the F.D.A. the power to regulate menthol if it is shown to be harmful. In transmitting the bill to the House of Representatives last week, the Energy and Commerce Committee included a note that urged the F.D.A. to "move quickly to address the unique public health issues posed by menthol cigarettes."
Two former federal health secretaries, Joseph A. Califano Jr. and Dr. Louis W. Sullivan, who is African-American, met recently with Mr. Waxman to argue against the menthol exemption. Because he said he was unlikely to change his mind, they later sent him a letter saying "the current version of the bill, which gives menthol a protected status, would have the effect of discriminating against the health interests of African-Americans." The letter was also signed by William S. Robinson, executive director of the National African-American Tobacco Prevention Network.
In response to a reporter's query, Mr. Waxman said in a written response, "I've clearly heard the concerns that we can and should do more to address the issue of menthol in cigarettes."
For his part, Mr. Cummings, listed as one of 234 co-sponsors of the legislation along with many other members of the black caucus, said he could not predict how he or the others would vote. Mr. Cummings, who formerly served as chairman of the caucus, acknowledged that tobacco contributions might have influenced caucus members in the past.
But he added, "When you look in a cancer patient's eye, I think it becomes much more difficult to look at the contributions that may be given to support the caucus and be swayed by them than it was before."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/business/25menthol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=health&pagewanted=print
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Start 'Em Young on Healthy Foods
A very interesting study was recently completed that shows how critical it is for parents to begin early indoctrination of healthy eating patterns in their children, both by example and by providing access to organic fruits and vegetables for their children. It appears that lifestyle patterns and appetites are engrained in children before the age of five. This can apply to both wholesome choices and poor food choices, thus training our children's culinary appetites from a young age may be the best defense against such common public health epidemics as obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and others.I was extremely impressed with my granddaughter's pediatrician who highly encourages ALL of his new parent's to make their own organic baby food for their children. Yes it is a bit time consuming, but the health benefits far out-weigh any inconvenience that might be experienced, and most find that the trips to their pediatrician's office happen less and less often. Making those "first" foods healthy is the best way to set the eating patterns for your children.
I read once about studies conducted on children from cultures where sugar was never consumed. The first time they tasted a sweet, they were repulsed and spit out what they were given. However, after being offered sweets multiple times, they eventually developed a taste (addiction) for them. Foods high in sugar, salt, and fat (harmful fats - typical fast food fare) are not naturally desired by human beings. One of the most telling facets of the study dissected in today's post is the fact that dietary intervention encouraging the consumption of more fruits and veggies had little effect on obese kids who had already established a deeply entrenched love for junky foods. If we as adults and parents can present quality nutritious foods to our children, very early in life, and not let them get a taste for unhealthy foods, nature will simply take its course and they will not become hooked on the addictive twaddle we mistakenly call food in this culture.
Parents shape whether their children learn to eat fruits and vegetables
By Diane Duke Williams
Aug. 6, 2008 -- Providing fruits for snacks and serving vegetables at dinner can shape a preschooler's eating patterns for his or her lifetime.
To combat the increasing problem of childhood obesity, researchers are studying how to get preschoolers to eat more fruits and vegetables. According to researchers at Washington University in St. Louis, one way is early home interventions -- teaching parents how to create an environment where children reach for a banana instead of potato chips.
"We know that parents have tremendous influence over how many fruits and vegetables their children eat," says Debra Haire-Joshu, Ph.D., a professor at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work. "When parents eat more fruits and vegetables, so do their children. When parents eat and give their children high fat snacks or soft drinks, children learn these eating patterns instead."
Haire-Joshu and researchers at Saint Louis University School of Public Health tested a program that taught parents in their homes how to provide preschool children easy access to more fruits and vegetables and examined whether changes in what the parents ate affected what their children consumed. The study was published in the July issue of the journal Preventive Medicine.
"This research shows that it's important to communicate with parents in real world settings," Haire-Joshu says. "They control the food environment for their young child. This environment is key to not only what children eat today but how they will eat in the future."
Past research has shown that diets high in fruits and vegetables are associated with a lower risk of obesity. Previous studies also have established that children learn to like and eat vegetables at a young age -- before they turn 5 years old.
In this five-year study in rural, southeast Missouri, 1,306 parents and children between the ages of 2 and 5 participating in Parents As Teachers, a national parent education program, were randomly assigned to two groups. One group enrolled in the High 5 for Kids program, and the other group received standard visits from Parents as Teachers. In the High 5 for Kids group, parents first completed a pretest interview about fruit and vegetable consumption.
Parent educators then visited the home four times, providing examples of parent-child activities designed around nutrition, such as teaching the child the names and colors of various fruits and vegetables and having the child select a variety of fruits and vegetables for breakfast. At each visit, parents also received materials and informational handouts with suggestions for improving feeding practices and the food environment in the home. Many of these materials were tailored to the individual patterns of that parent, with suggestions for how to improve his or her specific intake and that of their child.
Additionally, children were given four High 5 for Kids sing-along-stories with audiocassettes and coloring books.
The same parent interviewed before the intervention completed a telephone survey to determine changes in the number of fruits and vegetables eaten and behaviors of both the preschool children and parent. The average time between the before and after intervention survey was seven months.
Parents in the High 5 for Kids group ate significantly more fruits and vegetables, and a change in the parent's servings of fruits and vegetables predicted a change in the child's diet, too. An increase of one fruit or vegetable serving per day in a parent was associated with an increase of half a fruit or vegetable serving per day in his or her child. These parents also reported an increase in fruit and vegetable knowledge and availability of fruits and vegetables in the home.
Although the High 5 for Kids program was effective in improving fruit and vegetable intake in children of normal weight, overweight children in this group did not eat more of these foods. "Overweight children have already been exposed to salty, sweet foods and learned to like them," says Haire-Joshu, who also holds an appointment at the School of Medicine as a professor. "To keep a child from becoming overweight, parents need to expose them early to a variety of healthy foods and offer the foods many times."
Haire-Joshu says many children today are taught patterns that lead to obesity. "We want families to provide their child with an environment in which they not only learn how to eat healthy but have the opportunity to practice what they learn," she says. "And by partnering with Parents As Teachers, we now can disseminate this program to their sites nationwide. This further impacts healthy eating patterns in parents and their preschool children."
http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/12106.html
I read once about studies conducted on children from cultures where sugar was never consumed. The first time they tasted a sweet, they were repulsed and spit out what they were given. However, after being offered sweets multiple times, they eventually developed a taste (addiction) for them. Foods high in sugar, salt, and fat (harmful fats - typical fast food fare) are not naturally desired by human beings. One of the most telling facets of the study dissected in today's post is the fact that dietary intervention encouraging the consumption of more fruits and veggies had little effect on obese kids who had already established a deeply entrenched love for junky foods. If we as adults and parents can present quality nutritious foods to our children, very early in life, and not let them get a taste for unhealthy foods, nature will simply take its course and they will not become hooked on the addictive twaddle we mistakenly call food in this culture.
Parents shape whether their children learn to eat fruits and vegetables
By Diane Duke Williams
Aug. 6, 2008 -- Providing fruits for snacks and serving vegetables at dinner can shape a preschooler's eating patterns for his or her lifetime.
To combat the increasing problem of childhood obesity, researchers are studying how to get preschoolers to eat more fruits and vegetables. According to researchers at Washington University in St. Louis, one way is early home interventions -- teaching parents how to create an environment where children reach for a banana instead of potato chips.
"We know that parents have tremendous influence over how many fruits and vegetables their children eat," says Debra Haire-Joshu, Ph.D., a professor at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work. "When parents eat more fruits and vegetables, so do their children. When parents eat and give their children high fat snacks or soft drinks, children learn these eating patterns instead."
Haire-Joshu and researchers at Saint Louis University School of Public Health tested a program that taught parents in their homes how to provide preschool children easy access to more fruits and vegetables and examined whether changes in what the parents ate affected what their children consumed. The study was published in the July issue of the journal Preventive Medicine.
"This research shows that it's important to communicate with parents in real world settings," Haire-Joshu says. "They control the food environment for their young child. This environment is key to not only what children eat today but how they will eat in the future."
Past research has shown that diets high in fruits and vegetables are associated with a lower risk of obesity. Previous studies also have established that children learn to like and eat vegetables at a young age -- before they turn 5 years old.
In this five-year study in rural, southeast Missouri, 1,306 parents and children between the ages of 2 and 5 participating in Parents As Teachers, a national parent education program, were randomly assigned to two groups. One group enrolled in the High 5 for Kids program, and the other group received standard visits from Parents as Teachers. In the High 5 for Kids group, parents first completed a pretest interview about fruit and vegetable consumption.
Parent educators then visited the home four times, providing examples of parent-child activities designed around nutrition, such as teaching the child the names and colors of various fruits and vegetables and having the child select a variety of fruits and vegetables for breakfast. At each visit, parents also received materials and informational handouts with suggestions for improving feeding practices and the food environment in the home. Many of these materials were tailored to the individual patterns of that parent, with suggestions for how to improve his or her specific intake and that of their child.
Additionally, children were given four High 5 for Kids sing-along-stories with audiocassettes and coloring books.
The same parent interviewed before the intervention completed a telephone survey to determine changes in the number of fruits and vegetables eaten and behaviors of both the preschool children and parent. The average time between the before and after intervention survey was seven months.
Parents in the High 5 for Kids group ate significantly more fruits and vegetables, and a change in the parent's servings of fruits and vegetables predicted a change in the child's diet, too. An increase of one fruit or vegetable serving per day in a parent was associated with an increase of half a fruit or vegetable serving per day in his or her child. These parents also reported an increase in fruit and vegetable knowledge and availability of fruits and vegetables in the home.
Although the High 5 for Kids program was effective in improving fruit and vegetable intake in children of normal weight, overweight children in this group did not eat more of these foods. "Overweight children have already been exposed to salty, sweet foods and learned to like them," says Haire-Joshu, who also holds an appointment at the School of Medicine as a professor. "To keep a child from becoming overweight, parents need to expose them early to a variety of healthy foods and offer the foods many times."
Haire-Joshu says many children today are taught patterns that lead to obesity. "We want families to provide their child with an environment in which they not only learn how to eat healthy but have the opportunity to practice what they learn," she says. "And by partnering with Parents As Teachers, we now can disseminate this program to their sites nationwide. This further impacts healthy eating patterns in parents and their preschool children."
http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/12106.html
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Psych Drugs for PMS?
A disturbing trend is beginning to develop in the conventional medical world. Not too many years ago it would have been unheard of to give medications, especially psychiatric medications, to otherwise healthy people. However, this practice is becoming rather common, and the article below discusses the controversy over the administration of antidepressants to women experiencing symptoms of PMS. Some doctors and patients claim great success at relieving symptoms with such drugs, but there are others in the medical field who disagree.
It is a dangerous precedent to be handing out any medication promiscuously, simply because there is some anecdotal evidence that it may help with a certain condition. Recently there was talk of prescribing psychiatric drugs to pregnant women who might be at risk for post-partum depression. How ludicrous and medically irresponsible! First of all, people are not all identical, and their bodies process and respond to medications differently. Some women may tolerate antidepressants well and have few noticeable side effects, at least in the short term. Others will not do well on them at all. However, what is often overlooked is that the long term effects of throwing the body out of balance chemically and hormonally cannot be overstated. A quick fix can often lead to a lifetime of health problems down the road.
This is very similar to the use of synthetic hormones (HRT) that has been proven to expose women to many hazardous health risks, and yet HRT is still a very commonly prescribed procedure, even though doctors have altered dosages and the length of use in many cases due to the risks. There are many natural ways that menstrual and menopausal symptoms can be dealt with and prevented or lessened through the use of lifestyle changes and natural hormone therapy. Despite what Big Pharma would like us to think, the answer to everything is not to pop a pill, and tragically the use of these medications often leaves patients in worse shape than before they took them.
For more information on how to balance hormones in a safe and natural way, see my e-book, Proven Secrets to Whole Body Hormone Balance: You Can Feel Good
Critics question use of antidepressants to treat PMS
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Doctors are studying the benefits of giving antidepressants at the first symptom of premenstrual irritability, a move critics worry could lead to even more prescribing of "psychotropic" drugs to women.
A small new study shows antidepressants work within hours to dampen premenstrual anger and irritability. It usually takes several weeks for the drugs to start working in depression, and months before a maximum effect is achieved.
But studies suggest a popular class of drugs called SRIs, or serotonin reuptake inhibitors, work more rapidly to reduce symptoms such as irritability and anger.
Some women are already taking antidepressants continuously for severe PMS, or for part of their menstrual cycle from ovulation to menstruation.
But the new study asked, how fast do the drugs really work?
"Do you need to take it a few days before the irritability starts, or would it be like taking an Aspirin take it the same day when the symptoms first surface," said Dr. Mikael Landen, a psychiatrist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.
His team found that women began feeling less irritable within four hours of taking paroxetine, the active ingredient in Paxil. They reported a significant difference by bedtime, or as early as 14 hours later.
"This means that you can almost take an SRI as needed for premenstrual dysphoria," Landen said. "You don't have to schedule two weeks every month. You can wait until you experience your symptoms and start medication."
All the women met criteria for premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the official psychiatric term for severe PMS where women experience "marked" irritability, tension, weepiness, mood swings or a depressed mood that can interfere with day-to-day activities and personal relationships. Three to eight per cent of women are estimated to be affected.
If the proof of concept study is borne out by more research, psychiatrists say it could be a significant breakthrough in the treatment of severe PMS.
But some researchers are unsettled by the notion of otherwise healthy women being handed antidepressants for PMS. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada says antidepressants can be used in more severe cases.
"There has certainly been a lot of critique about the way it's taken something that is part of the normal hormonal changes involved in women's reproductive cycles and pathologizing them, making them into a medical condition that needs drug treatment," said Barbara Mintzes, an assistant professor in the department of anesthesiology, pharmacology and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia.
"It's extra-prescribing of an antidepressant for an inappropriate use to women of childbearing age."
PMS "is a very vague term," said Leonore Tiefer, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine.
"There are many different ways of experiencing menstruation and occasionally there might be an unusual set of symptoms. But, by and large, I think it's best to dispute the existence of a PMS condition and certainly not prescribe an SRI."
A total of more than 27 million prescriptions were dispensed for SRIs and similar antidepressants in 2007, according to prescription drug tracking firm IMS Health Canada. According to IMS, 64 per cent of diagnoses for depression made by Canadian office-based doctors in 2007 were for women. "These visits were likely accompanied by a drug recommendation in the form of a new prescription; a drug sample being provided; or a direction to the patient to continue taking a current medication."
Women who go on and off low-dose antidepressants for PMS don't seem to experience the same withdrawal as do about one-third of people who take the drugs for depression, doctors say.
"But you do get side-effects nausea, agitation, difficulty sleeping. You do see a bit of that," said Sarah Romans, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and consultant psychiatrist at Women's College Hospital.
She says women with severe PMS "say stuff like, I'm a Jekyll and Hyde, you don't want to know me the week before my period. I hide in my room; I'm just like a raging tyrant. My husband just looks at me wrong and I snap his head off."
But she says there exists so much mythology and ritual around the menstrual cycle that "I think sometimes men are inclined to attribute to a woman's cycling stuff that doesn't belong there."
"Typically she'll be sounding off about something that's wrong in the relationship, or she wants him to do something more around the house and they can both say, ah, well, it's just that you're PMS-ing."
"And of course she's expressing it now during the premenstrual phase, but she's feeling cross about it and wants it to change all the time. The danger is if she only mentions it at a time when she's got premenstrual symptoms they can both dismiss it as not based in reality and not a valid complaint," Romans said. "We dump everything on a woman's cycle. Anything that troubles a woman can be blamed on her being a reproductive animal."
In the new study, published in the journal, Neuropsychopharmacology, 22 women 18 and older, all of whom had previously taken paroxetine, were given a 20 mg dose of the drug during two menstrual cycles and placebo during one cycle. The women took their pills once they had felt irritable for two days, and then monitored their symptoms every two hours.
"We found that the symptoms started to get better after four hours and we found significant results at bedtime the first day." Landen said. The difference was most significant at Day 3.
He says women could take the pills for six or seven days during their cycle for irritability.
"And you don't have to plan this ahead. It just starts when the symptom arises and stops when you don't have it anymore."
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=d0cf5c8c-1080-4b68-83f1-4d546a3968ae
It is a dangerous precedent to be handing out any medication promiscuously, simply because there is some anecdotal evidence that it may help with a certain condition. Recently there was talk of prescribing psychiatric drugs to pregnant women who might be at risk for post-partum depression. How ludicrous and medically irresponsible! First of all, people are not all identical, and their bodies process and respond to medications differently. Some women may tolerate antidepressants well and have few noticeable side effects, at least in the short term. Others will not do well on them at all. However, what is often overlooked is that the long term effects of throwing the body out of balance chemically and hormonally cannot be overstated. A quick fix can often lead to a lifetime of health problems down the road.
This is very similar to the use of synthetic hormones (HRT) that has been proven to expose women to many hazardous health risks, and yet HRT is still a very commonly prescribed procedure, even though doctors have altered dosages and the length of use in many cases due to the risks. There are many natural ways that menstrual and menopausal symptoms can be dealt with and prevented or lessened through the use of lifestyle changes and natural hormone therapy. Despite what Big Pharma would like us to think, the answer to everything is not to pop a pill, and tragically the use of these medications often leaves patients in worse shape than before they took them.
For more information on how to balance hormones in a safe and natural way, see my e-book, Proven Secrets to Whole Body Hormone Balance: You Can Feel Good
Critics question use of antidepressants to treat PMS
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Doctors are studying the benefits of giving antidepressants at the first symptom of premenstrual irritability, a move critics worry could lead to even more prescribing of "psychotropic" drugs to women.
A small new study shows antidepressants work within hours to dampen premenstrual anger and irritability. It usually takes several weeks for the drugs to start working in depression, and months before a maximum effect is achieved.
But studies suggest a popular class of drugs called SRIs, or serotonin reuptake inhibitors, work more rapidly to reduce symptoms such as irritability and anger.
Some women are already taking antidepressants continuously for severe PMS, or for part of their menstrual cycle from ovulation to menstruation.
But the new study asked, how fast do the drugs really work?
"Do you need to take it a few days before the irritability starts, or would it be like taking an Aspirin take it the same day when the symptoms first surface," said Dr. Mikael Landen, a psychiatrist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.
His team found that women began feeling less irritable within four hours of taking paroxetine, the active ingredient in Paxil. They reported a significant difference by bedtime, or as early as 14 hours later.
"This means that you can almost take an SRI as needed for premenstrual dysphoria," Landen said. "You don't have to schedule two weeks every month. You can wait until you experience your symptoms and start medication."
All the women met criteria for premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the official psychiatric term for severe PMS where women experience "marked" irritability, tension, weepiness, mood swings or a depressed mood that can interfere with day-to-day activities and personal relationships. Three to eight per cent of women are estimated to be affected.
If the proof of concept study is borne out by more research, psychiatrists say it could be a significant breakthrough in the treatment of severe PMS.
But some researchers are unsettled by the notion of otherwise healthy women being handed antidepressants for PMS. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada says antidepressants can be used in more severe cases.
"There has certainly been a lot of critique about the way it's taken something that is part of the normal hormonal changes involved in women's reproductive cycles and pathologizing them, making them into a medical condition that needs drug treatment," said Barbara Mintzes, an assistant professor in the department of anesthesiology, pharmacology and therapeutics at the University of British Columbia.
"It's extra-prescribing of an antidepressant for an inappropriate use to women of childbearing age."
PMS "is a very vague term," said Leonore Tiefer, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine.
"There are many different ways of experiencing menstruation and occasionally there might be an unusual set of symptoms. But, by and large, I think it's best to dispute the existence of a PMS condition and certainly not prescribe an SRI."
A total of more than 27 million prescriptions were dispensed for SRIs and similar antidepressants in 2007, according to prescription drug tracking firm IMS Health Canada. According to IMS, 64 per cent of diagnoses for depression made by Canadian office-based doctors in 2007 were for women. "These visits were likely accompanied by a drug recommendation in the form of a new prescription; a drug sample being provided; or a direction to the patient to continue taking a current medication."
Women who go on and off low-dose antidepressants for PMS don't seem to experience the same withdrawal as do about one-third of people who take the drugs for depression, doctors say.
"But you do get side-effects nausea, agitation, difficulty sleeping. You do see a bit of that," said Sarah Romans, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and consultant psychiatrist at Women's College Hospital.
She says women with severe PMS "say stuff like, I'm a Jekyll and Hyde, you don't want to know me the week before my period. I hide in my room; I'm just like a raging tyrant. My husband just looks at me wrong and I snap his head off."
But she says there exists so much mythology and ritual around the menstrual cycle that "I think sometimes men are inclined to attribute to a woman's cycling stuff that doesn't belong there."
"Typically she'll be sounding off about something that's wrong in the relationship, or she wants him to do something more around the house and they can both say, ah, well, it's just that you're PMS-ing."
"And of course she's expressing it now during the premenstrual phase, but she's feeling cross about it and wants it to change all the time. The danger is if she only mentions it at a time when she's got premenstrual symptoms they can both dismiss it as not based in reality and not a valid complaint," Romans said. "We dump everything on a woman's cycle. Anything that troubles a woman can be blamed on her being a reproductive animal."
In the new study, published in the journal, Neuropsychopharmacology, 22 women 18 and older, all of whom had previously taken paroxetine, were given a 20 mg dose of the drug during two menstrual cycles and placebo during one cycle. The women took their pills once they had felt irritable for two days, and then monitored their symptoms every two hours.
"We found that the symptoms started to get better after four hours and we found significant results at bedtime the first day." Landen said. The difference was most significant at Day 3.
He says women could take the pills for six or seven days during their cycle for irritability.
"And you don't have to plan this ahead. It just starts when the symptom arises and stops when you don't have it anymore."
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=d0cf5c8c-1080-4b68-83f1-4d546a3968ae
Junk Science Influences Dermatologists & Skin Care Recommendations
The article posted below gives some very valuable information regarding effective and natural treatment of acne, one of the most common skin conditions in the world. However, in addition it also gives a glimpse into the wacky world of medical schools and what they are teaching their students. The author makes a very good case for the lack of scientific evidence regarding the belief that diet plays little or no role in causing acne.
We are holistic beings, and everything we put on or into our bodies affects all of our bodily systems to one degree or another. This is especially true of the skin, the largest organ of the body. In fact the health of the skin, or the lack thereof, is an excellent barometer to measure the overall wellness of the body. Our skin mirrors the condition of the rest of the body, and it is also true that what is applied to the skin enters the body very efficiently and is spread quickly via the circulatory system. Thus, it is critical that we are aware of and avoid any toxins that may be included in acne and other skin care treatments. The best way to treat acne is to prevent it in the first place by practicing a lifestyle of wellness that includes a natural and organic diet heavy on lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, consuming plenty of pure water, and regular exercise. Such a lifestyle will eliminate the need for medicinal treatment of acne and the harmful side effects associated with such "treatment."
Why Dermatologists Still Deny the Link Between Acne and Diet
by Seppo Puusa
(NaturalNews) Almost every dermatologist will tell you that diet has nothing to do with acne. With fervor, many of them argue this and you know they really believe it. In a world of "evidence based medicine" you would think dermatologists would have strong scientific evidence backing it up.
It turns out that the notion 'diet has nothing to do with acne' is just about as scientific as the notion 'the world is flat'. In other words, it's pure dogma with no credible scientific backing.
Let's take a look at how and why this started.
The two flawed studies that started it all
In the fifties and sixties, dermatologists advised their patients about diet and its role in acne. Two studies conducted in the late sixties and early seventies changed that.
Later those two studies came under heavy fire. They were so flawed that they would earn a high school science student an F.
For example, one study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine looked into the link between chocolate and acne. First, the study was funded by the Chocolate Manufacturers Association. Second, the study compared two candy bars; both equally high in sugar, calories and trans fats, but the other had some chocolate in it. This is comparing sugar to sugar. The sugar and trans fats have much more of an effect on acne than the small quantity of chocolate in the other bar. No wonder the study concluded chocolate does not cause acne.
The other one was an equally flawed study about sugar and acne. The sample size was small, and it didn't consider the glycemic effect of processed carbohydrates. Again this study proved nothing.
Despite the flaws and scientific invalidity, the results of these two studies stuck. Since then medical students have been taught there's no scientific link between diet and acne.
In Western society, we hold doctors in high-esteem. We trust them to know and give us advice that is based on scientific evidence. After all, Western medicine goes all hoopla about science and how it's evidence based.
Doctors and patients are equally ignorant about nutrition
But when it comes to diet and nutrition this is almost never the case. Here's a quote from a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
"Patients may rely on physicians to provide them with nutrition information. And physicians should be more knowledgeable about nutrition than their patients, but these results suggest that this is not necessarily true."
K Lazarus, RL Weinsier, and JR Boker
The study found you are not much better off getting nutritional guidance from a doctor than you are from the average McDonald's patron.
Until 2002 those two were the only published studies on diet and acne.
The acne diet dogma -- just one among many
As you can see, the notion diet has nothing to do with acne is not based on science. It's a dogma.Unfortunately the medical community is almost as dogmatic as the Catholic Church was in the middle ages.
"Dover tells the story of an early 1970s paper stating ultraviolet light doesn't improve acne, a belief that held for decades." "It turns out that the paper was wrong," he says. "This is an example of dogma getting in the way of progress in science and medicine. It happens all the time. Someone really important proves something and says this is the way it is, and everybody else stops thinking. It takes about 30 years, usually a generation, until someone says, 'Wait, this can't be true.'"
A Clear Connection? Most dermatologists tell their patients diet plays no role in acne. New research suggests that's wrong.
New studies link diet and acne
Luckily for acne victims the tide is turning. In recent years, a few well controlled studies have pointed towards a link between diet and acne.
One study found a correlation between dairy and acne. Another one looked into and found that foods high on the glycemic index increase acne. Finally one population-based study found acne is mainly a disease of the Western civilization. The study concluded the most likely explanation is a Western diet high in sugar, fat and processed foods.
Still, don't expect your dermatologist to start giving you dietary advice anytime soon. The official party line remains -- there is no link between diet and acne.
Dermatologists play it safe when they say food doesn't cause acne
"Dr. Jack Krushell, chief of dermatology at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, says the food hypothesis is intriguing but "I still kind of follow the party line, which is that food doesn't seem to be a cause of acne.""
For most dermatologists, who are swamped with patients and can't keep up with the latest journals, following the party line is a safe and easy solution. For better or worse the medical community is conservative and slow to change. Going against the grain can kill your career.
Health is a holistic system
To make things worse the medical community likes simple and linear solutions. Such as, bacteria cause acne; kill the bacteria and you can cure acne.
Unfortunately things work differently in nature.
Health, and by extension clear skin, is a holistic system. Meaning one part (such as diet or sleep) affects and is affected by every other part. In such a system, you cannot pull out one part and say "this is it. This is the cause".
In a weird way dermatologists are right in some regards. Diet is a big part of the equation that leads to acne (or clear skin), but it's not the only part. And to say diet causes acne is wrong.
Your skin is a part of your body. Anything that affects the health of your body also affects the health of your skin. Therefore to find the cause (or cure) for acne, you have to take a holistic perspective and look at your entire lifestyle.
So the next time a dermatologist tells you that you can eat whatever you want, or that acne cannot be cured, don't take it to the bank. Those two notions are not based on science. They are dogmas that the dermatologists have been taught at medical school.
Get a second opinion. Preferably from someone outside the traditional medical community.
Curing acne is simple
Acne can be cured with diet and lifestyle changes. Millions of people have done it. You can do it too.
There's nothing strange or mysterious about curing acne. It is as simple and straightforward as losing weight.
One of the first things you probably 'learned' about acne is that it cannot be cured. You bought into that belief and it has kept you from finding solutions that can really help.
Get rid of that belief and open your eyes. You'll see the road to clear skin is both simple and painfully obvious.
About the author
Seppo Puusa is a health advocate, author and educator. After discovering the painfully obvious, non-secrets to curing acne he has dedicated his life to helping other acne victims to cure their acne and reclaim their lives.By following his advice thousands of people in over 65 countries have discovered how getting clear can be simple, easy and fun.
URL: http://www.naturalnews.com/z023604.html
We are holistic beings, and everything we put on or into our bodies affects all of our bodily systems to one degree or another. This is especially true of the skin, the largest organ of the body. In fact the health of the skin, or the lack thereof, is an excellent barometer to measure the overall wellness of the body. Our skin mirrors the condition of the rest of the body, and it is also true that what is applied to the skin enters the body very efficiently and is spread quickly via the circulatory system. Thus, it is critical that we are aware of and avoid any toxins that may be included in acne and other skin care treatments. The best way to treat acne is to prevent it in the first place by practicing a lifestyle of wellness that includes a natural and organic diet heavy on lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, consuming plenty of pure water, and regular exercise. Such a lifestyle will eliminate the need for medicinal treatment of acne and the harmful side effects associated with such "treatment."
Why Dermatologists Still Deny the Link Between Acne and Diet
by Seppo Puusa
(NaturalNews) Almost every dermatologist will tell you that diet has nothing to do with acne. With fervor, many of them argue this and you know they really believe it. In a world of "evidence based medicine" you would think dermatologists would have strong scientific evidence backing it up.
It turns out that the notion 'diet has nothing to do with acne' is just about as scientific as the notion 'the world is flat'. In other words, it's pure dogma with no credible scientific backing.
Let's take a look at how and why this started.
The two flawed studies that started it all
In the fifties and sixties, dermatologists advised their patients about diet and its role in acne. Two studies conducted in the late sixties and early seventies changed that.
Later those two studies came under heavy fire. They were so flawed that they would earn a high school science student an F.
For example, one study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine looked into the link between chocolate and acne. First, the study was funded by the Chocolate Manufacturers Association. Second, the study compared two candy bars; both equally high in sugar, calories and trans fats, but the other had some chocolate in it. This is comparing sugar to sugar. The sugar and trans fats have much more of an effect on acne than the small quantity of chocolate in the other bar. No wonder the study concluded chocolate does not cause acne.
The other one was an equally flawed study about sugar and acne. The sample size was small, and it didn't consider the glycemic effect of processed carbohydrates. Again this study proved nothing.
Despite the flaws and scientific invalidity, the results of these two studies stuck. Since then medical students have been taught there's no scientific link between diet and acne.
In Western society, we hold doctors in high-esteem. We trust them to know and give us advice that is based on scientific evidence. After all, Western medicine goes all hoopla about science and how it's evidence based.
Doctors and patients are equally ignorant about nutrition
But when it comes to diet and nutrition this is almost never the case. Here's a quote from a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
"Patients may rely on physicians to provide them with nutrition information. And physicians should be more knowledgeable about nutrition than their patients, but these results suggest that this is not necessarily true."
K Lazarus, RL Weinsier, and JR Boker
The study found you are not much better off getting nutritional guidance from a doctor than you are from the average McDonald's patron.
Until 2002 those two were the only published studies on diet and acne.
The acne diet dogma -- just one among many
As you can see, the notion diet has nothing to do with acne is not based on science. It's a dogma.Unfortunately the medical community is almost as dogmatic as the Catholic Church was in the middle ages.
"Dover tells the story of an early 1970s paper stating ultraviolet light doesn't improve acne, a belief that held for decades." "It turns out that the paper was wrong," he says. "This is an example of dogma getting in the way of progress in science and medicine. It happens all the time. Someone really important proves something and says this is the way it is, and everybody else stops thinking. It takes about 30 years, usually a generation, until someone says, 'Wait, this can't be true.'"
A Clear Connection? Most dermatologists tell their patients diet plays no role in acne. New research suggests that's wrong.
New studies link diet and acne
Luckily for acne victims the tide is turning. In recent years, a few well controlled studies have pointed towards a link between diet and acne.
One study found a correlation between dairy and acne. Another one looked into and found that foods high on the glycemic index increase acne. Finally one population-based study found acne is mainly a disease of the Western civilization. The study concluded the most likely explanation is a Western diet high in sugar, fat and processed foods.
Still, don't expect your dermatologist to start giving you dietary advice anytime soon. The official party line remains -- there is no link between diet and acne.
Dermatologists play it safe when they say food doesn't cause acne
"Dr. Jack Krushell, chief of dermatology at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, says the food hypothesis is intriguing but "I still kind of follow the party line, which is that food doesn't seem to be a cause of acne.""
For most dermatologists, who are swamped with patients and can't keep up with the latest journals, following the party line is a safe and easy solution. For better or worse the medical community is conservative and slow to change. Going against the grain can kill your career.
Health is a holistic system
To make things worse the medical community likes simple and linear solutions. Such as, bacteria cause acne; kill the bacteria and you can cure acne.
Unfortunately things work differently in nature.
Health, and by extension clear skin, is a holistic system. Meaning one part (such as diet or sleep) affects and is affected by every other part. In such a system, you cannot pull out one part and say "this is it. This is the cause".
In a weird way dermatologists are right in some regards. Diet is a big part of the equation that leads to acne (or clear skin), but it's not the only part. And to say diet causes acne is wrong.
Your skin is a part of your body. Anything that affects the health of your body also affects the health of your skin. Therefore to find the cause (or cure) for acne, you have to take a holistic perspective and look at your entire lifestyle.
So the next time a dermatologist tells you that you can eat whatever you want, or that acne cannot be cured, don't take it to the bank. Those two notions are not based on science. They are dogmas that the dermatologists have been taught at medical school.
Get a second opinion. Preferably from someone outside the traditional medical community.
Curing acne is simple
Acne can be cured with diet and lifestyle changes. Millions of people have done it. You can do it too.
There's nothing strange or mysterious about curing acne. It is as simple and straightforward as losing weight.
One of the first things you probably 'learned' about acne is that it cannot be cured. You bought into that belief and it has kept you from finding solutions that can really help.
Get rid of that belief and open your eyes. You'll see the road to clear skin is both simple and painfully obvious.
About the author
Seppo Puusa is a health advocate, author and educator. After discovering the painfully obvious, non-secrets to curing acne he has dedicated his life to helping other acne victims to cure their acne and reclaim their lives.By following his advice thousands of people in over 65 countries have discovered how getting clear can be simple, easy and fun.
URL: http://www.naturalnews.com/z023604.html
Monday, August 4, 2008
Aloe: A Natural Wonder
Aloe, or aloe vera as the most popular species of this plant is known, is becoming more and more desired as both an optimum natural skin care treatment and for its myriad of other medicinal benefits. Long lauded for its soothing, healing and beatifying properties, aloe has been a common remedy since ancient times. It is particularly effective for skin care, helping to restore, rejuvenate, and heal sun-damaged skin, the wrinkles and lines of aging, and other skin issues such as damage caused by cancer treatment and skin conditions like eczema.
Happily, the gift of aloe is not limited to skin care. The long list of natural applications for this plant includes use as a digestive aide, as a painkiller for wounds, and aloe is also valued for its antioxidant properties. There are many aloe products available, but not are all made the same. Look for cold-pressed, whole-leaf and organically processed aloe products made from the aloe barbadensis plant. Because aloe is fragile, commercial liquids and gels must contain some type of preservative. However, there are a couple of companies that offer Aloe Vera juice with no preservatives. Be sure to look into what preservatives are used in skin care products that contain Aloe Vera. Many Aloe Vera manufacturers use sodium benzoate as a preservative which can mimic hormones. However, skincare companies will often fail to include this in their ingredient list. If you see Aloe Vera listed as a skincare ingredient but do not see any preservatives named or the product is being touted as preservative-free, buyer beware.
You can also easily grow your own Aloe Vera at home and simply harvest the juice from the leaves whenever needed. Take advantage of this marvelous gift from our Creator to treat your skin and other areas of the body naturally without the use of artificial substances and chemicals that may expose you to risky side effects.
The Healing Plant
Known for thousands of years for its rejuvenative properties, aloe is a rising star among spa treatments
By Donna M. Owens
Special to The Sun
July 31, 2008
With her smooth, glowing complexion, Lynne Bonner Redd looks younger than her 46 years. Ask her secret, and she'll tell you it's not a nip or tuck.
It's simply aloe.
"Aloe is part of my overall health and beauty philosophy," says the Pikesville resident, who typically keeps an aloe plant handy for cuts and mild burns. She also purchases packaged aloe products at stores such as Whole Foods Market.
"I buy aloe liquid by the gallon, keep it in the fridge and drink a few ounces cold. It tastes like fizzy water," she says. "I've noticed my digestion has improved."
Various plant-based substances, such as botanical dietary supplements and herbal remedies, are a billion-dollar industry in the U.S. Aloe sales totaled $62 million last year, up from $60 million in 2006, according to Nutrition Business Journal, a Colorado-based trade publication.
Aloe is listed as an ingredient on the labels of hundreds of skin care and beauty products, including lotions, sunblocks and cosmetics. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a natural food flavoring, aloe even turns up in beverages and foods, such as aloe yogurt. The International Aloe Science Council in Silver Spring notes newer products, including aloe mattresses. Yet the plant's fabled history dates back thousands of years, long before items like aloe hand-wash lined store shelves. The ancient Egyptians illustrated aloe on stone carvings and placed the plant inside the tombs of pharaohs as burial gifts. Legend has it that Cleopatra bathed in sour milk and the "plant of immortality," as aloe has been called, to enhance her beauty.
Aloe is also mentioned in the New Testament, specifically the book of John 19:39: "And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes."
Aloe is native to Africa and known for its proliferation in places with warm climates, like Texas, India and the Caribbean, according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. There are hundreds of species of the plants - flowering succulents typically characterized by thick, fleshy leaves with sharp, pointed tips and spiny edges. Aloe vera is probably the most recognized and most popular.
"Aloe has been around for centuries, and it's multifaceted," says Dr. Lisa R. Ginn, a board-certified dermatologist and licensed aesthetician at Cultura, a Washington medical spa that specializes in treating people of color.
The transparent gel that oozes from the pulp of the aloe vera leaf is used topically to treat minor wounds, mild burns and skin and scalp conditions, such as eczema and ringworm, she says.
Aloe's other uses include post-radiation skin care for cancer patients, treating frostbite and helping slow the aging process.
"Aloe has a certain antioxidant enzyme that can be very effective in the treatment of soft lines and wrinkles," Ginn says.
Aloe is also used to treat sunburns.
"One of aloe's main properties is that it's anti-inflammatory and it has an analgesic or pain-alleviating property, similar to ibuprofen or aspirin," she says. "It's soothing --cathartic -- with a really high water content, so it's great for sunburn. It's like holding a blanket of water on the skin."
At spas, the humble aloe plant has taken a starring role.
The Linden Spa at the Inn at Perry Cabin in St. Michaels uses aloe along with herbs and plants indigenous to the Eastern Shore.
"You just break off a piece of the leaf and apply the gel," says Jenny Ferrand, the spa's director and a licensed aesthetician and massage therapist. "It's one of my favorite products for facials and the body."
Linden Spa uses and sells Noni Gel, an aloe-based product mixed with the exotic fruit extract noni.
"We apply cool compresses with calendula, linden and chamomile," Ferrand says. "We let that sit awhile, then do a scalp and body massage. That's followed by the Noni, which is very cool to the touch. It's excellent after being out in the sun. Aloe reduces inflammation, and it has a soothing emollient texture that creates a barrier for the skin to heal and cool."
More than 1,000 miles away in the Caribbean, wild aloe plants grow on the tiny island of Aruba against a backdrop of turquoise sea and alabaster beaches. At the Radisson Aruba resort, its Larimar Spa's aloe, white rum and lime cocoon-style massage is winning awards and drawing tourists.
"Aruba aloe is very pure. It's considered the best in the world," says Bruce Cavan, director of spa services. "Aloe is one of the few things that grow abundantly on Aruba because the climate is desertlike, and the plant does not need a lot of water."
Cavan, who pronounces aloe as "aloe-a," as islanders do, says natives are known to cut a soft leaf of the plant, rinse it off and swallow it whole.
"Folklore says aloe is good for stomach problems," he says.
In the multi-billion dollar beauty industry, aloe products range from inexpensive drug store finds to trendy, high-end goods.
The American consumer today values things that are earth-friendly, sustainable and renewable, while shunning waste and the concept of artificiality. Using natural ingredients in their skin-care products makes many people feel more connected to the planet as part of their daily ritual.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/custom/today/bal-to.hs.aloe31jul31,0,2921956,print.story
Happily, the gift of aloe is not limited to skin care. The long list of natural applications for this plant includes use as a digestive aide, as a painkiller for wounds, and aloe is also valued for its antioxidant properties. There are many aloe products available, but not are all made the same. Look for cold-pressed, whole-leaf and organically processed aloe products made from the aloe barbadensis plant. Because aloe is fragile, commercial liquids and gels must contain some type of preservative. However, there are a couple of companies that offer Aloe Vera juice with no preservatives. Be sure to look into what preservatives are used in skin care products that contain Aloe Vera. Many Aloe Vera manufacturers use sodium benzoate as a preservative which can mimic hormones. However, skincare companies will often fail to include this in their ingredient list. If you see Aloe Vera listed as a skincare ingredient but do not see any preservatives named or the product is being touted as preservative-free, buyer beware.
You can also easily grow your own Aloe Vera at home and simply harvest the juice from the leaves whenever needed. Take advantage of this marvelous gift from our Creator to treat your skin and other areas of the body naturally without the use of artificial substances and chemicals that may expose you to risky side effects.
The Healing Plant
Known for thousands of years for its rejuvenative properties, aloe is a rising star among spa treatments
By Donna M. Owens
Special to The Sun
July 31, 2008
With her smooth, glowing complexion, Lynne Bonner Redd looks younger than her 46 years. Ask her secret, and she'll tell you it's not a nip or tuck.
It's simply aloe.
"Aloe is part of my overall health and beauty philosophy," says the Pikesville resident, who typically keeps an aloe plant handy for cuts and mild burns. She also purchases packaged aloe products at stores such as Whole Foods Market.
"I buy aloe liquid by the gallon, keep it in the fridge and drink a few ounces cold. It tastes like fizzy water," she says. "I've noticed my digestion has improved."
Various plant-based substances, such as botanical dietary supplements and herbal remedies, are a billion-dollar industry in the U.S. Aloe sales totaled $62 million last year, up from $60 million in 2006, according to Nutrition Business Journal, a Colorado-based trade publication.
Aloe is listed as an ingredient on the labels of hundreds of skin care and beauty products, including lotions, sunblocks and cosmetics. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a natural food flavoring, aloe even turns up in beverages and foods, such as aloe yogurt. The International Aloe Science Council in Silver Spring notes newer products, including aloe mattresses. Yet the plant's fabled history dates back thousands of years, long before items like aloe hand-wash lined store shelves. The ancient Egyptians illustrated aloe on stone carvings and placed the plant inside the tombs of pharaohs as burial gifts. Legend has it that Cleopatra bathed in sour milk and the "plant of immortality," as aloe has been called, to enhance her beauty.
Aloe is also mentioned in the New Testament, specifically the book of John 19:39: "And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes."
Aloe is native to Africa and known for its proliferation in places with warm climates, like Texas, India and the Caribbean, according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. There are hundreds of species of the plants - flowering succulents typically characterized by thick, fleshy leaves with sharp, pointed tips and spiny edges. Aloe vera is probably the most recognized and most popular.
"Aloe has been around for centuries, and it's multifaceted," says Dr. Lisa R. Ginn, a board-certified dermatologist and licensed aesthetician at Cultura, a Washington medical spa that specializes in treating people of color.
The transparent gel that oozes from the pulp of the aloe vera leaf is used topically to treat minor wounds, mild burns and skin and scalp conditions, such as eczema and ringworm, she says.
Aloe's other uses include post-radiation skin care for cancer patients, treating frostbite and helping slow the aging process.
"Aloe has a certain antioxidant enzyme that can be very effective in the treatment of soft lines and wrinkles," Ginn says.
Aloe is also used to treat sunburns.
"One of aloe's main properties is that it's anti-inflammatory and it has an analgesic or pain-alleviating property, similar to ibuprofen or aspirin," she says. "It's soothing --cathartic -- with a really high water content, so it's great for sunburn. It's like holding a blanket of water on the skin."
At spas, the humble aloe plant has taken a starring role.
The Linden Spa at the Inn at Perry Cabin in St. Michaels uses aloe along with herbs and plants indigenous to the Eastern Shore.
"You just break off a piece of the leaf and apply the gel," says Jenny Ferrand, the spa's director and a licensed aesthetician and massage therapist. "It's one of my favorite products for facials and the body."
Linden Spa uses and sells Noni Gel, an aloe-based product mixed with the exotic fruit extract noni.
"We apply cool compresses with calendula, linden and chamomile," Ferrand says. "We let that sit awhile, then do a scalp and body massage. That's followed by the Noni, which is very cool to the touch. It's excellent after being out in the sun. Aloe reduces inflammation, and it has a soothing emollient texture that creates a barrier for the skin to heal and cool."
More than 1,000 miles away in the Caribbean, wild aloe plants grow on the tiny island of Aruba against a backdrop of turquoise sea and alabaster beaches. At the Radisson Aruba resort, its Larimar Spa's aloe, white rum and lime cocoon-style massage is winning awards and drawing tourists.
"Aruba aloe is very pure. It's considered the best in the world," says Bruce Cavan, director of spa services. "Aloe is one of the few things that grow abundantly on Aruba because the climate is desertlike, and the plant does not need a lot of water."
Cavan, who pronounces aloe as "aloe-a," as islanders do, says natives are known to cut a soft leaf of the plant, rinse it off and swallow it whole.
"Folklore says aloe is good for stomach problems," he says.
In the multi-billion dollar beauty industry, aloe products range from inexpensive drug store finds to trendy, high-end goods.
The American consumer today values things that are earth-friendly, sustainable and renewable, while shunning waste and the concept of artificiality. Using natural ingredients in their skin-care products makes many people feel more connected to the planet as part of their daily ritual.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/custom/today/bal-to.hs.aloe31jul31,0,2921956,print.story
Friday, August 1, 2008
Asthma Tied to Immune System and Digestive Tract Dysfunction
The incidence of asthma has risen dramatically in recent years, and according to the article posted today, it may have everything to do with what and how we eat, as well as the overall health of the flora in our digestive tract. Research highlighted in this study indicates an association between GERD, the immune system, and asthma.
Natural health practitioners have long stated that "life and death originate in the digestive tract," and there are very sound reasons for this belief. If the digestive tract is not operating efficiently, many illnesses, including GERD, can result. But beyond that, we are learning that the gut is very actively related to the function of the immune system, and can influence allergic reactions such as asthma and others as well. The health of our digestive system has widespread effects, either positive or negative, throughout the body. This is the most important reason that total digestive tract cleansing or colon cleansing with an oxygen-based cleanser should be performed on regular basis in order to keep this important area of the body moving and clean.
I saw another study recently that linked the bacterial population in the digestive tract to asthma. It appears that a balance of flora in the gut is necessary in order to prevent many reactions such as asthma and others. Thus, it is essential that we use a natural, quality probiotic product to restore the balance of bacteria in the bowel that is often decimated by the use of antibiotics and other risky behaviors of modern life. It is important for any family or individual dealing with the challenges of asthma to understand the holistic implications of the disease.
Link Found Between Asthma and GERD
Common Form of Indigestion May Raise the Risk of Asthma
By Jennifer WarnerWebMD Health News
Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD
July 25, 2008 -- Chronic heartburn may alter the immune system and raise the risk of asthma, according to a new study that helps explain why so many people with asthma also suffer from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
Researchers say the link between asthma and GERD has been a mystery for years. Previous studies have shown that 50%-90% of people with asthma also suffer from gastric reflux, but until now the relationship between the two conditions was unclear.
The study shows that inhaling small amounts of stomach acid back up into the esophagus and lungs, a hallmark of GERD, slowly produces changes in the immune system that may lead to the development of asthma.
"This does not mean that everyone with GERD is going to develop asthma, by any means," researcher William Parker, assistant professor of surgery at Duke University Medical Center, says in a news release. "But it may mean that people with GERD may be more likely to develop asthma. If there is an upside to this, it is that developing GERD is something we can pretty much treat and control."
Asthma-GERD Link Explained
In the study, published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers mimicked the effects of GERD in laboratory mice by inserting small amounts of gastric fluid into their lungs for eight weeks. They then compared how the immune systems of these mice responded to exposure to allergens, a key factor in the development of asthma, to the immune response of normal, healthy mice.
The results showed that the GERD mice responded very differently to allergens. Specifically, they developed an immune response similar to that found in people with asthma by releasing a specific type of infection-fighting T-cell. Healthy mice responded in a more balanced manner releasing two types of immune cells.
Researchers say rising rates of reflux and GERD may be driving increasing rates of asthma, but many of the risk factors behind this phenomenon may be modifiable.
They say people who already have GERD can minimize gastric reflux and reduce their risk of developing asthma by following these tips:
* Eat smaller meals
* Eat several hours before going to bed
* Raise the head of the bed a few inches
* Maintain a healthy weight
* Limit fatty foods, coffee, tea, caffeine, and alcohol because they can relax the esophageal sphincter and make reflux more likely.
"People should avoid the risk factors for GERD. We strongly believe that the rise in asthma, particularly among adults in the country, is in large measure due to lifestyle choices that can be changed," Parker says.
http://www.webmd.com/asthma/news/20080725/link-found-between-asthma-and-gerd?print=true
Natural health practitioners have long stated that "life and death originate in the digestive tract," and there are very sound reasons for this belief. If the digestive tract is not operating efficiently, many illnesses, including GERD, can result. But beyond that, we are learning that the gut is very actively related to the function of the immune system, and can influence allergic reactions such as asthma and others as well. The health of our digestive system has widespread effects, either positive or negative, throughout the body. This is the most important reason that total digestive tract cleansing or colon cleansing with an oxygen-based cleanser should be performed on regular basis in order to keep this important area of the body moving and clean.
I saw another study recently that linked the bacterial population in the digestive tract to asthma. It appears that a balance of flora in the gut is necessary in order to prevent many reactions such as asthma and others. Thus, it is essential that we use a natural, quality probiotic product to restore the balance of bacteria in the bowel that is often decimated by the use of antibiotics and other risky behaviors of modern life. It is important for any family or individual dealing with the challenges of asthma to understand the holistic implications of the disease.
Link Found Between Asthma and GERD
Common Form of Indigestion May Raise the Risk of Asthma
By Jennifer WarnerWebMD Health News
Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD
July 25, 2008 -- Chronic heartburn may alter the immune system and raise the risk of asthma, according to a new study that helps explain why so many people with asthma also suffer from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
Researchers say the link between asthma and GERD has been a mystery for years. Previous studies have shown that 50%-90% of people with asthma also suffer from gastric reflux, but until now the relationship between the two conditions was unclear.
The study shows that inhaling small amounts of stomach acid back up into the esophagus and lungs, a hallmark of GERD, slowly produces changes in the immune system that may lead to the development of asthma.
"This does not mean that everyone with GERD is going to develop asthma, by any means," researcher William Parker, assistant professor of surgery at Duke University Medical Center, says in a news release. "But it may mean that people with GERD may be more likely to develop asthma. If there is an upside to this, it is that developing GERD is something we can pretty much treat and control."
Asthma-GERD Link Explained
In the study, published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers mimicked the effects of GERD in laboratory mice by inserting small amounts of gastric fluid into their lungs for eight weeks. They then compared how the immune systems of these mice responded to exposure to allergens, a key factor in the development of asthma, to the immune response of normal, healthy mice.
The results showed that the GERD mice responded very differently to allergens. Specifically, they developed an immune response similar to that found in people with asthma by releasing a specific type of infection-fighting T-cell. Healthy mice responded in a more balanced manner releasing two types of immune cells.
Researchers say rising rates of reflux and GERD may be driving increasing rates of asthma, but many of the risk factors behind this phenomenon may be modifiable.
They say people who already have GERD can minimize gastric reflux and reduce their risk of developing asthma by following these tips:
* Eat smaller meals
* Eat several hours before going to bed
* Raise the head of the bed a few inches
* Maintain a healthy weight
* Limit fatty foods, coffee, tea, caffeine, and alcohol because they can relax the esophageal sphincter and make reflux more likely.
"People should avoid the risk factors for GERD. We strongly believe that the rise in asthma, particularly among adults in the country, is in large measure due to lifestyle choices that can be changed," Parker says.
http://www.webmd.com/asthma/news/20080725/link-found-between-asthma-and-gerd?print=true
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
