The ‘flu shot’, or influenza vaccine is being widely touted again. Winter every year causes incidences of influenza to rise, and there is no doubt that getting the flu is not much fun. Following on from my last article regarding the dubious benefits of Tamiflu, I thought I would give you the real low down on the flu vaccine.

What is the flu?

The flu is a virus that attacks the body causing symptoms such as headaches, muscle pains, nausea, chills/fevers, and general fatigue and discomfort. It has some similar symptoms to a common cold, but generally more severe. Most experts believe it is spread by droplets exhaled when people sneeze or cough, or even just talking…and the range can be up to 2 metres.

When I was doing further research for this article, I found a New Zealand website called fightflu.co.nz. This website comes up in any search and is run by a group called the NISG – National Influenza Specialist Group. The group contains various doctors as well as two representatives of the drug companies who make the flu vaccines. Despite some of the group being employees of the vaccine manufacturers – whose goal must be to shift as much vaccine as possible, the NISG states it is a non-profit organisation.  In the United States it is standard practice for giant businesses to use supposedly ‘independent’ organistaions to further their interests. Their marketers know that a ‘third party’ endorsements or statements by such organisations are much more powerful than making statements about their own products. I don’t see how a group can be called non-profit when some of its principal participants are there to promote the interest of the drug companies, whose agenda must be to sell as many doses of vaccine as possible.

From the flightflu.co.nz website, the stated goal of the group is to promote the benefits of immunisation for ‘those most at risk’. Those words are very important. Those ‘most at risk’ from influenza are elderly, children, people who are obese, or people who have lung problems (such as asthma). People most at risk are not healthy adults under the age of 65. But a quick look at the FAQ’s of this website suggests a different story – FAQ’s explaining why it should be given to ‘healthy adults’. A second FAQ – the only FAQ that states how effective the vaccine is – says that in years when there is a ‘good match’ between the flu strains going around, and the flu strains included in that years vaccine, it can prevent flu in 80% of cases – again, this data is only for ‘healthy adults’.

As their stated goal (from their website) is to promote the use of the vaccines for those ‘most at risk’, why don’t the FAQ’s actually state the benefits for those ‘most at risk’?  ie Elderly people or people with asthma?  I believe the reason is easily explained; the benefits appear greatest in healthy adults – because healthy adults have healthier immune systems. The supposed benefits are not listed for people in high risk groups, as no amount of statistical manipulation can demonstrate that they are effective for these groups.

To explain some of this I need to give you a brief run-down of how the vaccines are made. Every year the manufacturers choose 3-4 strains of the flu that they hope will be the dominant strains in the coming flu season. It’s a lottery. There are many more strains of flu than are covered by the vaccine. The vaccine is comprised of deactivated ‘dead’ fragments of the virus. Your body then produces the antibodies for those specific strains which are meant to protect you by fighting the virus – if you get it. The process of making the next years flu shot takes time, so if a new strain crops up there is quite a long lead-time before a new vaccine can be made.  For the vaccine to have a chance of working, the strains you are vaccinated for needs to match the strains in that year’s flu as closely as possible.

Does the flu vaccine work at all?

The CDC (Centre for Disease Control) in the United States says that it does.  I believe they are essentially a cheer leader for the flu vaccine manufacturers. It is implausible that they could not be aware of the Cochrane Groups independent reviews of the vaccines questioning their efficacy at every level. They actually quote different figures for the efficacy of the vaccines than the New Zealand Group (NISG); they say that vaccine effectiveness is ‘reduced’ in studies of the elderly – one of the prime risk groups. Their figures also state the vaccine can reduce incidences of the flu by 60% in ‘recent studies’. Selecting recent studies to base a decision introduces bias, why not include all the studies?

The Cochrane Group is a not-for-profit, independent group of scientists from 100 countries. They review trials for medical interventions (pharmaceutical drugs and others) to determine whether they actually work, and are safe. Here is a summary of their findings regarding influenza vaccines.

Flu Vaccines use in Healthy Adults

As drug companies have been touting the benefits of vaccinating healthy people (because vaccinating everyone is much more profitable than vaccinating just those who are classed as ‘high risk’) The Cochrane Group did a systematic review on whether it was effective in healthy people. The review found that in an average year, where there is a partial match between the strain of flu going around, and the vaccine, 100 people needed to be vaccinated in order to prevent one single instance of the flu. They also found that the vaccine had no effect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost, but did cause one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations.

They issued a warning, that this result is likely ‘more optimistic’ as to the flu vaccines benefits because of the 36 studies reviewed, 15 were funded by industry, and 4 were undeclared. They stated that studies funded from public sources were ‘significantly less likely’ to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines than industry funded studies. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin and that there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. What all this means is that instead of vaccinating 100 healthy adults to stop a single instance of the flu, you probably need to vaccinate a much greater number of people.  You can read it all here – there is a plain language section.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub4/abstract

Flu vaccine use in people over 65

The Cochrane Groups 2010 assessment of over 40 years of data states that there is ‘insufficient evidence’ to recommend elderly people get flu shots. They state that the 75 studies reviewed were mostly ‘observational’ studies which are of greater risk of bias. They also state that to resolve whether they have any benefit, then large publicly funded trials need to be run.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004876.pub3/abstract

Flu Vaccine for people with asthma

There may be some benefit for asthmatics to get a flu shot, but there remains the possibility that the flu shot can worsen symptoms of asthma.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000364.pub4/abstract

As you can see there appears to be little evidence to warrant getting flu shots. If you stack the Cochrane data up vs. what you will find on the New Zealand fightflu.co.nz website, you will wonder if they are discussing the same vaccines.  Most of the studies claiming the vaccines work are funded by the drug companies who make them, and that simply means you can’t trust them. There might be some evidence that they can be of small benefit to at risk groups, but there is insufficient evidence to even make this small claim. Again, we are told to trust our doctors advice because it’s founded in ‘evidence based medicine’, but you can see from the Cochrane reviews, the vaccines do not meet that threshold. I am not ‘anti’ all vaccines and this article is not about the vaccine safety debate, it’s just about the flu shot,  which I believe to be  a colossal waste of tax-payers money and time. Flu vaccines appear to be a cash cow for the manufacturers and they have been foisted on a trusting, non-scientific public, via campaigns misrepresenting the benefits. It is likely that simple measures such as washing hands helps prevent the transmission of the virus.

Additional Note: This article focuses on the mass vaccination strategy employed by health authorities. The studies measure results over a population to see if there are benefits when comparing vaccinated groups to non vaccinated groups. If a particular years flu vaccine is an exact match with the flu going round, you may well gain immunity. Based on the Cochrane Reviews, I don’t believe this happens very often. During the swine flu scare, there was a second vaccine given to people. This would likely be effective against swine flu, because it was created specifically for this exact strain.

Daniel King MSc

Winter is the season for colds and flu and with just under a month before the official start, I thought I would give you a quick summary of the drug, Tamiflu. You have almost certainly heard of it, a drug that was widely ‘promoted’ to fend off swine-flu in 2009. For those of you who need a refresher, the media breathlessly touted it as a treatment for ‘swine-flu’. Fear was everywhere and there were queues at pharmacies to buy it.

In 2009 our media ran sensational story after story about who was going to get the drug first in case of a pandemic; front line staff, doctors, health workers, politicians etc. – but not you or I. It retailed for between $60 and $80, if you had a prescription, but no problems if you didn’t, as it was soon available without one, just like lollies. Then there were the headlines, do you remember the media ‘body – counts’ here’s one…

‘Tamiflu more accessible, death toll still at 7…NZ Herald April 29, 2009′. Nothing like a death toll to create a ‘story with legs’, for those who don’t know what that means, it’s the media’s hold grail, a story that keeps getting repeated day after day – often with few modifications. Cheap journalism, I guess.

Before I get into the problem, I think the best place to start is by asking these few simple questions;  when the media hype was at its greatest, did you think that Tamiflu would prevent you dying from the swine-flu? Did you think it would reduce your chances of getting really sick and being hospitalised? Or did you think it would save you a few hours of being ill with flu-like symptoms? (i.e. being uncomfortable but in no real danger)

If you’re like me, most of you would answer ‘yes’ to the first one. This drug was sold to us on the basis that it would stop us from dying if we got the flu. The method was  simple, create fear via sensational stories in the news, provide the solution – a ‘wonder drug’ called Tamiflu and back it up  with medical authorities and doctors (who we are indoctrinated to trust absolutely) making concerned statements on TV.

We were soundly conned.

When the Cochrane Group did their initial review of Tamiflu (the Cochrane Group is an independent group of scientists that reviews the literature and evidence for medical interventions) the scientist responsible was Dr Tom Jefferson, who, in 2006 looked at the data provided by Roche and concluded that the drug was effective. Then, a Japanese paediatrician called Keiji Hayashi placed a post on the Cochrane website; ‘You’ve summarised the data from all 10 papers, he explained, but your positive conclusion is really driven by data from just one of the papers you cite.’ The data came from an industry funded study by someone called ‘Kaiser’.  This Kaiser paper ‘summarised’ the data from the unpublished studies, but drug company Roche (manufacturer of Tamiflu) has never allowed the raw data to be released for the world to see.

For those of you wondering why this is a big deal, this is how drug companies distort results and commit fraud.  If independent scientists cannot review the raw data, and thereby assess the safety and efficacy of drugs then we have the take the drug companies’ word that they are telling the truth, quite frankly, that’s laughable. Read this article on the top recent drug company fines for fraud and dishonesty if you need a refresher.

Here are some facts about Tamiflu;

1. People took the drug to reduce the chance of life threatening ‘complications’ (a euphemism for pneumonia and death) from swine flu,  but there was no published evidence that it could do this, at best it may reduce the length of illness of people who have influenza by a few hours. Most people prescribed this drug do not even have influenza.

2. According to the editor in chief of the British Medical Journal, it is likely that the benefits of the drug are overstated and adverse events understated.

3. Manufacturer Roche agreed on multiple occasions to hand over all the data but kept reneging, excuse after excuse. Data from eight of the ten studies have never been released.

4. There is widespread belief that the unreleased data contains evidence of severe ‘adverse events’. Those adverse events that have been reported include deaths in children, serious skin reactions, and neuropsychiatric events – including suicide.

Here was a drug that the whole world was scared into buying with taxpayer dollars. New Zealand bought 800,000 doses at what cost? The UK paid billions of pounds, and the USA billions of dollars. Our medical authorities and regulators jumped on the bandwagon and touted it for all it was worth. We then find out a handful of years later that there is no evidence available at all that it either reduced ‘complications’ (pneumonia and death) or the spread of the flu, and yet these were the reasons the world stockpiled the drug.

If you are wondering why our authorities and global authorities have done nothing, well, it’s a world where conflicts of interest abound. It was the WHO (World Health Organisation) that declared the flu ‘pandemic’ in 2009 that sparked massive stockpiling of Tamiflu in New Zealand and across the globe. Later in 2009 an investigation into conflicts of interest within the WHO revealed links between those who created the planning guidelines for the flu ‘pandemic’ and Roche. The WHO has it on their list of ‘essential medicines’.

There are calls by the British Medical Journal for Roche to do what it promised to do, and hand over the evidence to back up the claims the world spent billions on – and there are calls in Europe to sue Roche.

We have been fully indoctrinated into believing that pharmaceutical drugs are the ‘gold standard’ of evidence based medicine, but this is simply not true. Drug companies are the most fraudulent companies in the world. They are the tobacco companies of our times. We blindly trust our medical authorities and our media who (I believe) have agendas that have little to do with accurately informing the public about serious health matters. I also know from personal experience they are reluctant to publish negative stories about drug companies and I believe this likely has a lot to do with preserving advertising revenue. Your GP often has no idea whether the drugs work or are safe, because they have also been indoctrinated and are equally in the dark.

I reached a conclusion a long time ago. If a drug company representative is saying something, all you can know for sure is that you are being misled. In the case of Tamiflu we are left asking, where is the accountability for the colossal waste of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money? Why has there not been a Royal Commission? Are drug companies simply above the law?

Daniel King MSc

For decades, we’ve been told that eating fat will make us fat and the only way to lose weight is to exercise and cut calories. Yet again, the ‘experts’ appear to be incorrect. Dr Nigel Harris, a senior lecturer of fitness and exercise science at AUT University wanted to test the theory that fat is not to blame for the obesity epidemic and can in fact help people to lose weight.

Harris starts the day with an 800 calorie, 80g fat breakfast shake of raspberries, full-fat coconut cream, cream and chia seed. That’s double the ‘recommended’ calories that should come from breakfast (for healthy adults eating 2000 calories per day).

The diet Harris follows promotes eating lots of vegetables and food containing natural fats – such as nuts, seeds, fish, olive oil, avocado oil, unprocessed meat and full-fat dairy products, while limiting the intake of carbohydrates.

“I lost 2 kilograms,” says Dr Harris. “I wasn’t trying to. I really didn’t have any fat to lose. I lost 2 kilograms in total and of that; 1 kilogram of it was fat. So that’s despite eating 3000 calories a day.”

What this demonstrates is that it is possible to eat fat and get lean. While you could technically gain weight from eating too much fat, this is highly unlikely as fat is very filling; following a high-fat, low-carb diet is the easiest way to inadvertently eat less and feel satisfied. The main culprit for weigh-gain is sugar and refined carbohydrates. Eating a traditional high-carb diet causes levels of the fat storage hormone, insulin, to rise, which can stop us from burning fat. Saturated fats are only bad when eaten with a lot of carbohydrates and it’s much easier to overeat fat and carbs together…How many times have you been out for a meal and can’t resist having a piece of warm, crusty baguette smothered in butter? Before you know it, the basket is empty before the starter even arrives!

There are many more studies that demonstrate how lower carb dieters lose a lot more weight than people on low fat diets – of great interest was a very recently published study funded by the US National Institute of Health. In the study 21 obese adults were put on either a low carb diet, a low fat diet or a low glycemic index diet. The dieters had all their meals prepared, and each of the diets had the exact same number of calories.
The low carb dieters lost the most weight, low glycemic index were second and low fat lost the least weight. It is important to note that a low glycemic diet is similar to the low carb diet, but some grains are added, like old fashioned oats and brown rice, carbs that digest slowly.

This is a very interesting finding, because traditional nutritionists will tell you that a calorie is a calorie, and that all diets with the same energy intake should have yielded the same weight loss. But they didn’t. In fact, participants burned around 300 calories per day more on the low carb diet. This shows that you can get better metabolic effects from a lower carb diet.

What if everything we thought we knew about calories was wrong?

Weight loss is much more complex than simply calorie counting and scientists are starting to discover that the standard way of measuring calories, established more than 100 years ago, may not be terribly accurate, especially when it comes to higher fat foods, like nuts. Food scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently published a new study that finds almonds have about 20 percent fewer calories than previously documented.

It is important to note that the calorie figure you see on a food label isn’t always the amount you will ingest. A 30g handful of pistachios is said to contain around 170 calories, the reality is more like 160. When eating a similar serving of almonds, you are likely to get just 128 calories rather than the 170 stated on the label.

So, how exactly do you lose weight?

The answer is simple, eat fewer carbohydrates. Start by reducing most of the white ones; bread, rice, pasta, potatoes, and especially added sugar (including alcohol). Replace some of your breakfasts with eggs, try omelettes; they will keep you fuller than cereals. Minimise carbs and boost your protein intake at lunch time if you wish to reduce that 3pm nap attack. Don’t worry about fats, except avoid the ones that deep fried foods are cooked in. Other fats can be healthy, such as Olive Oil, Coconut Oil, Avocadoes and Nuts, all of which can help to boost mental performance. Of particular note is oily fish (Salmon and Tuna), the DHA in fish oil is a major structural component in our brains, and low levels are associated with all sorts of mental issues (depression, neurological decline, memory issues). Try our delicious Mediterranean Salmon recipe.

Keep your vegetable intake high (especially the brightly coloured ones), but just try to reduce the bulking carbohydrates that tend to go hand in hand with our meals. By following this, very simple approach you should lose weight. Of course exercise will only help with your journey. Most importantly, do not be concerned if you have a splurge day. This is the bain of many dieters; they think their diet is ruined if they do. It isn’t, it will just affect the speed of your weight reduction. In short, it’s no big deal; we all deserve a treat every now and then.

Watch the video of Dr. Nigel Harris’s research findings here

References:

http://www.3news.co.nz/Researchers-push-high-fat-diet-for-weightloss/tabid/420/articleID/294228/Default.aspx#ixzz2QlDr6jku
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/04/calorie-labels-inaccurate-experts-say/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lustig-md/sugar-toxic_b_2759564.html
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/02/04/calorie-labels-inaccurate-experts-say/

Salmon is considered one of nature’s super foods as it is rich in the essential fatty acids EPA & DHA. DHA in fish oil is a major structural component in our brains, and low levels are associated with all sorts of mental issues such as depression and neurological decline. Try this Mediterranean salmon recipe, it’s delicious, nutritious and easy to make.

(Serves 4)

Ingredients

4 Salmon fillets

2-3 Tablespoons Olive oil

Salt and pepper to taste

1 lemon, thinly sliced

½ onion, thinly sliced

2 roughly chopped tomatoes

¼ cup olives

½ cup crumbled feta cheese

Directions

1. Preheat the oven to 250 ºC

2. In a baking pan, place the salmon fillets skin side down and drizzle with olive oil and sprinkle with salt and pepper.

3. On each salmon fillet, make layers of lemon slices, onion slices and tomatoes.

4. Layer the remaining salmon fillets in the same way.

5. Sprinkle olives and feta over each fillet.

6. Put the salmon in the oven, and cook for 30 minutes, or until brown on top.

7. Serve with our super antioxidant salad.

Staying healthy is more than just not getting cancer or having a heart attack, we need to keep our mental faculties as well. With this in mind I asked Dr Laurence Eyres to write a summary article on brain health nutrition. As you can see from his more technical article, there is a lot to it – and this is really just an introduction.

People live a lot longer now (in the last 10 years our life expectancy increased by 3!), and with that increased lifespan we have seen a massive increase in the diseases of aging and the associated cognitive decline.  This is only going to become more of a concern as the new field of longevity research really takes off and we can add 5, 10 even potentially several decades to our normal lifespan.

If you think longevity research is ‘pie in the sky’, well, it’s not anymore. Even as recent as the 1990’s research into longevity was a career killer. You couldn’t have managed much work through the snickering. But people have stopped laughing. Many of you will recall the reason that resveratrol was initially famous was due to its longevity effect on the lifespan of a variety of organisms. An ancient gene (common to virtually all life) called Sirt1 is thought to be responsible for this effect, and resveratrol activates this gene in animal studies. Beyond longevity, the activation of this gene was also associated with a reduction in the risk of getting many of the diseases of aging as well. Glaxo Smith Kline paid a billion dollars for a company focussed on researching this area in the hope of developing a patentable drug that could do the same thing, and the business of longevity was firmly established.

For longevity to be of any benefit, we really need to ensure that we not only live longer, but we are healthy and active into old age as well. Of particular concern, and the focus of today’s articles is brain health and memory.

A quick summary of Laurence’s nutritional recommendations include marine sourced Omega-3’s (with daily requirements based on age). Don’t be fooled into thinking plant based Omega-3’s (such as ALA,) are as good, most of the research into the benefits of Omega-3’s are from marine not plant sources, and they are different. He also recommends certain vitamins and minerals at various life stages, such as pregnancy, and singles out antioxidants such as vitamin E as well as polyphenols as playing important roles in brain health and memory retention. Polyphenols are a group of antioxidants common in plants, and found in high quality olive oil (good for drizzling on salads) as well as products like our Res-V.

Lecithin is a very important substance, as it contains the phospholipids phosphatidylcholine and phosphatidylserine. Without getting technical (for more detail read Laurences article), it is thought that phosphatidylcholine is more important for the developing brains of children while phosphatidylserine is more important as we get older. In fact, studies of phosphatidylserine suggest that supplementation in humans supports concentration and memory retention in aging brains.

Beyond nutrition…what can we do to keep our brains young?

Brain plasticity and blood supply are two key areas for looking after brain health into old age. Plasticity is our brains ability to modify itself in response to its environment. Simply by doing new things we can create changes in our brains, this occurs at the molecular level in a matter of hours and at the cellular level, via the connections (synapses) between our neurons (brain cells) in a matter of weeks.

The second part is called ‘neurogenesis’. It used to be thought that you had a certain number of brain cells – and that was it. In the 1990’s we learned that this is not the case, neurogenesis is the process by which new brain cells are created. This process takes weeks to months.

So, to maintain a healthy brain into old age- we need plasticity. We can achieve this though mental and physical exercise. Much of this research is recent, and comes from studies on mice. In 2009 neuroscientist Daniel Blackmore discovered that exercise makes a big difference in in the decline in the number of neural stem cells as mice age (stem cells can turn into other types of cells, as needed). Quite remarkably, he demonstrated that physical exercise could bring a 1 year old mouse’s neural stem cells back to the level of a 6 month old mouse. That’s a massive difference when you consider that mice generally only live two years or so. I doubt humans can achieve the same percentage increase, but physical exercise is likely highly beneficial for aging brains, increasing blood flow alone is thought to be beneficial.

The amounts of time spent doing physical and mental exercise is not too excessive. While any such activity will have benefits, the amounts I have seen used in a very recent human study amounted to just 3 hours of each per week.

Human longevity is now a bona-fide area of research. Initially, gains will be a few years, but eventually …who knows? What we know for sure is that there is no point living longer if we can’t remain healthy and active. I hope the brain nutrition advice from Laurence, as well as the advice in this article gives you something to think about. I should probably have ended with a Sudoku puzzle… to get you started.

When it comes to good nutrition for humans, it all begins with the mother. Sufficient omega-3, folic acid, iron and iodine are all essential for the baby and are present in breast milk and are added to infant formulas.

At different stages of our life there are different recommendations and requirements for total daily dietary intake of nutrients; this includes during infancy, pregnancy, adulthood and old age. In this article we’ll explore the use of antioxidants, lecithin, polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and notably DHA (from fish oil) and the role these play in brain health.

The role of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in the body

PUFAs are used in the body in a variety of conditions, such as skin diseases and cardiovascular disorders. One particular area of interest is its role in brain health and its ability to protect and stabilize the neuronal membrane (which wraps and protects our neurons) in health and disease. PUFAs – particularly DHA – are necessary for both the development and stability of brain cells, but another aspect to consider is the optimal ratio of PUFAs as either a food supplement or treatment.

The acceptable daily intake (ADI) for omega-3 is as follows:  The ADI is for maintenance of normal functions. Note that we need more than the ADI for a marked effect, hence our recommendations.

The effects of PUFAs on brain function can be divided into several different categories with important functions. (NB Omega-3 is also vital for eye health.)

The role of antioxidants for brain health

Antioxidants are believed to protect against the general effects of ageing. Vitamin E, for example, which is found in vegetable oils, nuts and green leafy vegetables, has been linked (in mice) with the retention of memory into old age, and also with a longer lifespan.

The brain, in particular, is peculiarly susceptible to oxidative damage. It consumes a lot of energy and the reactions that release this energy also generate oxidising chemicals.While oxidation reactions are an important and normal part of life, these chemicals can also cause damage to our cells.

Brain tissue contains a great deal of oxidisable material – particularly in the fatty membranes which surround our nerve cells. In fact these comprise 60% fat, 25% of which is DHA (one of the key components of fish oil) .

One group of antioxidants is called polyphenols (found in high quality extra virgin olive oil, as well as supplements such as Res-V) . Polyphenols have been shown in rodents to reduce oxidative damage and to boost the ability to learn and retain memories. In particular, these chemicals affect changes in response to different types of stimulation in the hippocampus (a part of the brain that is crucial to the formation of long-term memories, and which is the region most affected by Alzheimer’s disease).

Though the way antioxidants work in the brain is not well understood, it is likely they protect the synaptic membranes. Synapses are the junctions between nerve cells, and their action is central to learning and memory. These are the most fragile parts of the brain and many of the nutrients associated with brain function are known to affect transmission at the synapses.

Lecithin: an interesting mixture of phospholipids

Lecithin is a fatty substance which is found in high concentrations in our cell membranes and is required by every living cell of the body. Lecithin is both water and oil soluble and it regulates the movement of fats and nutrients entering and leaving the cell – much like a traffic controller. Lecithin also contains the phospholipids – phosphatidylcholine and some phosphatidylserine (PS).

Phospholipids are a class of lipids that comprise the major components of cell membranes. Phospholipids are lipid compounds that have phosphate ‘heads’ and fatty acid ‘tails’ which align themselves in polar opposition to one another to make up the double layer, or bilayer, of a cell membrane.

Hydrophilic means water loving.

Hydrophobic means water repelling.

Diagram of the phospholipid bilayer which shows the ‘heads’ and ‘tails’ of the fatty acids that make up our cell membranes.

Lecithin is required for a whole range of body functions, including infant and foetal development and as an aid in reproduction; it’s also essential in keeping the liver and gall bladder healthy as well as for heart health.

Lecithin has been used for many years by the food industry as an important food additive and it can be extracted from soybean, sunflower or canola oils. It is also found in egg yolks, beef, buttermilk and in some marine organisms. It is calculated that the mean intake of all types of phospholipids from our diet is around 2-8 g per day.

The body uses lecithin both for the proper formation of bile (the body’s main emulsifying compound which is released from the gall bladder), and as an emulsifying agent itself. Lecithin helps the body use and absorb fat-soluble nutrients, such as Vitamins A, D and E. It’s also an important precursor to the main neurotransmitter, acetylcholine, which plays an important role in memory and muscle control. Myelin sheaths which wrap around our neurons and protect the brain, spine and thousands of nerves in our body, are nearly two-thirds lecithin . Phosphatidylserine (or PS) is a naturally occurring phospholipid and as mentioned earlier, one of the components of lecithin. While PS is important for the basic maintenance of all cell membranes, it is found in a relatively higher concentration in brain cells.

The predominance of phosphatidylserine in brain cell membranes points to its role in an assortment of nerve cell functions – most importantly, neurotransmitter release and synaptic activity. Clinical studies strongly suggest its ability to support and improve brain functions such as mental concentration and memory retention which typically begin to decline with age. Recent clinical trials have also shown an improvement in cognition and memory in ageing people by the daily administration of phosphatidylserine.

Summary:

A dietary intake which includes a good range of healthy fats, such as those listed, is essential for optimal brain health. Often we may meet the adequate daily intake, but this is unlikely to provide us with what we need to reduce the damage to our cells and combat any potential degenerative health conditions. While a healthy diet is important, smart supplementation can also go a long way to helping you achieve better brain and body health.

Dr. Laurence Eyres FNZIFST, Chairman of Oils and Fats Specialist Group

Those of you who have been following the life of resveratrol, which is probably most of you, will be aware of the many benefits linked to this amazing natural substance.

I started the resveratrol industry in New Zealand and was one of the very first globally in 2005. The early resveratrol studies were carried out on mice and demonstrated all manner of benefits. In fact, the reason resveratrol became so famous was because of the unusually diverse array of benefits which led to many in the media labelling it a ‘miracle substance’. I have never found such labels overly helpful, but the list is certainly impressive.

Amongst the more interesting early mouse studies were;

• Longevity in mice fed resveratrol, around 15%
• Resveratrol protected against the negative effects of obesity in mice (relevant to diabetes research)
• Resveratrol protects the neurological and motor functions of mice into old age
• Reduction in risks of getting various cancers
• Protection against the damaging effects of strokes
• And my personal favourite…mice fed resveratrol could run twice as far on treadmills

This is by no means a complete list, just some of the studies that were interesting to me at the time. Resveratrol was even labelled a ‘fountain of youth’.

Dr David Sinclair (a professor at Harvard medical school) conducted some very famous early research and co-founded a company called Sirtris, which was setup to make drugs out of modified resveratrol (no one can patent a natural substance, so they had to modify it). Sirtris was bought by GlaxoSmithKline for around a billion NZ dollars.

There has been an awful lot of noise about resveratrol in the media since then because of the dramatic and diverse range of benefits exhibited in mice (because humans and mice share 90% of the same diseases). It wasn’t long before the cosmetic industry caught up with the hottest new anti-aging ingredient and today it is found in many skin care products as well.

A couple of days ago I attended an interesting seminar on the major trends for ingredients in the United States for 2013; resveratrol was number one the list. That’s because the evidence initially demonstrated in mouse studies is now being replicated in human studies. Also, our understanding of resveratrol and exactly how it works is also getting much stronger….let me explain…

Humans and mice share gene called SIRT1. It has been linked (in animal studies) to longevity and to the prevention of the myriad (and terrifying) diseases of aging. It has been thought for a long time that the benefits of resveratrol were produced by its direct activation of this gene. However, there has been much debate about how, and some have said that they did not believe this was the case at all. It is one thing to know that feeding a substance to mice can prevent disease and increase lifespan, but it is another thing to prove this actually is happening in humans, and why. To prove a substance makes people live longer, well, you generally have to wait an entire human lifespan which is not very practical.

Dr David Sinclair and his team have just released a study which they say proves how resveratrol activates the SIRT1 gene. They found resveratrol uses an indirect method, which made it difficult to pin down. This paper is being published in the prestigious journal ‘Science’ and lends tremendous credence to the benefits of resveratrol, and the mechanism by which these benefits are achieved. The SIRT1 gene is activated during ‘calorific restriction’ in many animals (calorific restriction is a diet restricted to a minimal about of calories per day), and its effects are to increase lifespan and reduce disease in animal studies, even in our close evolutionary relatives – monkeys. The problem with this method of extending lifespan in humans is that we like food too much, and remaining on a super restrictive diet for the rest of your life is just too hard. Despite this, there are dedicated groups of people who follow this lifestyle in the pursuit of a few more healthy years.

It is theorised that SIRT1’s effect has an ancient evolutionary explanation. In times when an animal’s food supply was threatened, they ate less, thereby activating the Sirt1 gene which, in turn, caused the animal to live longer and to (hopefully) survive to better times to reproduce. Humans don’t really need this benefit now because we have near total control over our food supply, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have the benefits…because we still have the gene. It is an evolutionary hangover, and it may have other benefits as well.

I hope you are starting to see why this study is very important, if we can activate this gene by taking a simple, safe, cheap substance like resveratrol, then we may well life longer and stay healthier into old age. This is the current goal of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals in their attempt to create (and patent) a novel drug based on resveratrol. In the meantime, do what Dr David Sinclair says he does, and take resveratrol. While there is no certainty in life, sometimes you just have to look at the evidence and decide it is a very good bet. That’s how I have always viewed it anyway.

Daniel King MSc

A major study has just been released stating that a huge number of everyday things we use and take for granted as being safe, ranging from plastics to cosmetics and food actually contain substances that feminise boys and likely cause a great many of the diseases of modern life.

The landmark study has just been published by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on the health effects of a class of substances called ‘Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals’ (EDC’s). The endocrine system is a signalling system composed of glands and some organs that secrete hormones responsible for regulating many essential bodily functions. The list includes metabolism, weight control, appetite, sexual characteristics, growth, tissue function, sleep, moods and many other areas. The effects of these hormones last from hours to weeks. Is obvious from a list of effects that include whether we get fat, how we grow, whether we express feminine characteristics (or not), how our tissues develop and even our moods – there are serious consequences if it doesn’t work.

In a marked turnaround from the same report a decade ago the WHO now says many substances in our environment ARE likely responsible for disrupting this system. There is credible evidence now linking these chemicals to breast cancer, prostate cancer, infertility, birth defects, asthma and childhood leukaemia. The WHO report stated that in animal studies there was ‘very strong evidence’ they could interfere with thyroid hormones, which are associated with brain damage, stunted intelligence, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and thyroid cancer. Chemicals in plastics are ‘feminising’ young boys and causing girls to develop breasts before the age of 10. The effects of these substances are likely to worsen during pregnancy, as the chemicals have an effect on the expression of genes, which can lead to birth defects and other issues. Later in life, they can lead to breast and prostate cancers, and almost certainly many others.

We have been consistently told by the WHO and numerous other so-called regulatory agencies (like the FDA in the United States) that levels of these substances in humans are too low to affect our health. This now appears to be incorrect, and similarly to the ridiculous high bar they set before a pharmaceutical drug is recalled, we have the same situation with these products. The regulatory agencies consistently act in the best interests of giant businesses, and our health always comes second. No one wants to rock the boat, unless they are backed into a corner, the spotlight is on them and the old excuses involving ‘plausible deniability’ no longer work. They have created a regime, whereby, when a major problem is identified through numerous studies … no one really wants to look too hard, heck, you might find something. And if you do, then you might have to do something about it.

We have all wondered for a long time why all these ‘lifestyle’ diseases are infecting our populations, diabetes, cancers, heart disease, the swag of brain derailments that keep drug companies in business with antidepressants and amphetamine like substances like Ritalin. This is not to say that these substances are the only cause, they are not, but they are a major contributing factor. Some people will not get sick, and it is likely that someone else, perhaps, with another risk factor or a genetic predisposition will get sick. It’s this kind of ambiguity that allows the chemical companies responsible for these substances to make excuses, such as the statement from the American Chemistry Council and the International Council of Chemical Associations that both argue the WHO document ignores the role played by other factors such as lifestyle.

In the last hundred years we have invented a vast amount of new substances, the substances were all put on the market with flimsy safety data obtained from short term unrepresentative trials (or most likely, no trials whatsoever) that, in no way identify the real risk of long term, low level exposure in humans. Once on the market, the rules are abruptly changed. The bar representing the ‘burden of proof’ stating that that the products are unsafe, is raised to lofty heights, and so the products stay on the market, poisoning us all.

So, how ubiquitous are these substances? This is the really difficult part, they are literally everywhere. They are in flame retardants in your carpet, curtains and couch coverings. They are in your cosmetics, perfumes and hairsprays. They are in the linings of tin cans and children’s toys, the plastic of your computer, phone, and credit cards. They are in agricultural chemicals, plastic knives and forks, soaps toothpastes and chopping boards… and they get into our system through contact, aging of plastics, dust, food, and through our skin.

You may have heard of Bisphenol A (BPA), the media ran stories on it last year because it is found in babies bottles. Anything that affects babies has an emotional appeal that obligates change, and now they are sold with a ‘BPA Free’ label. One type of product changed, that’s all. From this incomplete list you can see that the effect is likely that of a drop in the ocean. BPA is found in the laquer lining of canned food products.

Here are a couple of examples of the types of products involved and the diseases they are linked to;

Phalates: Found in cosmetics, children’s toys, PVC floorings, shower curtains and credit cards. Linked to; diabetes, asthma, male reproductive defects leading to infertility.

Bisphenol A (BPA): Found in many clear plastics, including baby bottles (most will say BPA free now), till receipts, tin can linings. Linked to; fertility problems, breast cancer, prostate cancer and heart disease.

Bromilated Flame retardants: Found in furniture coverings, carpets and rugs, even the cases of appliances such as mobile phones. Linked to; hyperactivity, learning difficulties, low sperm count and difficulties becoming pregnant

Can we do anything about it?

The best we can hope for is damage control, minimising exposure by making small changes to our lifestyle, start with the low hanging fruit. You are not going to stop driving your car, using your computer or mobile phone, but you might look at your vast array of personal care products that you spray on every day. There are cosmetic options (for instance) that don’t contain parabens; a class of substances used as preservatives. Store food and drinks in glass where possible and buying some of your food from organic stores would also be a big help.

A quick Google search for ‘gender bending chemicals’ will find many articles already. I really didn’t know where to start with this article, the list of implicated substances, associated products – and their health effects are too large for a book, let alone an article. What I do know for sure is that this is only the start. Some regulatory bureaucrat somewhere finally lifted up a rock and looked under it, and said yes we have a real problem.

Daniel King MSc (hons)

It may surprise you to know that despite the medical profession doing their darndest to tell us that supplements and natural remedies don’t work, drug company researchers hover around countries like China, investigating anecdotal evidence that they do.  China’s history of herbal medicine goes back thousands of years, and while much of it is dubious, there are some real gems to be found. An interesting example I encountered involved a concentrated extract from a vine called Kudzu. 

Two thousand years ago it was known in China as the ‘drunkenness dispeller’. A few years ago, researchers from Harvard found that in a study of binge drinking students, it reduced alcohol consumption considerably. Other successful experiments have followed, and it has been available as a supplement for some time. In a relative void of assistance for people with binge drinking issues, it seemed to me at the time to be a low cost, safe option for people to (at least) try. I thought I would hear a lot more about it in the media, but that’s not the way things work. At the time I recall it being reported online as a ‘promising target for future drug research’. Really? I thought, why not just use it now.

Resveratrol has a similar story in many respects. Animal studies (mainly mice) into the benefits of resveratrol have demonstrated great potential,  anti-cancer, protection against age related cognitive decline, longevity, protection against the damaging effects of obesity, even benefits relating to exercise and movement – such as endurance and improved motor skills into old age. The potential for resveratrol as a treatment is massive, because humans and mice share 90% of the same diseases.

Of course it wasn’t long before the money came along. Dr David Sinclair (the most well-known resveratrol researcher) started a company called Sirtris pharmaceuticals. Early studies seemed very promising (although much has never been released) so much so that the drug company, GlaxoSmithKline bought Sirtris outright for around 700 million US dollars. Drug companies aren’t stupid, and I maintain that you don’t spend that kind of money unless you see pretty compelling evidence.

However, GlaxoSmithKline was not much interested in the benefits of resveratrol, in fact, that was probably the last thing they wanted out there in the market. You see, despite US lunacy and corruption allowing companies to patent the blueprint for life itself (our genes), no one is actually allowed to own (patent) the exclusive rights to a natural substance, and resveratrol is a natural substance. Just as no one owns vitamin C, no one has exclusive rights to the resveratrol molecule, not even GlaxoSmithKline.

If you harbour any doubts that drug companies executives would rather gouge their eyes out with a teaspoon that publish positive studies on resveratrol (which they can’t own), this quote from an excellent 2011 summary paper on the state of resveratrol research may clarify things somewhat;

‘Given the thousands of publications investigating resveratrol in laboratory models, it is rather surprising so few studies have evaluated the efficacy of resveratrol in humans. In part, this may be attributable to the pharmaceutical industry’s reluctance to promote resveratrol, or any natural compound, in combating chronic diseases which may be otherwise targeted through more profitable proprietary drugs ’ (1)

Before long reports from Sirtris were emerging that results were unsatisfactory, in my opinion that can only mean that their attempts to modify the resveratrol molecule in the hope of getting the same amazing results were failing. For GlaxoSmithKline to make money from the caper, they had to successfully modify the molecule so it was no longer natural, and patent it as their property. The ultimate goal of the research was to develop drugs for type 2 diabetes, cancer, and other diseases.

There have been so many positive studies in animals relating to cancer prevention, diabetes, brain health into old age that the potential for resveratrol is immense. A human double blind placebo controlled study released late last year demonstrated resveratrol benefitted memory in elderly, in fact, brain health as we age may become one of the most important of resveratrol’s benefits. A large study is currently recruiting people to examine the effects of resveratrol supplementation vs. Alzheimer’s disease, and an early stage lab study reported last week stated that researchers had identified the process which allows harmful clumps of protein to latch on to brain cells, causing them to die, and that an ingredient in green tea as well as resveratrol could disrupt this pathway. You can read about this here;

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10863828.

If you do read the Herald article, I would like you to note a couple of lines that you see virtually every single time a favourable supplement story is published in the mainstream media. It is usually written something like this ‘scientists say it is too soon to recommend people start taking (insert vitamin or natural substance)’, in this case green tea and resveratrol. It happens on TV, it happens in the papers, and my question is why?

Why is it always ‘too soon’?

Why, when study after study demonstrates massive potential combined with incredibly low risk is it too soon for people to take things into their own hands and use supplements to stay healthy? It is always ‘too soon’ until a drug company has something on the market then our useless, biased mainstream media – knowing full well where their next advertising dollar is coming from, talks it up like it’s an early Christmas. ‘Miracle drug!’ they shout. More on the ‘Miracle Drugs’ in a future article.

We live in a pharmaceutical world. Efforts are constantly underway to limit your access to supplements, and even free speech about supplements. The previous government tried to pass 497 pages of the most restrictive regulations in NZ’s history (the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill), we await Nationals response. The media does report on supplement benefits – sometimes, but even then the stories are spun to discourage people from using them. The media needs advertising dollars, and with the internet today, it’s a ruthless, fragmented advertising market. Who has the money makes the rules, and drug companies have an awful lot to spend. Even food products like Ribena are owned by drug companies. They are big spenders on advertising. I have been repeatedly told there is never any connection between the editorial and advertising departments of major media organisations, I suspect that’s a rule that gets broken when advertising spends are threatened.

We saw recently (March 2012) that TVNZ execs were hauled before parliaments commerce committee for allegedly warning Fair Go staff how to handle companies that advertise with TVNZ – reading between the lines, go easy on our big advertisers perhaps? Undeclared conflicts of interest are huge. I have stated previously we get a lot of news (including supplement reporting) from Reuters. Up until 2004 Sir Christopher Hogg was the non-exec chair of Reuters, at the same time he held the same role in GlaxoSmithKline.

I don’t know what the connection is today, but this undeclared conflict of interest is as bad as it gets in my opinion. It certainly means you have to question everything you hear or read. I guess that’s why this newsletter exists, to show you what you are not getting from the mainstream media, and to back it up with some examples. If you find our newsletter interesting and hopefully revealing, then please recommend them to a friend or family member. We all deserve to see the other side of the story; this is one of the few ways the truth gets out.

Daniel King MSc(hons)

Reference

(1) Resveratrol and health – A comprehensive review of human clinical trials: Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2011, 55, 1129–1141

There is no evidence that sunscreen protects you from Melanoma, none, zip. This is what Ian Wishart States in his book, Vitamin D : Is this the miracle vitamin? While I do not pretend to have read the thousands of papers on vitamin D, I have kept a keen eye on this. I have heard not one person in the scientific community challenge this statement and, if you watch the exceptional interview below (lan Wishart vs. Dr Jan Pearson, of the Cancer Society) she does not refute it either.

Isn’t that amazing? For decades we have been sold the slip, slop slap campaign to protect us against melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, but there was actually no evidence that it worked at all. For more than a decade now the evidence has been rolling-in, that vitamin D, produced when the sun falls on our skin, actually protects us. Despite this, dermatologists and the Ministry of Health tell us that there is ‘No safe level of sun exposure at all’. This message has likely caused huge numbers of deaths from preventable diseases, all due to a lack of vitamin D.

Humans and our primate ancestors evolved to spend considerably more time in the sun than we do today. While there is debate around exactly when we invented clothing, and the level of skin coverage (dependent on climate) there is no debate that our ancient ancestors received a lot more sunlight and made much more vitamin D than our indoor existences currently afford. Humans have an undeniable evolutionary history of safe, necessary and completely accidental vitamin D creation, and at levels that are likely much greater than today … yet a friend of mine whom I recommended take vitamin D supplements (she lives in Dunedin) was told by her doctor that she would only prescribe 3 months, because ‘we are unsure if vitamin D is safe for long term use’. Phooey.

High Vitamin D levels have been associated with lower rates of many cancers including bowel, breast, prostate, melanoma as well as debilitating diseases, including Alzheimer’s, asthma and allergies, autism spectrum disorders, heart disease, depression and the flu – even the very deadly pancreatic cancer that my father died of. This is not an exhaustive list, Vitamin D receptors are found in all our organs and it seems that it plays a significant role in keeping them healthy. There are (no doubt) other factors as to why we get these diseases, from genetic predisposition to lifestyle choices. One of the points Dr Jan Pearson makes in this video is that most of the studies are ‘associative’ not cause and effect ‘interventions’. So, what’s the difference?

Vitamin D vs. Sunscreen

There is a difference between intervention studies (i.e. giving people Vitamin D in an attempt to either treat or reduce risk of certain diseases) and studies of association (i.e. noting that people with high Vitamin D levels have lower risks of getting certain diseases). However, the point Ian makes is that the Cancer Society is happy to raise a heap of money selling sunscreen and promote its use, by claiming as a statement of fact that ‘sunscreen offers protection against melanoma’, while not telling you that there has never been a single credible peer reviewed study suggesting that it offers any protection against melanoma whatsoever. They have made the burden of proof for the health benefits of vitamin D significantly greater than the proof required for their own claims relating to sunscreen use, which based on current evidence, are simply false. That is an enormous double standard at the least. Yes, many of the benefits of vitamin D come from studies of association (some studies are actual interventions as well), but so to was the evidence that cigarette smoking causes cancer, another of the Cancer Society’s campaigns. Clearly, just as the associative evidence is unquestionable that cigarettes cause lung cancer, the health benefit claims relating to vitamin D, that also come from studies of association should be considered just as compelling.

The debate in the video highlights many of these points brilliantly, but I would to go a step further and look at the motive behind the message. Why, with a decade and a half of research saying otherwise, do the Ministry of Health, the Cancer Society and the Melanoma Foundation all say that ‘Vitamin D is only proven to be good for bones’ and they do not recommend raising the limit. Why?

There are several possible answers to this question. The Ministry of Health has absolutely no wish to promote the use of supplements. They have already tried to inflict on the supplements industry nearly 500 pages of regulations so onerous that no small business could reasonably comply, and while the supplements industry won that battle (vs. The Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill), it was just a battle, not the war. The bureaucracy hasn’t changed and won’t change. The supplements industry of ‘staying well’ is seen as a threat to the system and, to be blunt, is a threat to Big Pharma’s profits. They can’t sell drugs if you are not sick. Some Vitamin D studies have demonstrated that high Vitamin D levels may reduce rates of certain cancers by as much as 50%. When you consider what that does to profits from drug companies, consider that during the Herceptin debate (breast cancer drug) it was revealed some women had been privately paying up to $100,000 per year for treatment. There is enormous money at stake.

Who is to blame?

Medical regulatory authorities across the globe have been severely influenced by Drug companies to levels that undermine democracy itself. Perhaps you think our government is free of the influence of drug companies? WikiLeaks documents surfaced indicating US drug companies were directly threatening New Zealand’s chances of a free trade deal with the USA, if we didn’t pass the legislation they wanted (relating to Pharmac in this case). Hollywood and the music industry no doubt did something similar with the passing of Internet piracy laws in NZ recently (or we won’t make more films in NZ?). Did you vote for Hollywood or a drug company to be your representative in the last election?

I think the cancer charities do some good work and have good people. It is counter intuitive to think that they might not always be putting our interest first. The issue I think comes down to entrenched positions and the fact they are often run by doctors who move lock step with the Ministry of Health. As Ian points out, these charities also have conflicts of interest over funding. They have spent a fortune selling the messages ‘stay out of the sun’ and statements of fact such as ‘sunscreen prevents melanoma’ these messages have been sold to us for decades. What would happen to them, to their funding, to the jobs and reputations of their senior experts if they came out and said ‘we were wrong, looks like the stay out of the sun message may have caused thousands of unnecessary cancer deaths in NZ, sorry about that !’. People have trusted them, donated money and time. Personally I think that would be the end of them and it would also further damage trust in a medical establishment that has been backing them all the way. This is why we have seen huge resistance to change in NZ. Those entrenched positions will either be defended to the death, or very slowly changed without fanfare.

I strongly urge you to watch this debate below, its just 10 minutes.

Dr Jan Pearson appeared stuck in the headlights of truth and had nowhere to run. She was put on the spot by an extremely well informed and sharp Ian Wishart. Ian offered an olive branch by suggesting the Cancer Society does some good work, and he is right. There are people who are helped by these Cancer Societies and Foundations; it’s just that the advice they give is entrenched, they are highly reluctant to back down, and worse than just being wrong, their messages sometimes do more harm than good.

For the record, research suggests that sunscreens do offer protection against slow growing and less deadly cancers that are easily treatable, as well as protection vs. skin aging, just not the real killer and the focus of TV campaigns – melanoma. One last point of great interest to me is that the fact that although Kiwis have the highest rates of melanoma in the world – we have amongst the lowest death rates from it. This observation was one of the key reasons that vitamin D started getting so much attention.

Daniel King MSc