Smart Health Choices

Getting the lead out of Mexican Pottery

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:17:00 +0000

FROM Ben Barber Getting Toxic Lead Out of Mexico's Pottery Thousands of Mexican potters have been unwittingly poisoning their families and customers with toxic lead for 400 years by using lead-based ceramic glazes which lend a lustrous glow to pots, cups and plates. A team of U.S. and Mexican health and other experts has now launched the first skirmish in a war on lead: 100 pottery-making families have replaced the lead glaze with lead-free glazes newly created by Mexican researchers. But tens of thousands of potters are still reluctant to change their old ways and many continue to use lead, saying: "It was good enough for our ancestors so it should be good enough for us." The effects of lead are subtle -- mainly felt on people who suffer a loss of 10 to 20 points on their IQ when their blood lead levels reach around 35 micrograms per deciliter. The United States on May 16 cut the acceptable limits for lead in children from 10 micrograms to five per deciliter of blood -- the first change in 20 years. But children in pottery-making families have blood lead up to 10 times higher than the new U.S. limits. "It's hard to explain to them," said Bret Ericson with the Blacksmith Institute, which is carrying out the $120,000 program to end the use of lead glaze in Mexico. "The challenge is people have a cultural attachment to lead glaze. We need to educate people on the dangers." He noted that after the United States removed lead from gasoline in the 1970s and 1980s, the average IQ score rose around 10 points. Some 50,000 potters in Puebla, Michoacan, Oaxaca and other states were using lead glazes when the Mexican government asked Blacksmith to tackle the issue about four years ago. Their combined households total 250,000 people -- all at risk from acute exposure to lead. Children and adults get lead through dust at the kilns and home workshops. They also ingest lead from food stored in lead-glazed pots, especially acidic foods such as salsas which release lead from ceramics. The effort to get lead out of pottery, funded by the Annenberg and Vista Hermosa Foundations, is just the start of a long war to help millions of people at risk from lead pottery in Latin America and the Middle East. Once a successful model is created in Mexico, it will be applied in other countries. Four years ago, lead-free glaze cost more than the leaded glaze. Then researchers cut the cost of lead-free glazes below leaded ones. But the new glaze needed higher temperature than the traditional kilns produce -- meaning it would require $10,000 to rebuild each kiln. Last year, researchers produced a lead-free glaze that works at the same low temperature as lead glazes, eliminating the need to rebuild kilns. The goal is to convert potters to lead free boron-based glazes developed by Mexican universities and industries. The Mexican government asked Blacksmith to get lead out of pottery after the NGO came down to work on the problem of lead pollution in car battery recycling operations. At one news conference, blood was taken from a potter and from a journalist: the potter had nearly 35 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood -- seven times as much as the journalist. If a ceramics maker switches to non-lead glazes, the project cleans up the home and the kiln, removes contaminated soil, and may apply concrete or paint over contaminated surfaces. It is also good business to get rid of lead - the non-lead glaze was more appealing in color and appearance than lead glazes when shown to shoppers. The project helps potters market lead-free ceramics in the United States by listing them on a website -- alfareria.org -- set up by Blacksmith and its Mexican government partner, Fondo Nacional para el Fomento de las Artesanias (FONART). About 30 percent of Mexico's urban population use glazed ceramics for cooking and food storage, meaning the risk of lead poisoning goes far beyond the 250,000 families engaged in pottery production. Blood-lead concentrations are 30 to 40 percent higher in families using glazed ceramics. But where the project has begun its work of community education, blood monitoring, kiln replacement, and removal of lead, blood-lead levels have dropped by half in three months. Ben Barber is a freelance journalist and communications consultant for Blacksmith Institute.

Cracked: Health secrets of walnuts... They are loaded with antioxidants that fight disease

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:03:00 +0000

By Louise Eccles
12th January 2012

The festive season may be over, but there is at least one Christmas treat worth making a habit of eating throughout the year – walnuts.

Scientists have discovered they are the healthiest nuts to eat as they are loaded with antioxidants.

Snacking on as few as seven a day could help ward off disease and lower cholesterol, they claim.
Healthiest: Walnuts contain more antioxidants than any other kind of nuts, scientists have discovered

Healthiest: Walnuts contain more antioxidants than any other kind of nuts, scientists have discovered

Walnuts contain very high levels of polyphenol, an anti-oxidant which can protect the body from molecules which damage tissue.

Walnuts contained the most polyphenol out of a list of nine commonly eaten types of nuts, tests revealed.

Brazil nuts and pistachios were close behind, and cashews and hazelnuts had slightly lower levels of antioxidants.

Professor Joe Vinson, from the University of Scranton, Pennsylvania, said walnuts inhibit the growth of ‘bad’ cholesterol.

He said: ‘Walnuts rank above Brazil nuts, pistachios, pecans, peanuts, almonds, macadamias, cashews and hazelnuts.

‘Walnuts had the highest free and total polyphenols in both the combined and roasted samples’.

Despite the ‘superfood’ potential of walnuts, peanuts are the favourite with consumers and account for 45 per cent of the nuts bought in Europe.
Popular: Peanuts are Europe's most widely eaten nut, accounting for 45 per cent of the continent's nut market

Popular: Peanuts are Europe's most widely eaten nut, accounting for 45 per cent of the continent's nut market

The antioxidants in peanut butter were considerably lower than in roasted peanuts, the study found.

Dr Vinson said many people were put off by the seemingly high fat content of nuts, but they contained only polyunsaturated and monosaturated fats, rather than artery-clogging saturated fats.

He added: ‘Nuts are high in ﬁbre, low in saturated fats, high in beneﬁcial unsaturated fats, and very high in antioxidants.

‘Nuts are a nutritious snack providing both nutrients and bioactive antioxidants which provide significant health beneﬁts.’

Advising consumers to keep the portion size small, Dr Vinson said it takes only about seven walnuts a day to get the potential health benefits.

The antioxidants found in raw walnuts were 15 times as powerful as Vitamin E, which can protect the body against damaging natural chemicals.

Roasted cashew nuts contained just double the level found in Vitamin E.

Nuts have long been promoted as a nutritious snack by health professionals.

Pecans contain around a sixth of the recommended daily allowance for zinc, which is vital for the functioning of white blood cells that fight bacteria and viruses, including colds and flu.
Unshelled: Brazil nuts are a rich source of selenium, a nutrient that helps protect cells and could prevent certain types of cancer

Unshelled: Brazil nuts are a rich source of selenium, a nutrient that helps protect cells and could prevent certain types of cancer

A couple of handfuls of shelled pistachios have more potassium than a banana. This can help control blood pressure, as part of a healthy diet, because potassium blunts the effects of salt.

And the brazil nut is the richest source of selenium, a nutrient that helps protect cells.

Higher selenium levels have been linked with a reduced risk of certain cancers such as bladder and prostate.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2085405/Cracked-Health-secrets-walnuts--They-loaded-antioxidants-fight-disease.html#ixzz1jNkrjO00

Bromelain-Effective Cancer Fighter

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:38:00 +0000

Sat, December 24th 2011 at 11:0 am by Sayer Ji

by Sayer Ji

Every once in a while a study pops up on the National Library of Medicine's bibliographic database known as MEDLINE that not only confirms the therapeutic relevance of natural substances in cancer treatment, but blows the conventional approach out of the water.

Published in 2007 in the journal Planta Medica, researchers found that an enzyme extracted from pineapple stems known as bromelain was superior to the chemo-agent 5-fluorauracil in treating cancer in the animal model. The researchers stated:

"This antitumoral effect [bromelain] was superior to that of 5-FU [5-fluorouracil], whose survival index was approximately 263 %, relative to the untreated control." [view entire study]

What is so remarkable about this research is that 5-FU has been used as a cancer treatment for nearly 40 years, and has been relatively unsuccessful due to its less than perfect selectivity at killing cancer, often killing and/or irreversibly damaging healthy cells and tissue, as well.

As a highly toxic, fluoride-bound form of the nucleic acid uracil, a normal component of RNA, the drug is supposed to work by tricking more rapidly dividing cells -- which include both cancer and healthy intestinal, hair follicle, and immune cells -- into taking it up, thereby inhibiting (read: poisoning) RNA replication enzymes and RNA synthesis.

The material safety data sheet (MSDS) for 5-FU states:

The dose at which 50% of the animals given the drug die is 115mg/kg, or the equivalent of 7.8 grams for a 150 lb adult human.

Keep in mind that a 7.5 gram dose of 5-FU, which is the weight of 3 pennies, would kill 50% of the humans given it. Bromelain's MSDS, on the other hand, states the LD50 to be 10,000 mg/kg, or the equivalent 1.5 lbs of bromelain for a 150lb adult, which means it is 3 orders of magnitude safer!

How then, can something as innocuous as the enzyme from the stem/core of a pineapple be superior to a drug that millions of cancers patients over the past 40 years have placed their hopes of recovery on, as well as exchanging billions of dollars for?

There is a well-known effect associated with a wide range of natural compounds called "selective cytotoxicity," whereby they are able to induce programmed cell death (the graceful self-disassembly known as apoptosis) within the cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells and tissue unharmed. No FDA-approved chemotherapy drug on the market today has this indispensable property (because chemicals don't have behave like natural compounds), which is why cancer treatment is still in the dark ages, often destroying the quality of life, and accelerating the death of those who undergo it, often unwittingly. When a person dies following conventional cancer treatment it is all too easy to "blame the victim" and simply write that patient's cancer off as "chemo-resistant," or "exceptionally aggressive," when in fact the non-selective nature of the chemotoxic agent is what ultimately lead to their death.

Keep in mind that bromelain, like all natural substances, will never receive FDA drug approval. Capital, at the present time, does not flow into the development of non-patentable (i.e. non-profitable) cancer therapies, even if they work, are safe and extremely affordable. This is simply the nature of the beast. Until we compel our government to utilize our tax dollars to invest in this type of research, there will be no level playing field in cancer treatment, or any treatment offered through the conventional medical establishment, for that matter. Or, some of us may decide to take our health into our own hands, and use the research, already freely available on possible natural cancer treatment, to inform our treatment decisions without the guidance of the modern day equivalent of the "priest" of the body, the conventional oncologist, who increasingly fills the description of an "applied pharmacologist/toxicologist" - nothing more, nothing less.

Drug Research Routinely Suppressed, study authors find

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:53:00 +0000

Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2012

By John Fauber | McClatchy-Tribune News Service

MILWAUKEE — Drug research, even from clinical trials sponsored by the federal government, routinely is suppressed, harming patients and increasing health care costs, according to new data highlighting an ethical controversy that continues to plague the field of medicine.

"The current situation is a disservice to research participants, patients, health systems and the whole endeavor of clinical medicine," according to an editorial accompanying the papers published in the British Medical Journal.

Turning up the heat, the journal, in an editorial, posed a remedy that is likely to get the attention of doctors who take part in clinical trial research.

"Concealment of data should be regarded as the serious ethical breach that it is, and clinical researchers who fail to disclose data should be subject to disciplinary action by professional organizations," wrote Richard Lehman of the University of Oxford, and Elizabeth Loder, a BMJ editor.

The BMJ papers are the latest thunderbolts in a gathering storm that has swirled around medicine in recent years. The revelations add to the calls for reform in the field.

"It is grossly unethical and an insult to the integrity of medicine when this is allowed to occur and go unpunished," said orthopedic surgeon Chuck Rosen, president of the Association for Medical Ethics.

From diabetes drugs to spine surgery products, scandals involving concealed data have mounted. Consider the cases of two heart drugs that were the subject of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel stories:

For two years, Schering-Plough, the maker of the popular cholesterol drug Vytorin, sat on the results of a clinical trial showing the drug provided no benefit in improving artery health. During that time the drug was heavily marketed to consumers in TV ads. The situation came to light in 2008 after a congressional investigation was launched.

In 2003, a clinical trial of Multaq, a drug that treated irregular heartbeat, was stopped because more patients who were getting the drug were dying than those who were getting a placebo. However, the study was not published until five years later.

In 2007, an independent analysis of the diabetes drug Avandia found that the drug increased heart attacks and cardiovascular deaths.

Steve Nissen, the lead author of the analysis, said 35 of the 42 studies he looked at were unpublished and were obtained only because a court case required the drug's maker, GlaxoSmithKline, to turn over the data.

"Had the medical community known about this hazard, Avandia would likely never have become the world's largest selling diabetes drug," said Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. "Our ability to provide the best care for patients is dependent on access to all of the available clinical trial evidence, regardless of whether the study showed favorable results."

While much of the criticism of suppressed medical research has been aimed at drug companies, research data from medical devices also has been delayed, especially when it reflects negatively on a product.

Critics pointed to Medtronic's bone-growth stimulating back surgery product known as Infuse.

Last year, the Journal Sentinel reported that the results of a crucial clinical trial of the product were not published until nearly five years after the trial had to be halted because unwanted bone was growing around the spines of the trial volunteers. The paper was written by surgeons who have received millions of dollars in royalties from other Medtronic spine products.

What's more, the authors of the belated paper downplayed the bone overgrowth, saying it did not harm patients, a claim that was flatly refuted by a doctor interviewed by the Journal Sentinel.

The doctor, an Oklahoma orthopedic surgeon, said two of his patients who were in the trial had to undergo additional surgery because the bone overgrowth was painfully impinging on nerve roots. One of the patients, a man who was in his 50s at the time, needed three operations - one for the implant, a second to remove the unwanted bone formation, and a third when the additional bone grew back yet again.

Independent research and Journal Sentinel stories since have noted that unpublished data showed that Infuse was linked to a variety of serious complications, including sterility in men and cancer.

The failure of the medical literature to report such findings "has been a major failure in our field," said Eugene Carragee, a Stanford University orthopedic surgeon and editor-in-chief of the Spine Journal. Last year, Carragee spearheaded an unprecedented independent analysis showing that Medtronic and a circle of orthopedic surgeons who have received millions of dollars in royalties from the company systematically has failed to report serious complications with the product.

Carragee said the BMJ analysis and its call for disciplinary action against offending doctors is "an important departure from the historical laissez-faire attitude of the recent past."

A surprising finding in the BMJ analysis was that serious lapses occurred even in clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health.

That research showed that less than half of NIH-funded clinical trials were published in a medical journal within 30 months of the completion of the trial and after 51 months, one-third of trials remained unpublished.

While industry-related profit motives may not be a factor in such cases, there are other possible explanations, said senior author Harlan Krumholz, a Yale University professor of medicine and investigative medicine and public health.

Sometimes researchers may get an unexpected finding that contradicts a position they have staked out, he said.

"It is a conflict of their academic beliefs," he said.

At the same time, medical journals may not want to publish negative findings, he said.

A second BMJ paper looked at clinical trials of drugs that already had received at least one Food and Drug Administration approval. In such cases a law requires the reporting within one year of the completion of the trial.

Despite the law, only 163 of 738 such trials, or 22 percent, had reported the results within a year, the paper found.

Lead author Andrew Prayle, a researcher with the University of Nottingham, said he hoped the finding would spur more researchers to post summaries of the work at the NIH site, ClinicalTrials.gov.

John Fauber writes for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
©2012 the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/04/134756/drug-research-routinely-suppressed.html#storylink=cpy

Cholesterol Drugs Likely Poisoning Patients

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:28:00 +0000

Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Sayer Ji, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

A growing body of clinical research now indicates that the cholesterol-lowering class of drugs known as statins, is associated with over 300 adverse health effects -- research boldly flying in the face of national health policy, medical insurance premium guidelines, statin drug manufacturer advertising claims, and the general sentiment of the public, with approximately 1 in every 4 adult Americans over 45 currently using these drugs to "prevent heart disease."

The Cholesterol Myth

For well over 40 years, statin drugs have successfully concretized a century-old myth about the primary cause of heart disease: namely, that cholesterol "causes" plaque build up in the arteries, ultimately leading to obstruction of blood flow, and subsequent morbidity and mortality.

Indeed, the medical establishment and drug companies have been singing the praises of this "cholesterol myth," to the tune of 25 billion dollars in statin drug sales, annually.

While it is true that oxidized low-density lipoprotein is found within the atheromatous plaque that is found in damaged arteries, it is less likely a cause than an effect of heart disease. The underlying damage to the lining of the artery, which could be infectious, chemical, stress and/or nutritionally-related, comes before the immune response that results in plaque buildup there. Blaming LDL cholesterol for causing heart disease, is like blaming the scab for the injury that caused it to form, or, like blaming the band-aid for the scab it is covering -- this is, after all, the inborn and fatal flaw of allopathic medicine which focuses only on symptoms of disease, which it then -- fool-heartedly -- attempts to suppress by any chemical means necessary.

Death By Statins?

No one can deny that statins do exactly what they are designed to do: suppress cholesterol production and reduce measurable blood serum levels. The question is, rather, at what price do they accomplish this feat, and for what ultimate purpose?

With the National Cholesterol Education Program Guidelines, having been designed by "experts" on the payroll of statin drug manufacturers, requiring ultra-low levels to obtain a strictly theoretical and numerical definition of "health," statin drugs are guaranteed to receive first-line treatment status in the goal of the preventing and treating heart disease through lipid suppression.

What is at question here, is whether the unintended, adverse effects of this chemical class of drugs are less, the same or worse than the purported "cardiovascular" benefits they provide?

Fundamentally, statin drugs damage the muscles and nerves in the body -- so much so that a dose as low as 5 mg a day can kill a human. There are well over 100 studies demonstrating the myotoxic, or muscle-harming effects of these drugs, and over 80 demonstrating the nerve-damaging effects, as well.

When you consider that a vast proportion of our body is comprised of muscles and coordinating nerve systems, this drug has the potential to cause damage to the entire body, and undoubtedly does so universally, differing only in the matter of degree -- the damage occurring acutely in those at the tip of the iceberg, asymptomatically in the majority of others at the base.

Moreover, statin myotoxicity is not exclusive to skeletal muscle. If you consider that the heart is also a muscle, in fact, is our most tireless muscle, an obvious red flag should go up. It is a remarkable fact that it took over 40 years before the biomedical research and publishing fields were able to produce a human study, like the one published in the Journal of Clinical Cardiology in Dec. 2009, showing that statin drugs, despite billions of advertising/marketing dollars to the contrary, actually weaken the heart muscle.

These results, while disturbing, are to be expected given the well-known problem associated with statin drug use, namely, the inhibition of the mevalonate pathway necessary to produce the heart-essential nutrient co-enzyme Q10. Co-enzyme Q10 deficiency itself may be a major contributing cause to heart disease. There is also research that statin drugs deplete the body of the cardioprotective minerals (and associated mineral-protein complexes) zinc and selenium. This finding may also explain why rates of heart failure may be increasing in the general population given these drugs.

While the discovery that statin drugs, instead of preventing heart disease, likely contribute to it, is surprising and counter intuitive, it should not distract from the more disturbing discovery that they contribute to over 300 disease and/or adverse health effects.

Millions of statin drugs users around the globe are risking their lives on a bad bet that taking a magic chemical pill will reduce their risk of dying of a disease that is not caused by a lack of the drug. What is more likely to happen, however, is that the quality and duration of their lives will be reduced, profoundly, along with billions of dollars of squandered cash that could have been spent on authentically medicinal and cardioprotective foods, nutrients, minerals and vitamins.

In light of these findings, a very serious question is raised: are those who are party to the manufacture, promotion, administration and/or prescribing of this chemical class of drugs, in violation of the medical ethical principle of informed consent? And is this ethical violation, insofar as it results in injury to those who have been mislead and/or coerced to take these drugs, also a legal/criminal one?

GSK Fined over Illegal Experiments Killing 14 babies

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:49:00 +0000

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Anthony Gucciardi

Vaccine and drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has been fined 400,000 pesos (around the equivalent of $93,000) by an Argentinian judge for killing 14 babies during illegal lab vaccine trials that were conducted between 2007 and 2008.

In addition to killing the children and experimenting with human beings, the judge asserted that the corporation actually falsified parental authorizations so that babies could participate without legitimate parental permission.

Judge Marcelo Aguinsky made the decision after a report was released on the subject by the National Administration of Medicine, Food and Technology (ANMAT in Spanish). Since 2007, 15,000 children below the age of one from Mendoza, San Juan, and Santiago del Estero have been participating in the illegal research. These babies were recruited by GSK from poor families that attended public hospitals. It was found that of the 14 baby deaths, 7 died in Santiago del Estero; 5 in Mendoza; and 2 in San Juan.

GSK Recruited Doctors, Pressured Illiterate Parents into Signing Over Children

Currently, it is unknown how many babies suffered serious side effects, adverse reactions, or if this is truly the total death count. As with many other vaccinations such as Gardasil, the official death count continues to rise as leaked reports from the FDA and elsewhere continue to surface.

One pediatrician working at the public hospital when GSK began recruiting babies for their illegal human trials said that not only did GSK force illiterate parents into handing over their children, but they also ‘recruited’ several doctors working at the hospital into their cause.

Ana Marchese, a pediatrician at the Eva Perón children’s public hospital in Santiago del Estero, stated:

GSK Argentina set an protocol at the hospital, and recruited several doctors working there. These doctors took advantage of many illiterate parents whom take their children for treatment by pressuring and forcing them into signing these 28-page consent forms and getting them involved in the trials.

It is quite clear that GSK has zero regard for human health, morals, and will go to any length to experiment with their latest jab regardless of the casualties. Of the 15,000 babies that were reported to be a part of the illegal trials, many may suffer from life-altering illness and serious side effects.

Amazingly, many parents had no idea they were signing over the lives of their children to GSK, as they were completely illiterate. Meanwhile, GSK sells their latest shots and pharmaceutical drugs to United States consumers, raking in record profits each year as the second-largest drugmaker

Oral Steroids Linked To Vitamin D Levels

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:19:00 +0000

By Mary Elizabeth Dallas
Friday, September 30, 2011
HealthDay news image

FRIDAY, Sept. 30 (HealthDay News) -- People taking oral steroids double their risk for severe vitamin D deficiency, which can lead to bone disease or muscle weakness, a new study indicates.

Researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, in New York City, said steroids might increase levels of an enzyme that inactivates the vitamin, resulting in osteomalacia (softening of the bones), rickets (softening of bones in children) or clinical myopathy (muscle weakness). They recommended that physicians monitor vitamin D levels of patients being treated with oral steroids.

"When doctors write that prescription for steroids and they're sending the patients for lab tests, they should also get the vitamin D level measured," study author Dr. Amy Skversky, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Einstein and Montefiore Medical Center, in New York City, said in a news release from the university.

In conducting the study, published in the Sept. 28 online edition of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, researchers examined information compiled on more than 31,000 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2006.

Roughly 1 percent of those examined reported using oral steroids in the past month. Of those taking the drugs, 11 percent had severely low levels of vitamin D (defined as levels below 10 nanograms per milliliter of blood). Meanwhile, the study revealed that only 5 percent of those not taking the steroid had this vitamin deficiency.

The researchers noted the risk was most evident among participants under 18. These children and teens were 14 times more likely to have a severe vitamin D deficiency.

The study authors said that their findings did not apply to those using inhaled steroids.

SOURCE: Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, news release, Sept. 29, 2011

Vitamin D supplementation

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:23:00 +0000

Vitamin D3 supplementation is an effective alternative to UV exposure, provided adequate doses are taken.

Vitamin D needs

Vitamin D from both capsules and liquid is equally effective in treating vitamin D deficiency.

Much individual variation exists in response to supplemental vitamin D. The amount needed to raise and/or maintain blood serum levels for one person may not be enough for another. This is due to various factors such as age, weight, absorption, overall health, and amount of sun exposure. Recent research has determined that genetic variants are also a factor. 1

The only way to know for sure if a certain dosage is working for you is to have your vitamin D levels tested. Occasional monitoring of these levels will one determine what dose is right for them.
Current US Government recommended amounts

Adequate Intake for vitamin D represents the daily intake established by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) as sufficient to maintain bone health and normal calcium metabolism in healthy people. 2
FNB daily Adequate Intake (AI) for vitamin D

Children and adults up to the age of 70 years - 600 IU
Seniors 70+ years - 800 IU

Why these amounts are inadequate

US Government recommended Adequate Intake for vitamin D is too low to receive many of vitamin D's benefits.

The problem with current recommendations is that vitamin D influences a much wider array of physiological processes other than simply maintaining bone health and normal calcium metabolism. 3

For proper functioning, a healthy human body utilizes around 3,000-5,000 IU of vitamin D per day - indicating the current recommended intakes are not high enough to raise and/or maintain the vitamin D levels necessary for proper health. 4
Vitamin D Council recommended amounts

Based on the body's indicated daily vitamin D usage, Vitamin D Council recommends the following amounts of supplemental vitamin D3 per day in the absence of proper sun exposure. Due to the variable response discussed above, these are only estimated amounts.

Healthy children under the age of 1 years – 1,000 IU.
Healthy children over the age of 1 years – 1,000 IU per every 25 lbs of body weight.
Healthy adults and adolescents – at least 5,000 IU.
Pregnant and lactating mothers - at least 6,000 IU.

Additionally, children and adults with chronic health conditions such as autism, MS, cancer, heart disease, or obesity may need as much as double these amounts.
Tolerable Upper Intake Level

The US Government’s Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for vitamin D is set at 4,000 IU per day. While this is a step in the right direction from the previous UL at 2,000 IU per day, in some situations - such as with those who are obese - it may still be too low. An upper limit this low will also result in the prevention of adequate doses from being used in studies, greatly curtailing our understanding of vitamin D’s physiological effects as well as the true extent of its treatment potential. 5 6 7

Experts agree the Upper Limit for vitamin D should be raised to 10,000 IU per day.

Current expert consensus is that the US Government UL for vitamin D is too low and that it should be raised to 10,000 IU per day. 6 7 8 Since this is the amount one would naturally produce in their skin from sun exposure, it is considered safe. 9
Can I take more than 10,000 IU per day?

Wanting to raise vitamin D levels quickly, some people choose to supplement with amounts higher than 10,000 IU per day until target levels are achieved. When using vitamin D in these amounts, frequent monitoring of blood levels (preferably as supervised by your physician) as well as adequate magnesium intake are advised. Once blood serum levels are optimized, daily amount should be lowered to the amount necessary to sustain these levels. How much is needed will be unique to the individual, but it should be somewhere around 5,000 IU per day.
Which type of vitamin D?
Oil vs. powder

Vitamin D3 supplements come in two forms:

oil (cod liver oil-based) - fat-soluble vitamin D, includes liquid drops or gel caps.
dry powder (lanolin-based) - water-soluble vitamin D, includes capsules or tablets.

As far as we know, both water-soluble and fat-soluble vitamin D are equally absorbed and metabolized by the body, and are thus equally effective.
D2 vs D3

Read the Vitamin D Council's full position statement on vitamin D2 vs D3 here.

Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is the type of vitamin D the body naturally produces in the skin in response to sun exposure. Vitamin D2 is produced naturally when fungi (yeast or mushrooms) are exposed to ultraviolet light from the sun or to artificial UV light.

Scientific studies have demonstrated the bioequivalence of vitamin D2 and D3 in forming 25(OH)D when daily consumption of either precursor occurs over a minimum of 6 weeks 10. There is other evidence that the body has preference to D3 over D2, showing in these studies that the body more readily uses D3 when it has both forms in the body, and that D3 is more potent than D2 for producing 25(OH)D 11.

Although both D2 and D3 are effective for raising blood levels of 25(OH)D, the Vitamin D Council believes that vitamin D3, as produced in human skin, is the more natural precursor, and recommends supplementing with vitamin D3. Vitamin D3 supplements are not vegetarian and are not likely to be derived from American products. If an individual has ethical concerns over D3, D2 can be an effective replacement.

How should I take my vitamin D?

Both forms of vitamin D may be taken any time of day with, or without, any other food or supplement and still remain effective. If one is concerned about absorption, they may take their vitamin D at mealtime, though there is no evidence to indicate this is more effective.

Most people take their vitamin D daily, yet there are some who opt to take it weekly at a higher dose. Since the body is designed to store vitamin D for future use, a weekly interval should produce the same results as daily use. 12
Mixing sun exposure and supplements

It is okay to use both sun exposure and intermittent supplementation to receive one's vitamin D. Simply do not take any supplemental vitamin D on the days when proper sun exposure is received. Keep in mind that vitamin D taken orally bypasses the body's built in toxicity protection with that obtained by sun exposure. As with daily use of oral vitamin D, periodic monitoring of levels is advised.
Precautions

People with the following conditions should only take vitamin D with the guidance of a knowledgeable physician:

primary hyperparathyroidism
sarcoidosis
granulomatous TB
some cancers

Those with primary hyperparathyroidism should only use vitamin D when under the care of a knowledgeable endocrinologist.

Interactions with medications

There have yet to be any documented instances of an adverse interaction of vitamin D with any medications. There are, however, medications which have been found to interfere with the body’s proper utilization of vitamin D. They are: 2

Steroids - impair vitamin D metabolism, contributing to bone loss and development of osteoporosis.
Xenical®, alli™, Questran®, LoCholest®, and Prevalite® - reduce vitamin D absorption.
Dilantin®) - increases hepatic metabolism of vitamin D to inactive compounds.

Page last edited: 31 October 2011
References

Wang T.J., et al. Common genetic determinants of vitamin D insufficiency: a genome-wide association study. Lancet. 2010 July 17; 376 (9736): 180-188.
Food and Nutrition Board Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D. ods.od.nih.gov.
Grant WB, Holick MF Benefits and requirements of vitamin D for optimal health: a review. Altern Med Rev. 2005 Jun; 10 (2): 94-111.
Heaney R.P., Davies K.M., Chen T.C., Holick M.F., Barger-Lux M.J. Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing with cholecalciferol. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan; 77 (1): 204-10.
Hathcock, J. N. Shao, A. Vieth, R. Heaney, R. Risk assessment for vitamin D. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jan; 85 (1): 6-18.
Heaney, R. P. The Vitamin D requirement in health and disease. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 Oct; 97 (1-2): 13-9.
Vieth, R. Critique of the considerations for establishing the tolerable upper intake level for vitamin D: critical need for revision upwards. J Nutr. 2006 Apr; 136 (4): 1117-22.
Vieth, R. Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and safety. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 May; 69 (5): 842-56.
Vieth, R. Vitamin D toxicity, policy, and science. J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Dec; 22 Suppl 2V64-8.
Holick MF, Biancuzzo RM, Chen TC, Klein EK, Young A, Bibuld D, Reitz R, Salameh W, Ameri A, Tannenbaum AD. Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 18/12/2008; 93 (3): 677-81.
Heaney RP, Recker RR, Grote J, Horst RL, Armas LA. Vitamin D(3) is more potent than vitamin D(2) in humans. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 22/12/10; 96 (3): 447-52.
van Groningen L., Opdenoordt S., van Sorge A., Telting D., Giesen A., de Boer H. Cholecalciferol loading dose guideline for vitamin D-deficient adults. Eur J Endocrinol. 2010 Apr; 162 (4): 805-11.

Water Successfully Turned into a Commodity by the Bottled Water Industry

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:55:00 +0000

It turns out that much of the population is spending almost 2000 times more for water than they normally would. The typical price of bottled water is $3.79 per gallon while the typical price of tap water is $0.002 per gallon. You may think that the extra investment is worth it for the improved quality of bottled water, but in fact many bottled water brands may be just as damaging to your health as tap water. The bottled water industry is selling water for about a 1900% markup from what you’re paying at home while successfully turning this nearly free resource into a commodity. People are virtually throwing money away, all in the name of “purity”.
Don’t Fall Victim to False Advertising

Bottled water has long been recognized for being purer and safer than tap water, but why? The research shows that this common misconception is the result of massive advertising and marketing schemes. Bottled water companies claim to be “purer” than tap water with pictures of beautiful mountains on their labels from which we’re supposed to think the water comes from. The truth is that bottled water companies almost always don’t answer at least one of three quality qualifying questions.

1). Where does the water come from?

2). Is it purified? How?

3). Have tests found any contaminants?

According to an extensive study conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) , 9/10 of the best selling water brands including Pepsi’s Aquafina, Coca-Cola’s Dasani, Crystal Geyser, and 6 of 7 Nestle brands, don’t answer any those questions.

Many bottled water companies simply refuse to disclose information regarding their “pure” product. Another study performed by the EWG showed that of the 173 brands tested:

18% fail to disclose the location of their water source

32% say nothing about the treatment or purity of the water

Over 50% flunked EWG’s transparency test

Stop Paying a Premium Price for Mystery Water

After extensive research and testing, the Environmental Working Group recommends filtered tap water over any bottled water. If you buy bottled water, you’re paying a premium price for mystery water. As shocking as it may seem, the bottled water being purchased is actually municipal tap water almost 50% of the time. Not only that, but bottled water is also less regulated than tap water and oftentimes more contaminated.

Water Successfully Turned into a Commodity by the Bottled Water Industry

Can you imagine paying $1,500 for a pack of gum, or $5,000 for a smoothie? The truth is that no one would knowingly pay 1900 times more for a product than they need to, especially if that product is in your own kitchen. It may be time to chuck the plastic bottle and make them exclusive for traveling and bike rides.

It is important to remember that while bottled water may be ridiculously glorified above its own contamination, tap water is not so safe either. That is why it is essential to purchase a high quality water filter that can remove contaminants such as fluoride from your water. When filtering tap water, reverse osmosis is one preferred method in removing toxic substances such as fluoride and heavy metals. While reverse osmosis filters remove toxic substances from the water, it also removes natural minerals and nutrients. Luckily a simple solution to this would be to add certain minerals to the water, use a mineral filter, or even add apple cider vinegar to restore the natural nutrients back into the water.

Be careful of the bottled you choose to drink. Again the best option is to drink filter water or reverse osmosis tap water. You'll save yourself a bundle and take in to your body a healthier substance.

Vitamins Are safe; Drugs Are Not

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:52:00 +0000

Anthony Gucciardi

Over the past 27 years — the complete time frame that the data has been available — there have been 0 deaths as a result of vitamins and over 3 million deaths related to prescription drug use. In fact, going back 54 years there have only been 11 claims of vitamin-related death, all of which provided no substantial evidence to link vitamins to the cause of death. The news comes after a recent statistically analysis found that pharmaceutical drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the US.

In 2009, drugs exceeded the amount of traffic-related deaths, killing at least 37,485 people nationwide.

The findings go against the claims of mainstream medical ‘experts’ and mainstream media outlets who often push the idea that multivitamins are detrimental to your health, and that prescription drugs are the only science-backed option to improving your health. While essential nutrients like vitamin D are continually being shown to slash your risk of disease such as diabetes and cancer, prescription pharmaceuticals are continually being linked to such conditions. In fact, the top-selling therapeutic class pharmaceutical drug has been tied to the development of diabetes and even suicide, and whistle blowers are just now starting to speak out despite studies as far back as the 80s highlighting the risks.

Mainstream medical health officials were recently forced to speak out over the danger of anti-psychotic drugs, which millions of children have been prescribed since 2009. U.S. pediatric health advisers blew the whistle over the fact that these pharmaceuticals can lead to diabetes and even suicide, the very thing they aim to prevent. What is even more troubling is that half of all Americans will be diagnosed with a mental condition during their lifetime thanks to lack of diagnosis guidelines currently set by the medical establishment, of which many cases will lead to the prescription of anti-psychotics and other similar medications.

Covering up the side effects

In order to protect sales, the link between suicide and ant-psychotic drugs was completely covered up by Eli Lilly & Co, the makers of Prozac. Despite research stretching as far back as the 1980s finding that Prozac actually leads to suicide, the company managed to hide the evidence until a Harvard psychiatrist leaked the information into the press. The psychiatrist, Martin Teicher, stated that the American people were being treated like guinea pigs in a massive pharmaceutical experiment.

Greedy and often times prescription-happy doctors are handing out anti-psychotic medication like candy to adults and young children alike. In 2008, anti-psychotics became the top-selling therapeutic class prescription drug in the United States and grossing over $14 billion in sales.

Anti-psychotic drugs are not the only dangerous pharmaceuticals. The average drug label contains 70 side effects, though many popular pharmaceuticals have been found to contain 100 to 125. Some drugs, prescribed by doctors to supposedly improve your health, come with over 525 negative reactions.

Ritalin, for example, has been linked to conditions including:

Increased blood pressure
Increased heart rate
Increased body temperature
Increased alertness
Suppressed appetite

Perhaps the hundreds of negative side effects is part of the reason why the FDA announced last year that it is pulling more than 500 cold and allergy off the market due to health concerns. Prescription drugs kill more people than traffic accidents, and come with up to 525 negative side effects. Avoiding these drugs and utilizing high quality organic alternatives like whole food-based multivitamins and green super foods will lead to a total health transformation without harsh side effects and an exponentially increased death risk.

Sources:
Most recent year: Bronstein AC, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Green JL, Rumack BH, Giffin SL. 2009 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 27th Annual Report. Clinical Toxicology (2010). 48, 979-1178. The full text article is available for free download at http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2009%20AR.pdf

Flu Vaccine Pushed Despite Nerve Disease Link

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:04:00 +0000

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
August 22, 2011

The push for the H1N1-loaded 2011 flu vaccine has begun, with the CDC calling on healthcare workers and citizens around the world to become vaccinated. The call comes almost a full year after government health chiefs confirmed a link between the H1N1-containing seasonal flu vaccination and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome (see quoted article below for sourcing). Oftentimes leading to partial paralysis and death, The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the link following a report that 50% of doctors were refusing the swine flu vaccine over health concerns.

Organizations around the world have been speaking out against the H1N1 vaccine, speaking out against the risk of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). Even the mainstream media was forced to report on the association between the vaccine and GBS, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a ‘death link’. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.

“The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” she wrote in a letter to neurologists.

Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.Here is the report that I wrote on October 18, 2010 warning readers about the link between the flu shot and Guillain-Barre Syndrome:

Last year, you would be considered a medical “fraud” if you were to say that the swine flu vaccine may lead to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a deadly autoimmune disorder that can lead to partial paralysis and death. Now, however, even the government is admitting that the swine flu vaccine may cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement regarding the link between Guillain-Barre and the swine flu vaccine.

“Given the uncertainties in the available information and as with seasonal flu vaccines, a slightly elevated risk of GBS following H1N1 vaccines cannot be ruled out. Epidemiological studies are ongoing to further assess this possible association.”

Unfortunately, this announcement has come far too late. Thousands of vaccines have been given worldwide, with 14,000 children in Oklahoma as test subjects for the experimental first wave of the swine flu vaccines in 2009. There was no shortage of warnings regarding the vaccine, however, with about 50% of doctors refusing to be injected. Citizens and doctors alike were also warned numerous times that the swine flu vaccine had a direct link with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

Even mainstream media was forced to pick up on the link, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a “death link”. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.

The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use, she wrote in a letter to neurologists.

Of course the government was quick to claim that the vaccinations were completely safe, and had met all of the safety requirements.

The department of health was quick to go against Professor Miller and claim that the vaccines had passed all of the required tests: Appropriate trials to assess safety and immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.

If the government was confident regarding the safety of the vaccination, then why were manufacturers given complete legal immunity? This legal immunity made it impossible to sue the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine. Even if the vaccines were safe to begin with, wouldn’t this enhance carelessness of the manufacturers? With complete legal immunity, the makers could get away with anything.

Last year, you would be considered a medical “fraud” if you were to say that the swine flu vaccine may lead to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a deadly autoimmune disorder that can lead to partial paralysis and death. Now, however, even the government is admitting that the swine flu vaccine may cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement regarding the link between Guillain-Barre and the swine flu vaccine.

“Given the uncertainties in the available information and as with seasonal flu vaccines, a slightly elevated risk of GBS following H1N1 vaccines cannot be ruled out. Epidemiological studies are ongoing to further assess this possible association.”

Unfortunately, this announcement has come far too late. Thousands of vaccines have been given worldwide, with 14,000 children in Oklahoma as test subjects for the experimental first wave of the swine flu vaccines in 2009. There was no shortage of warnings regarding the vaccine, however, with about 50% of doctors refusing to be injected. Citizens and doctors alike were also warned numerous times that the swine flu vaccine had a direct link with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

Even mainstream media was forced to pick up on the link, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a “death link”. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.

The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use, she wrote in a letter to neurologists.

Of course the government was quick to claim that the vaccinations were completely safe, and had met all of the safety requirements.

The department of health was quick to go against Professor Miller and claim that the vaccines had passed all of the required tests: Appropriate trials to assess safety and immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.

If the government was confident regarding the safety of the vaccination, then why were manufacturers given complete legal immunity? This legal immunity made it impossible to sue the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine. Even if the vaccines were safe to begin with, wouldn’t this enhance carelessness of the manufacturers? With complete legal immunity, the makers could get away with anything.

Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.

3 Reasons to Avoid the Flu Shot

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:32:00 +0000

Anthony Gucciardi
GreenMedInfo.com
October 1, 2011

Flu shots are becoming the most widely recommended vaccine on the planet, with The Federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) changing their flu shot recommendation from children between 6 months and 5 years old demographic to virtually everyone except those between the ages of 19-49 who are in perfectly good health. Even within this category there is a barrage of organizations warning against avoiding the ubiquitous flu shot.

The fact of the matter is that seasonal flu shots are simply not backed by reputable science, and a number of major studies have even shown that the seasonal flu shot is not effective at all in preventing the flu. Adding fuel to the fire, this ineffective shot comes with pages of nasty side effects that will certainly make you reconsider getting one this year. Here are 3 major reasons you, your family, and the medical establishment should reconsider flu shots as effective flu prevention tools:

1. Seasonal flu vaccines have been found to only be 1% effective

A new major study has numerically determined the effectiveness of the flu shot to be 1%. This means that despite the H1N1-loaded flu jab, there is still a 99% chance that you will not be protected against the flu. The reason for this, despite the faulty science behind the development of the vaccine, has to do with flu strains. It is extremely challenging, to the point of guessing, which flu strain will affect your area. With such a wide selection, it is very rare (about 1%, according to the study), for it to be the correct strain.

The researchers from the study stated:

“The corresponding figures [of people showing influenza symptoms] for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%)” announced the study authors. In other words, you would have to vaccinate 100 people to reduce the number of people affected by the influenza virus by just one.

The findings do not stop there. The researchers also highlighted other findings about the flu vaccine, which topple the mainstream concept of their safety and effectiveness:

“Vaccination had…no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.”
“Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost.”
“The analysis howed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…”
“There is no evidence that [influenza vaccines] affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.” — Meaning vaccines do not affect transmission of disease, what they are designed for.
“In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.”

2. Flu shots have been linked to killer nerve disease

Even government health officials have confirmed the link between the H1N1-containing flu shot and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome. A government agency known as The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the connection following the phony swine flu pandemic. The news came after mainstream media reported on the fact that even 50% of doctors were refusing the H1N1 vaccine over health concerns.

Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.

The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” she wrote in a letter to neurologists.

3. Vitamin D is over 800% more effective with no side effects

A major clinical trial performed at the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective in preventing and reversing influenza. Led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima, the study involved 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. This is actually a very low amount of vitamin D, with many natural health experts recommending around 5,000 IUs per day for most individuals. If the researchers used a higher amount like 5,000 IUs, the findings and subsequent percentage would most likely be even more profound.

What the study found was that 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the 4 month duration of the study, while only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This is in comparison to the flu shot being effective in 1 out of 100 participants, with countless side effects.

This means that vitamin D is 800% more effective in preventing the flu than vaccines at 1200 IUs daily. The percentage could likely climb into the thousands if the dosage was upped to the recommended 5,000 IUs per day, and perhaps even higher beyond that.

There is simply no reason to receive a flu shot when natural alternatives like vitamin D exist. Deadly nerve disease, narcolepsy, and overall ineffectiveness are but a few of the negative aspects of the flu shot. Spread the word about flu shots during Vaccine Information Week, starting October 1st.

Is Your Multivitamin Toxic?

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:39:00 +0000

by Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo.com

[previously published in the Well Being Journal and Mercola.com]

In episode #11 (season 2) of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, a woman poisons her husband with the chemical sodium selenite. Strange as it may sound, this exotic murder weapon, and it’s close cousin, sodium selenate, are listed as “nutrients” on the labels of most mass-marketed vitamins. Even though both sodium selenite and selenate are classified as dangerous and toxic to the environment by regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Union, they are the primary forms of this mineral - selenium - sold on the mass market today. In fact, most mass-market vitamins contain chemicals that the EPA does not allow in our public drinking water at levels above 50 parts per billion per liter. According to the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standards, the highest allowable level of selenium in public drinking water is 50 parts per billion (equivalent to 50 micrograms, dry weight). To get a sense of how small an allowable limit this is, 50 parts per billion is equivalent to a tablespoon of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool.

How can vitamin manufacturers advertise something as being a “nutrient” when the EPA—out of concern for our health—has barred it from our drinking water at all but exceedingly minute levels? Have sodium selenite/selenate really been shown to be toxic? A brief perusal of toxicology reports from the Hazardous Substances Databank (toxnet.nlm.nih.gov) and PUBMED (pubmed.gov) shows that both forms can be carcinogenic and genotoxic and may contribute to reproductive and developmental problems in animals and humans. The question is not whether these minerals have toxicity, but rather at what level they overwhelm our capacity for their detoxification and/or biotransformation into non-toxic metabolites?

A word should be said here about the differences that exist between inorganic minerals and biologically active ones:

The selenium that is found in foods like brazil nuts, mustard seeds, and fresh produce grown in selenium-rich soil is infinitely different from the biologically inert forms being put in some multivitamins. In fact, sodium selenite/selenate can cause cancer, whereas the selenium found within food, or laboratory chelated forms like selenomethionine, have all been shown to prevent and combat cancer.

The basic principle that explains this difference is that when you isolate a nutrient or vitamin out of the food complex within which it is naturally found, and where it is inseparably bound to thousands of known and unknown food factors (e.g., enzymes, protein chaperones, glyconutrients, etc.) it is no longer as beneficial to life. This is especially true in the case of vertebrate mammals who are equipped to get their minerals from the plants they ingest or through the biotransformation of inorganic minerals to organic ones by microflora in their gastrointestinal tracts.

The primary reason that sodium selenite/selenate are preferred by some vitamin manufacturers over safer, more beneficial forms like chelated or yeast-grown selenium is because it is more profitable to use raw materials of lower quality.

“You get what you pay for” is a saying that almost always rings true for dietary supplements. Buying industrial waste products, or chemicals that are considered hazardous waste, and repackaging them as “dietary supplements” can be extremely profitable.

Indeed, this is not the first time in American history that such a hoax has been perpetrated on the public. The FDA-approved use of fluoride in our drinking water and the use of radioactive cobalt-60 culled from nuclear reactors for the IRRADIATION of conventional food illustrates how industrial waste products with known toxicity are eventually converted into commodities or technologies “beneficial to health.” Whereas initially these substances have very high disposal costs for the industries that excrete them into our environment, the liability is converted — through the right combination of lobbying, miseducation and “checkbook science” –- back into a commodity, with the environment and consumer suffering health and financial losses as a result.

Unfortunately, inorganic forms of selenium are not the only problem with mass-market vitamins. Take the multivitamin Centrum, for instance, whose manufacturer Wyeth is one of the most powerful pharmaceutical companies in the world. This vitamin contains the following chemicals:

Chemical: Amount Found in Centrum/ EPA Maximum Allowed Limit in 1 Liter of Drinking Water

1) Sodium selenite : 55 mcg/ 50 mcg

2) Nickelous sulfate: 5 mcg/ 100 mcg

3) Stannous chloride (tin): 10 mcg/ 4 mcg

4) Ferrous fumarate (iron): 18 mg/ .3 mg

5) Manganese sulfate: 2.3 mg/ .05 mg

6) Cupric sulfate: .5 mg/ 1.3 mg

In the left hand column above you will see the quantities of inorganic minerals found within each dose of Centrum. In the right hand column are the maximum quantity allowed by the EPA in one liter of drinking water. In the case of stannous chloride (tin), ferrous fumarate (iron) and manganese sulfate there are significantly higher doses in Centrum than are considered safe for human consumption in a liter of water. Although the others listed are at levels well under the EPA’s allowable limit, it is simply amazing that they are found in a product for human consumption at any quantity given their known toxicity.

So, if these chemicals are toxic, how can they be marketed as beneficial to our health?

As of today no law forbids the use of these substances in dietary supplements, despite laboratory research demonstrating their toxicity in animals, and epidemiological and occupational data demonstrating their actual or potential toxicity in humans. This is due to the widespread acceptance in the U.S. of a chemical and drug industry-friendly “weight of evidence” standard for toxicological risk assessment. Rather than using the “precautionary principle,” which dictates that a substance that is suspected of being harmful should be duly regulated in order to minimize the public’s exposure, the “weight of evidence” paradigm requires that a panel of government appointed experts must evaluate all available toxicological data, and must come up with a consensus that the evidence, unequivocally, demonstrates the substance in question poses a serious health risk. Until such an assessment can be made, a number of substances with obvious toxicity are “innocent until proven guilty” and can be portrayed by irresponsible and/or uneducated manufacturers as being beneficial to human health. It is sad and ironic that at a time when smaller dietary supplement manufacturers are being accused of being “unregulated” and having poor quality standards (even when they are incurring great costs by using vastly superior ingredients) that massive pharmaceutical companies, who have every resource at their disposal, are allowed to market toxic chemicals to consumers under the banner of USP (United States Pharmacopeia) or “pharmaceutical grade” quality, and get away with it.

Ultimately, we need to use common sense in our purchasing decisions and realize that sometimes companies will intentionally mislead the public—with the complicity of regulatory bodies like the FDA—and will advertise a product that has no health benefits; or worse, may actually detract from our health. The fact that Centrum may or may not be “the #1 doctor multivitamin brand” is irrelevant, considering that one does not ordinarily go to a doctor to seek wise counsel on nutrition. It is simply not their specialty.

The irony is that billions of dollars in health care cost —and the suffering these costs represent— could be saved every year if Americans took the simple step of taking a good multivitamin every day. It is advisable to look for product manufacturers that use high quality ingredients, including those from whole foods, as they are easier for our bodies to absorb and to utilize and therefore contribute more significantly to filling the voids in our diet.

Sub-Arachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH)

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:35:00 +0000

by J. Michael Pece

I am recovering from a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. What is a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage you ask? Its when a blood vessel underneath the skull and the membrane and the brain ruptures. Thus leading to bleeding in the brain . Bleeding in the brain can destroy brain tissue causing a variety of problems for the patient.

Mine occurred August 4, 20011. I was walking around my front yard, near an ditch, in the early morning when suddenly I fell unconscious and hit my head, apparently on a rock. I do not remember the incident. It was during a heat wave, here where we live, and the temperature was around 110 degrees. I lay unconscious for about three hours in the blazing sun, until a neighbor, who lives about 1/4 mile away noticed our dogs were loose and in his workshop. Since we never let our dogs loose, he immediately came over to see why they were loose. He found the front door opened and a man separated from our yard by a 10 foot fence screaming for him to help me. He then found me lying on the top of the ditch unconscious and bleeding from the back of the head.

My neighbor called 911 and soon the EMT's and the fire truck were on the scene attending me. Thank God for neighbors.

I was taken to the nearest hospital and immediately had a CT scan done. It showed bleeding in the brain. I was still unconscious and had no idea what was going on, I've only been told later. My wife was called by the EMT's at work and she immediately came to the Hospital ER to see me. The Emergency Department doctors tried to stop the bleeding and stabilized me, but could not. They then told my wife that I would need to go to a hospital which treated brain hemorrhages and had a Neurosurgical team on board.

An ambulance was called and I was taken to another hospital renown for their neurological department and actually was where I had gone as an outpatient for 2 1/2 years after my previous traumatic brain injury.They took and MRI and CT scan and saw the bleeding and began working to stop the bleeding. The choice was to use a coagulating drug to try and stop it or do surgery. They tried the drug first. I became conscious enough that I could tell the doctors that my head hurt tremendously.
And they began giving me morphine and when that did not work they gave me a combination of painkillers which immediately knocked me out again.my wife went home to tend to the dogs after the doctors told he they wouldn't know anything until early morning.

The next morning my wife called the hospital at 6:30 am, and was told by the nursing staff that the bleeding had been stopped by the drugs, but I was still unconscious.
I have absolutely no recollection of August 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th. On the fifth day I began to remember consciousness. On the sixth day the hospital sent me to an in-house
rehabilitation clinic. There I underwent Occupational therapy (how to dress,, brush your teeth, comb your hair, etc), Speech therapy, and physical therapy.

My main lasting effect was dizziness. I was extremely dizzy.After an brain hemorrhage after effects can be things such as dizziness, loss of speech, loss of movement, headaches, loss of memory, and loss of self. Luckily I just suffered from dizziness, loss of memory and difficulty speaking certain polysyllable words. I left rehab with a walker to help me get around and a shower chair for taking showers without falling.

This week I went to the Neurosurgeon for my 6 week follow up and he said my most recent CT scan did not show any bleeding and he felt relatively sure that the chances of a re-occurrence was as close to zero as possible provided I did not fall and hit my head again.

Today my speech is almost back to normal, my dizziness is getting better as time goes on, and I have no head aches. I was lucky.

I was lucky the first hospital was only 10 minutes away and they recognized they could not help me besides stabilizing me, and transferring me to the best Neurological Hospital in the city where we live. I was lucky a neighbor found me when he did or I would have died of exposure to the heat, I was lucky that I was transferred to the best Neurological hospital in our city, I was lucky I will have no lasting effects from this brain hemorrhage. For all of this I am thankful. Most of all I am lucky to be married to such a wonderful wife who nursed me back to health and cautioned me against doing "too much" or doing the wrong things.

Having a brain bleed is nothing to be shy about. Signs are headache, stiff neck, confusion, inability to speak, inability to walk and total confusion. If you ever have these symptoms get help at a hospital immediately. In my case having a brain hemorrhage caused by a head trauma there is a 46 - 75% chance of permanent vegetative state, or mental deficits or death. Luckily I was in that 25% that recover.

If you want to learn more about Sub-arachnoid Hemorrhage or other brain bleed strokes Google PubMed,WebMD, or Medscape and learn about this potentially deadly experience.

High-Fructose Corn Syrup Propaganda

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:27:00 +0000

By Dr. Alan R. Gaby

I received a packet of glossy brochures and a small booklet the other day from the Corn Refiners Association, along with a Dear Doctor cover letter. The purpose of the mailing was to explain to me, the doctor, that much of the negative press surrounding high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) lacks scientific merit, and that this "versatile sweetener" is pretty much the same as sucrose.

The cover letter started off comically enough: "Because you are a trusted source of information about nutrition . . . ", like nobody knows that medical doctors are considered so uninformed and so biased regarding nutrition that nearly three-quarters of patients won’t even tell their doctor what nutrients and herbs they are taking.

But, flattery is like a foot in the door, so I read on. The letter was signed by the president of the Corn Refiner’s Association and also by a cardiologist/professor with a university affiliation. The letter did not disclose the cardiologist’s conflicts of interest, but a Medline Search revealed that he has received research funding and consulting fees from PepsiCo, one of the biggest users of HFCS in the world.

The main point of the information packet was that HFCS is nutritionally the same as sucrose (table sugar). Emphasizing that point was considered so important that it was stated at least 17 times in the mailing.

As discussed below, HFCS and sucrose are not the same, which might be why so much effort was made to convince doctors otherwise. As a corollary to the main point, the packet sought to dispel the "myth" that "sugar is healthier than HFCS." The use of the word "healthier" is particularly amusing, since almost no one on the planet considers sugar to be a health food.

A more appropriate framing of the argument would have been to claim that HFCS is no more likely to give you diabetes, make you fat, raise your triglyceride and uric acid levels, cause nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, or give you stomach aches and diarrhea than sucrose is. While there is a great deal of research that contradicts such claims (as discussed, for example, in my review article on the adverse effects of dietary fructose), at least those would have been claims that could have been debated honestly.

The Corn Refiner’s Association argues that HFCS and sucrose are pretty much the same, because they both consist of about 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

In actuality, HFCS consists of 55% fructose and 42% glucose, while sucrose consists of 100% sucrose (which can be converted by intestinal enzymes to 50% fructose and 50% glucose). The difference in the relative proportions of fructose and glucose in these two sweeteners (1.31:1 versus 1:1) may not be insignificant. Fructose malabsorption is a common cause of gastrointestinal symptoms that mimic irritable bowel syndrome.

Fructose malabsorption tends to occur primarily when the fructose concentration of a meal exceeds that of glucose, because glucose enhances the intestinal absorption of fructose. HFCS, which contains fructose in excess of glucose, is more likely to cause gastrointestinal symptoms than is sucrose, which is converted to equal parts fructose and glucose.

The fact that HFCS consists mainly of two monosaccharides, while sucrose is a disaccharide, may also not be insignificant. In order to be absorbed as its constituent monosaccharides, sucrose must first be hydrolyzed by intestinal mucosal disaccharidase enzymes. Thus, the absorption of fructose from sucrose might be considerably slower than the absorption of the free fructose present in HFCS. That possibility is supported by studies in which serum fructose concentrations increased to a greater extent after feeding free fructose than after feeding the same amount of fructose in the form of sucrose.

Fructose is the most powerful reducing sugar of all of the edible sugars. Reducing sugars promote the glycosylation of tissue proteins, which is a factor both in the complications of diabetes and in the aging process.

The human body has elaborate mechanisms to prevent serum fructose concentrations from rising to any great extent, but these mechanisms can be overwhelmed by feeding large quantities of free fructose. Exposure to the large amounts of free fructose that are currently being consumed is unprecedented in human evolution, and there is no reason to believe that humans are equipped to handle this new stressor.

There are still significant gaps in our knowledge regarding the consequences of consuming large amounts of free fructose. According to my reading of the scientific literature, the effects of HFCS are somewhere between slightly worse than the effects of sucrose and seriously horrible.

Alan R. Gaby, M.D., is an internationally recognized authority on nutritional therapies. Dr. Gaby has recently completed a 30-year project, a textbook of Nutritional Medicine.

Dr. Gaby received his undergraduate degree from Yale University, his M.S. in biochemistry from Emory University, and his M.D. from the University of Maryland. He is a contributing medical editor for Alternative Medicine Review. Dr. Gaby was a professor of nutrition at Bastyr University in Washington.

Could zinc be a cure for the common cold? Taking supplements could shorten illness length by 40 per cent

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:16:00 +0000

By Jenny Hope

It is medicine’s holy grail, eluding doctors and scientists for centuries.

But remarkably, the cure for the common cold could be no more complicated than a mineral supplement.

Taking high doses of zinc can cut the length of colds by almost half, according to research. The evidence emerged from the combined results of 13 trials which tested the ability of zinc lozenges, which dissolve in the mouth and are widely available, to fight off colds.

But zinc supplements could help shorten the symptoms of the common cold

Three of the studies showed taking daily doses of zinc acetate higher than 75 milligrams – seven times more than is generally recommended – as soon as symptoms began, shortened colds by an average of 42 per cent.

Five others, using other types of zinc salt at doses greater than 75mg, resulted in a 20 per cent reduction. But five studies of doses lower than 75mg showed no benefit at all.

Zinc supplements can cause side effects such as a bad taste in the mouth, stomach upsets and nausea in some people. But the researchers found no evidence that the lozenges caused any long-term harm. In the EU, the recommended daily dose of zinc is 10mg for adults.

Zinc supplements: The mineral's health benefits have long been known, but its effects on the common cold have not been clear until now.

Zinc is important for the immune system and eating too little in the diet is known to increase the risk of infection. The latest findings confirm research at Cardiff University’s Common Cold Centre into whether non-medical remedies are effective.

These studies also showed zinc may shorten the duration of symptoms. More than 200 viruses are capable of causing the common cold, which is why it is almost impossible to gain complete immunity.

Colds strike an average of 930,000 Britons on any day in winter. People typically suffer at least 200 colds over their a lifetime – amounting to around two to three years of coughing and sneezing.

The idea that zinc lozenges might be effective against colds stems from an accidental observation in the early 1980s. Doctors saw that the cold of a three-year-old girl with leukaemia vanished when she dissolved a zinc tablet in her mouth.

Since then a number of studies have looked at zinc’s effects on colds, with inconclusive results.
Pugh

The latest findings, reported in the Open Respiratory Medicine Journal, point to mixed results caused by hugely different doses in the previous studies. The researchers, led by Dr Harri Hemila, of the University of Helsinki in Finland, wrote: ‘Many trials with daily zinc doses of over 75mg have found significant reduction in the duration of colds.

‘Since a large proportion of participants remained without adverse effects, zinc lozenges might be useful as a treatment option for the common cold. More research is needed to find optimal compositions and treatment strategies.’

Zinc deficiency is very common, with less than half of Britain’s population eating even half the recommended daily allowance.

It is not stored in the body, although can be found in tissue and bones. It aids the immune system, helps wounds heal, is important for proper taste and smell, and vital for male fertility. It may slow sight loss caused by age-related macular degeneration.

Rich sources include shellfish, lamb, liver, steak, pumpkin seeds and whole grains.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2018987/Common-cold-cure-Zinc-supplements-shorten-illness-length-40.html#ixzz1TL3eBsDv

Walnuts Are Drugs, Says FDA

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:15:00 +0000

Written by Michael Tennant
Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:10

Seen any walnuts in your medicine cabinet lately? According to the Food and Drug Administration, that is precisely where you should find them. Because Diamond Foods made truthful claims about the health benefits of consuming walnuts that the FDA didn’t approve, it sent the company a letter declaring, “Your walnut products are drugs” — and “new drugs” at that — and, therefore, “they may not legally be marketed … in the United States without an approved new drug application.” The agency even threatened Diamond with “seizure” if it failed to comply.

Diamond’s transgression was to make “financial investments to educate the public and supply them with walnuts,” as William Faloon of Life Extension magazine put it. On its website and packaging, the company stated that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts have been shown to have certain health benefits, including reduced risk of heart disease and some types of cancer. These claims, Faloon notes, are well supported by scientific research: “Life Extension has published 57 articles that describe the health benefits of walnuts”; and “The US National Library of Medicine database contains no fewer than 35 peer-reviewed published papers supporting a claim that ingesting walnuts improves vascular health and may reduce heart attack risk.”

This evidence was apparently not good enough for the FDA, which told Diamond that its walnuts were “misbranded” because the “product bears health claims that are not authorized by the FDA.”

The FDA’s letter continues: “We have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.” Furthermore, the products are also “misbranded” because they “are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners; therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes.” Who knew you had to have directions to eat walnuts?

“The FDA’s language,” Faloon writes, “resembles that of an out-of-control police state where tyranny [reigns] over rationality.” He adds:

This kind of bureaucratic tyranny sends a strong signal to the food industry not to innovate in a way that informs the public about foods that protect against disease. While consumers increasingly reach for healthier dietary choices, the federal government wants to deny food companies the ability to convey findings from scientific studies about their products.

Walnuts aren’t the only food whose health benefits the FDA has tried to suppress. Producers of pomegranate juice and green tea, among others, have felt the bureaucrats’ wrath whenever they have suggested that their products are good for people.

Meanwhile, Faloon points out, foods that have little to no redeeming value are advertised endlessly, often with dubious health claims attached. For example, Frito-Lay is permitted to make all kinds of claims about its fat-laden, fried products, including that Lay’s potato chips are “heart healthy.” Faloon concludes that “the FDA obviously does not want the public to discover that they can reduce their risk of age-related disease by consuming healthy foods. They prefer consumers only learn about mass-marketed garbage foods that shorten life span by increasing degenerative disease risk.”

Faloon thinks he knows why this is the case. First, by stifling competition from makers of more healthful alternatives, junk food manufacturers, who he says “heavily lobb[y]” the federal government for favorable treatment, will rake in ever greater profits. Second, by making it less likely that Americans will consume healthful foods, big pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers stand to gain by selling more “expensive cardiac drugs, stents, and coronary bypass procedures” to those made ill by their diets.

But people are starting to fight back against the FDA’s tactics. “The makers of pomegranate juice, for example, have sued the FTC for censoring their First Amendment right to communicate scientific information to the public,” Faloon reports. Congress is also getting into the act with a bill, the Free Speech About Science Act (H.R. 1364), that, Faloon writes, “protects basic free speech rights, ends censorship of science, and enables the natural health products community to share peer-reviewed scientific findings with the public.”

Of course, if the Constitution were being followed as intended, none of this would be necessary. The FDA would not exist; but if it did, as a creation of Congress it would have no power to censor any speech whatsoever. If companies are making false claims about their products, the market will quickly punish them for it, and genuine fraud can be handled through the courts. In the absence of a government agency supposedly guaranteeing the safety of their food and drugs and the truthfulness of producers’ claims, consumers would become more discerning, as indeed they already are becoming despite the FDA’s attempts to prevent the dissemination of scientific research. Besides, as Faloon observed, “If anyone still thinks that federal agencies like the FDA protect the public, this proclamation that healthy foods are illegal drugs exposes the government’s sordid charade.”

Today is My Birthday

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:07:00 +0000

Today is my birthday. I was born under the sign of Leo. Today I am sixty years of age. My seventh decade of life. Some days I feel like I'm in my thirties some days I feel like I'm in my seventies.

But I'm thankful to be alive at sixty.

I've learned much in my sixty years and want to give back as much as I can to others.

This past year has been especially tough for me. My father passed away at age 84, last July 1st. I was hospitalized for my blood sugar being out of control in January, for Pulmonary embolisms, last July, and diverticulitis in December/ January of this year. Each of which took something out of me.

My father lived a full life and taught me much, both good and not so good. But each with it's own lesson to be learned.

My illnesses made me wiser, and to appreciate how fragile our health really is.

I am re-dedicating myself to try and teach what I have learned and to listen to learn from others. To learn to appreciate what life offers us in all of its glory.
To see the beauty in the world and the people around us and to listen in the quietness of life to God as he whispers his words to live by.

Yes today is my birthday. I will use this day as a new beginning to love life, to appreciate more, to complain less, too see more, to feel more and to live more.

The Whole Wheat Hoax

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:08:00 +0000

By Jim Healthy on 07/22/2011

Is whole wheat bread more healthful than white bread?

The vast majority of shoppers — including those with a high "health IQ" — think so. And that’s just what food marketers want you to believe. But the truth may knock you for a loop.

You see, many “whole wheat” products are just as bad as white bread — and some are even worse.

Keep reading and I’ll blow away the smoke that may be clouding your eyes so you can “hokum-proof” your whole grain purchases and bring home the real McCoy.

Why whole grains are better for you

True whole grain foods and products are bursting with nutty, chewy flavor and loaded with health-protective fiber. They’re so much better for you than the familiar white bread and white flour baked goods most of us grew up with.

Did you realize that munching white bread and foods baked from it have the same effect on your blood sugar as eating table sugar straight from the sugar bowl? Both break down into glucose as soon as they are digested, which requires extra insulin to get them out of your bloodstream.

Whole-grain bread, on the other hand, digests far more slowly because its natural fiber slows the conversion of carbohydrates into glucose, so your blood sugar remains stable and receives a steady energy release instead of a sudden spike-and-drop.

In a study published in Diabetes Care, Italian researchers noted that diets high in refined carbs throw blood sugar and metabolism into chaos. But the problem is resolved when refined carb foods are swapped out for whole grain.

Improve your blood sugar by 600%

Researchers at the Creighton Diabetes Center in Nebraska found that when people ate a breakfast cereal made from fiber-rich barley, their blood sugar remained 600% lower than when they ate oatmeal — which is thought to be one of the best "slow carbs" you can eat. Reason? Barley is high in a particular type of fiber called beta-glucan that’s super-effective at slowing the conversion of carbs to glucose.

Consuming too many refined carbohydrates is the number one cause of weight gain and Type 2 diabetes. And with a whopping 30% of the US population predicted to develop diabetes very soon, everyone should take steps to protect themselves.

Choosing whole grain foods and products can really help. In fact, you can reduce your diabetes risk by 40% just by replacing some of the fast carbs in your diet with whole grains, a recent Harvard study showed. And if you’re already experiencing blood sugar problems, whole grain foods are some of the best medicine in Nature’s pantry.

But how can you make sure the “whole grain” products you’re buying are the genuine article? It isn’t always easy. Let me illustrate…

Can you ace this quiz?

Three shoppers walk into a grocery store looking for the most healthful bread.

One sees a loaf labeled “Whole Wheat Bread” and drops it in her cart.

The second shopper spots a loaf of “Multigrain Bread” and heads to the checkout register.

The third shopper picks a loaf of bread that’s “Made with whole grains” and decides she’s made a smart choice.

So which shopper left the store with the truly healthy loaf?

The answer: None of the above.

This isn’t a trick question. Rather, it illustrates the trickiness of food marketers who intentionally create confusion about what’s healthful in your supermarket.

Take it with “a grain of truth”

You see, food manufacturers are well aware you want to make healthier choices when shopping. They also know that white bread is falling out of favor with consumers.

But the economics of the supermarket haven’t changed. It’s still very expensive to put a true whole-grain loaf of bread on the shelf. Why? It spoils much faster than baked goods made with white flour. Here’s why…

Whole-grain products use the whole grain, including the germ, bran, and the oil. These elements are where the vitamins, minerals, and life-sustaining nutrition reside — and also what attract insects during transport and storage. By spoiling so quickly on the shelf, whole-grain baked goods require frequent replacement.

This was a big problem for millers and bakers in the old days until they came up a solution: Refine away these “problem” aspects and: “Voila!” The flour and bread resisted spoiling. Insects and weevils didn’t bother with them. Even mice weren’t interested because they couldn’t live on them.

This bizarre effect was demonstrated by Dr. Roger J. Williams, the noted biochemist who discovered pantothenic acid (vitamin B5). In late 1960s, Dr. Williams fed white flour to one group of rats and whole-grain flour to another. The white flour rats became malnourished, sickly, and two-thirds of them died, while the whole-grain rats flourished.

Good for profits; bad for health

Refining whole grains into white flour removes 80% of their 20 known nutrients. And while baked goods made from white flour won’t sustain health or life, they do stick around on grocery shelves longer. This makes them great for profits, but a poor source of nutrition.

After Dr. Williams’ rat experiment made headlines, consumers began to shun white bread in favor of loaves made from whole grains. Food manufacturers sniffed the trend and responded by adding brown coloring and a little bran to white flour and labeling the resulting bread “whole wheat.”

To this day, many consumers remain confused. But commercial bakers couldn’t fool Dr. Williams’ rats. In a follow-up experiment, he fed 33 different brands of refined-flour bread — including rye, pumpernickel, and ersatz “whole wheat” — to another group of rats. They didn’t fare any better than the white bread group.

Don’t fall for the “health food hype”

Some food marketers seek to profit from health trends by making a quick buck from confused consumers. So here’s how to crack the “code words” they use on the labels of bread and baked goods. When they say their bread is…

“Whole wheat bread.” Translation: This bread’s flour may or may not be made from whole grain wheat. Don’t rely on the product name. Look at the ingredients list. If the first ingredient is whole wheat flour, that means the flour is legally required to be ground from whole grains of wheat. It’s not refined or enriched. It’s the good stuff.

If the ingredient is listed simply as wheat flour or flour, then it’s refined flour, according to the standard of identity for flour — and refined flour has been denuded of its nutritional benefits. Refined white flour may have brown food coloring and a bit of bran added to make it appear healthful.

If the ingredient is listed as enriched flour, the bran and germ have been removed and other nutrients have been added, but it’s not anywhere near as healthful as true whole wheat flour.

“Multigrain.” Translation: This means there’s more than one type of grain in the product, but this is no guarantee that any of those grains are in fact “whole.”

“Made with whole grain.” Translation: There’s an insignificant amount of whole grains in the product, but they want you to believe it’s enough to be an actual health benefit. It usually isn’t.

Whole-grain shopping savvy

Here are some helpful tips when shopping for whole grain products…

Choose bread and other products labeled “whole grain.” Even better: Look for products labeled “100% whole grain.” We love Ezekiel bread products made by Food for Life. You’ll often find them in the freezer section because they are indeed a “whole” food.

Search the packaging for the “100% Whole Grain” stamp from the Whole Grains Council.

But be careful: Products emblazoned with the Whole Grain Council’s “basic” stamp only provide half a serving of whole grains, so pass them by.

Why not go “whole” hog?

While you’re tracking down the superior health benefits of whole grains in the bread aisle, why not go “whole grain” throughout the entire store?

You can easily incorporate whole grains at any (or every) meal to improve your blood sugar … control your weight … and improve your cardiovascular health.

Enjoy old favorites such as oats, barley, and brown rice often — and don’t hesitate to experiment with adventurous “new” whole-grain foods. For starters:

Quinoa is a complete protein.
Teff is gluten-free, and high in fiber.
Amaranth is high in iron.
Farro has twice the fiber and protein of whole wheat.
Millet is high in manganese, magnesium and phosphorus.

They all cook up in water just like oatmeal, and each one offers unique nutritional benefits. The variety of whole grains is so great that you may need a lifetime to get to know them all. But my guess is that you’ll love them at first bite.

For convenience, cook up a large batch of whole grains and freeze portions individually for later use.

The “whole” truth — and nothing but

One thing you can count on: As soon as American consumers change their illin’ ways and decide to eat more healthfully, some huckster will always figure out a way to make a buck off shoppers’ best intentions.

By remembering the key concepts explained above, you can outsmart these marketeers and bring home whole grain goodness time and again.

Happy shopping — and eating!

14 facts about the brain

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:56:00 +0000

Your body contains at least 60 trillion cells. Yet your brain contains 'only' 60 billion cells, just 0.001% of the total. Proof that the 'mind' isn't just inside your skull.

Each cell carries, on average 7000 connections to other cells. Therefore the number of cell networks in the brain is 42 thousand billion, or 42,000,000000,000 pieces of information your brain can, store.

Yet your brain only weighs 3 pounds and uses just 10-23 watts of energy per day. That is less than the energy in three bananas.

Each year you will lose about 3.3 million brain cells. But that is less than 0.00000006% of the total. And nearly all of it is replaced, right on up until old age.

There is no truth in the myth that we only use 10% of brain power. The entire brain is being used every day, even if some areas of the brain are there only for storage or for back-up functions.

Super memory. The brain is capable of storing 10 trillion bits of information about you and your life experiences.

The brain can make its own 'heroin'. Endorphins are released in the Hypothalamus after vigorous physical exercise, injury, meditation, laughter and chocolate. Endorphins are up to 19 times stronger than morphine. By contrast, heroin is only 7 times stronger than morphine.

Being happy is good for the brain. Happy states trigger dopamine release, a feel-good chemical. Personal fulfillment increases neuroplasticity, slows down aging and improves memory.

Why is adolescence so difficult? One main reason is that, between puberty and early adulthood, the brain is being rebuilt. There is massive growth in the pre-frontal cortex (Headmind); connections between cell networks are being hard-wired (making emotional life-lessons more intense); and there is a temporary loss of connection between the brain's emotional centres (the limbic system) and the intellectual centers - which means that teenagers lack the capacity to make good decisions.

New experiences are vital for improved brain function. Getting out of the rut and going for new horizons increases cell growth, delays aging and improves cell connectivity. The same goes when you let go of the past and exercise forgiveness.

Binge-eating. Emotional self-neglect can lead to food cravings and over-eating. So-called stress triggers an increase in Cortisol in the blood stream, which stimulates Insulin release. High insulin levels are associated with a craving for sugary foods and foods high in carbohydrates.

Regular sex (at least twice a week) improves daily moods, reduces pain thresholds, cuts the risk of a heart attack, decreases menstrual pain and promotes sleep. This is because enjoyable sex fosters high endorphin release.

Love and sex can be addictive. Falling in love, like sexual infatuation) is similar to taking cocaine: the hypothalamus triggers a cascade of dopamine. One problem is that, once the dopamine wears off, a 'down-mood' sets in, leading to further cravings.

The brain also contains a bonding chemical: Oxytocin. During labour, female brains produce large amounts of oxytocin, which stimulates contractions and smooths the passage of the baby down the birth canal. Oxytocin also creates a primal, intense bond with the child. Adults in love (or during ecstatic sex) also release high levels of oxytocin.

Posted by John Eaton on April 18, 2010 at 06:50 PM in Addictions, Aging, Brain, Cellular memories, Happiness, Health, Psychology, The Brain | Permalink

How Scientific Is Modern Medicine Really?

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:45:00 +0000

by Dana Ullman
Expert in homeopathic medicine

Doctors today commonly assert that they practice "scientific medicine," and patients think that the medical treatments they receive are "scientifically proven." However, this ideal is a dream, not reality, and a clever and profitable marketing ruse, not fact.

The British Medical Journal's "Clinical Evidence" analyzed common medical treatments to evaluate which are supported by sufficient reliable evidence (BMJ, 2007). They reviewed approximately 2,500 treatments and found:

• 13 percent were found to be beneficial

• 23 percent were likely to be beneficial 13 percent were found to be beneficial

• Eight percent were as likely to be harmful as beneficial

• Six percent were unlikely to be beneficial

• Four percent were likely to be harmful or ineffective.

• 46 percent were unknown whether they were efficacious or harmful

In the late 1970s, the US government conducted a similar evaluation and found a strikingly similar result. They found that only 10 percent to 20 percent of medical treatment had evidence of efficacy (Office of Technology Assessment, 1978).

Doctors like to point to the "impressive" efficacy of their treatments in real serious diseases, like cancer, and doctors (and drug companies) are emphatic about asserting that anyone or any company that says (or even suggests) that they have a treatment that might help people with cancer are "quacks." However, do they maintain this same standard when evaluating their own treatments? Even a recent issue of Newsweek highlighted the fact that "We Fought Cancer, and Cancer Won" (Begley, 2010). Despite the truly massive amounts of money that doctors, hospitals and drug companies are effectively extracting from patients, employers, insurance companies and governments, we are certainly not getting our money's worth.

Even when there is "proven efficacy of treatment" in studies, the bigger question is how common is this proven efficacy utilized in medical care today? Be prepared to be shocked.

"Quackery" is commonly defined as the use of unproven treatments by individuals or companies who claim fantastic results and who charge large sums of money. Although modern physicians may point their collective finger at various "alternative" or "natural" treatment modalities as examples of quackery, it is conventional medical treatments today that are out-of-this-world expensive, and despite real questionable efficacy of their treatments, doctors give patients the guise of "science."

I certainly realize that many of us have benefited greatly from modern medicine, but I also realize that many of us have been hurt greatly from it too. The challenge for all of us is to determine how can we make modern medicine more "scientific," more effective and more safe. I have previously made clear that my own point of view on this subject is that we must develop a more "integrative model" of medicine and healing and that we should utilize various Naturopathic and homeopathic methods as a way to honor the Hippocratic tradition of "First, do no harm."

Sadly, however, it seems that too few doctors understand or respect this Hippocratic dictum.

Today in America, every man, woman, and child is prescribed around 13 prescription drugs per year (and this doesn't count the many over-the-counter drugs that doctors prescribe and that patients take on their own) (Kaiser, 2006). Just 12 years earlier, Americans were on average prescribed less than eight drugs per person, a 62 percent increase! The fact of the matter is that drugs are not tested for approval in conjunction with other drugs, and the safety and efficacy of the use of multiple drugs together remains totally unknown.

This practice of "polypharmacy" is increasing substantially, and Big Pharma is pushing it hard and benefiting from it in a big big way.

According to a 2008 nationwide survey, 29 percent of Americans used at least five prescription medications concurrently (Qato, Alexander, Conti, 2008), while just three years previously, 17 percent took three or more prescription drugs (Medscape, 2005). Even conservative publications such as Scientific American can no longer deny the increasing serious problems from pharmaceuticals. A recent article highlighted the fact that there has been a 65 percent increase in drug overdoses leading to hospitalization or death just in the past seven years (Harmon, 2010).

Are Our Children and Elders Safe? Not at all.

We all want drugs given to infants to be as safe as possible, but mothers and fathers will be surprised and perhaps shocked to know that very few drugs are ever tested on infants. A 2007 study of over 350,000 children found that a shocking 78.7 percent of children in hospitals are prescribed drugs that the FDA has not even approved for use in children (Shah, Hall, Goodman, et al, 2007). If this isn't shocking enough, a survey in England found that 90 percent of infants were prescribed drugs that were not tested for safety or efficacy in infants (Conroy, McIntyre, Choonara, 1999).

There is almost a 350 percent increase in adverse drug reactions in children prescribed an off-label drug than children who were prescribed a drug that had been tested for safety and efficacy (Horen, Montastruc, and Lapeyre-mestre, 2002). Doctors are committing "medical child abuse" on a regular basis (I wrote a more detailed article about this subject, here).

An even stronger case can be made for the epidemic of "elder medical abuse" due to the much larger number of drugs prescribed to and for our senior citizens. It is no wonder that so many of them have become mental zombies, while Big Pharma profits big time and insurance companies simply raise their rates.

If we were living a lot longer and the quality of our lives was improved by medical care, one could make a case for why today's medical care is providing more benefits than problems, but this is simply not true.

Although we are commonly told that we are living longer than ever now, this is simply a clever, even tricky, use of statistics. The fact of the matter is that there has been a considerable reduction in deaths during the first five years of life ... and this reduction in deaths has resulted primarily from a medicinal agent called "soap," not from the use of any specific conventional pharmaceutical agent.

Ultimately, an American who was 40 years old in 1900 and an American who was 40 years old in 2000 has a similar chance of living to 80 years old today.

Big Pharma, Big Bucks, and the Guise of Science

Adherents of conventional medicine have consistently asserted that its methods are scientifically verified, and they have ridiculed other methods that are suggested to have therapeutic or curative effects. In fact, conventional physicians have consistently worked to disallow competitors, even viciously attacking those in their own profession who have questioned conventional treatments or provided alternative modalities. More recently, medical organizations simply work with insurance companies to help them determine what should and shouldn't get reimbursed, a clever way to kill competition bloodlessly.

And yet, strangely enough, whatever has been in vogue in conventional medicine in one decade has been declared ineffective, dangerous and sometimes barbaric in the ensuing decades. Surprisingly, despite this pattern in history, proponents and defenders of "scientific medicine" tend to have little or no humility, continually asserting that today's cure is truly effective ... and in any case, strongly asserting that any "alternatives" to this ever-changing treatment are quackery, sheer quackery, whether they know anything about these alternative treatment modalities or not.

The good news about conventional medicine and one of its remarkable features for which it should be honored is its history of consistently and repeatedly disproving its own treatments. The fact that only a handful of conventional drugs have survived 30 or more years is strong testament to the fact that conventional medicine is honorable enough to acknowledge its mistakes. But then again, because drug patents only last for a certain limited period of time, there are real substantial benefits when drugs have a relatively short lifespan. Big Pharma can charge big money during this time-frame, and then, let go of it when it goes off-patent, at which time a new, high-priced drug is conveniently developed to replace it. Like the fashion industry, medical fashion changes with rapidity, supporting a powerful economic arms race.

In 2002, the combined profits ($35.9 billion) of the 10 largest drug companies in the Fortune 500 were more than the combined profits ($33.7 billion) of the remaining 490 companies together (Angell, 2004, 11).

The only reason these drug companies did not maintain this shocking financial advantage is that the oil companies' profits have increased considerably with the Iraq War, thus raising the 490 non-drug companies' profits slightly higher. But then again, one would assume that the profits of 490 of the largest companies in the world would be substantially more than just 10 companies in one commercial field.

This economic information is important, even essential, because learning how to separate the "science" of medicine from the business of medicine has never been more difficult. The combined efforts of the drug companies and the medical profession, which together may be called the "medical-industrial complex," have been wonderfully effective in convincing consumers worldwide that modern medicine is the most scientific discipline that has ever existed.

Physicians today rarely run drug companies. Instead, businessmen run them. It is, therefore, not surprising that Marcia Angell, MD, a Harvard professor of medicine and former editor of the famed New England Journal of Medicine, wrote:

Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs ... Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Levi, 2006)

There is big big money to be made in drug sales, and brilliant marketing has led too many of us to ignore or excuse this bully side of medicine.

The New York Times recently uncovered the fact that Pfizer admitted to paying $20 million in the last six months of 2009 alone to 4,500 doctors to "consultation" and to speak on their behalf (and this doesn't include payments to doctors outside of the US) (Duff, 2010). It seems to be time to stop calling them "drug companies" and call them "drug pushers."

Yes, a gorilla is in the house, but anyone who refers to him as a gorilla is usually called a quack or a crank. This gorilla was not born yesterday; he has been growing for generations. A part of his self-defense propensities is to eliminate competing forces, whether the other side seeks cooperation or not. Any competitive force is frequently and soundly attacked.

The history of homeopathy shows this dark side of medicine. From 1860 to the early 20th century, the AMA had a consultation clause in its code of ethics that members were not allowed to consult with a medical doctor who practiced homeopathy and weren't even allowed to treat a homeopath's patients. At a time in medical history when doctors bloodlet their patients to death and regularly prescribed mercury and various caustic agents to sick people, the only action that the AMA considered reprehensible and actionable was the "crime" of consulting with a homeopath.

In fact, the entire Medical Society of New York was kicked out of the AMA in 1881 simply because this state's medical organization admitted into its membership any medical doctors who utilized homeopathic medicines, no matter what their academic credentials were. They only rejoined the AMA 25 years later (Walsh, 1907, 207).

This King Kong, however, is not a monster to everyone. In fact, this big gorilla is wonderfully generous to executives, to large sales and marketing forces, to supportive politicians and to the media from whom he buys substantial amounts of advertising (and thus, an incredible amount of positive media coverage). And this gorilla is wonderfully generous to stockholders. While it may seem inappropriate to criticize profits, it is important and appropriate to do so when profits are unbelievably excessive, when long-term efficacy hasn't stood the test of time, and when common use of more than one drug at a time is rarely if ever scientifically tested for efficacy.

Although these observations just mentioned may seem harsh and offensive to some people, they are made with the concurrent acknowledgment that most of us know someone whose life was saved or at least whose health was significantly restored by conventional medical treatments. I myself am the son of a fabulous father who was a physician and insulin-dependent diabetic. In other words, I would not be alive today if it were not for some important conventional medical discoveries such as insulin.

We should not "throw the baby out with the bathwater," nor do we want to ignore the bathwater in which we place our babies. Most of us also know someone whose health has been seriously hurt, or whose life was cut short, by modern medical treatments.

Drug companies defend their large profits by asserting that they spend tremendous amounts of money on research and development, but they tend to hide the fact that they spend approximately three times more money on marketing and administration. And the obscenely high profits of the drug companies take into account all known expenses. Ultimately, drug companies are wonderfully creative in convincing us all that their drug treatments are "scientific," and too many of us actually believe them.

It is therefore important to understand what is truly meant when drug companies and the media assert that drugs are "scientifically proven."(to be discussed in PART II)

(NOTE: This article focuses on the issue of the amount of "science" in medical care today. I predict that many commenters below will choose to attack me or the subject of homeopathy, even though THIS is not the subject of this article. I sincerely hope that commenters will stick to the subject at hand. For those of you who wish to comment on homeopathic medicine research, I urge you to do so at articles on that subject.)

References
Angell, M. The Truth about Drug Companies. New York: Random House, 2004. This fact is extremely startling, but the source is reputable: Marcia Angell, MD, is former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Begley, Sharon. "We Fought Cancer, and Cancer Won," Newsweek, September 15, 2008. http://www.newsweek.com/id/157548

BMJ, 2007. http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/index.jsp; http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp

Conroy S, McIntyre J, Choonara I. Unlicensed and off label drug use in neonates. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 1999;80:F142-F145. doi:10.1136/fn.80.2.F142

Consumer Reports, "High Anxiety." January 1993, 19-24.

Darwin, F. (ed.). The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1903.

Dima M. Qato; G. Caleb Alexander; Rena M. Conti; Michael Johnson; Phil Schumm; Stacy Tessler Lindau. "Use of Prescription and Over-the-counter Medications and Dietary Supplements Among Older Adults in the United States." JAMA. 2008;300(24):2867-2878. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/24/2867

Horen B, Montastruc JL, and Lapeyre-mestre M. "Adverse drug reactions and off-label drug use in paediatric outpatients." Br J Clin Pharmacol. 54(6); Dec 2002, 665-670. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.t01-3-01689.x.

Harmon K. Prescription Drug Deaths Increase Dramatically, Scientific American. April 6, 2010. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=prescription-drug-deaths

Kaiser Family Foundation, Prescription Drug Trends, June 2006. http://www.kff.org/rxdrugs/upload/3057-05.pdf

InfoPlease.com. www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html, 2007.

"Levi, R. Science Is for Sale," Skeptical Inquirer, July/August 2006, 30:4, 44-46.

Medscape, More Americans Take Prescription Medication. May 3, 2005.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/500164

Office of Technology Assessment, 1978. http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/7805.pdf

"Roberts, W. H. Orthodoxy vs. homeopathy: Ironic developments following the Flexner Report at the Ohio State University," Bulletin on the History of Medicine, Spring 1986, 60:1, 73-87.

Shah SS, Hall M, Goodman DM, et al. "Off-label Drug Use in Hospitalized Children." Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(3):282-290.

Walsh, J. J. History of the Medical Society of the State of New York. New York: Medical Society of the State of New York, 1907.

Wilson, Duff. Pfizer Gets Details on Payments to Doctors, New York Times, March 31, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01payments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com. He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.

Vitamin D Supplementation Associated With Reduced Cardiovascular Risk

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:21:00 +0000

There is a simple blood test which your doctor can order for you to determine your Vitamin D level. Have this done and if your levels are lower than the range, then supplement with Vitamin D-3 under the guidance of your doctor, preferably a Naturopathic doctor who understands supplementation.
Dr. Mike

By Walter Alexander

ATLANTA -- March 22, 2010 -- Vitamin D supplementation should be considered for individuals with deficient levels, based on evidence that normalising those levels reduces cardiovascular risk, researchers said here at the 59th Annual Scientific Sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC).

Joseph Muhlestein, MD, Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, and colleagues analysed data from 27,686 Utah residents who were followed for an average of 1.3 years. Data showed that patients with very low levels of vitamin D were 77% more likely to die, 45% more likely to develop coronary artery disease, and 78% more likely to have a stroke, as compared with individuals with normal vitamin D levels.

To test for causality, Dr. Muhlestein evaluated data from 9,491 of these patients with low initial vitamin D levels and with at least 1 recorded follow-up level. A total of 4,507 (47% of individuals) increased their vitamin D level to >30 ng/mL.

An adjusted Cox regression analysis tested for association between last follow-up vitamin D levels and death, coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), stroke, and renal failure.

Significant differences in coronary artery disease (P = .04), heart failure (P = .04), and renal failure (P = .0001) were found when patients with very low vitamin D levels (10-19 ng/mL; n = 1,256) were compared with those with higher levels (>= 44 ng/ml ; n = 1,670). A strong trend towards increased death was also revealed (P = .06).

"Our data suggest that normalising deficient vitamin D levels is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk and suggest confirmation through clinical trials," said Dr. Muhlestein.

He noted further that a randomised National Institutes of Health primary prevention trial is ongoing with subjects receiving 2000 IU/day of vitamin D. He cautioned in an interview, however, that sometimes patients who are deficient need up to 5000 IU/day to normalise their vitamin D levels.

[Presentation title: Supplementing Deficient Vitamin D Levels is Associated with Reduced Cardiovascular Risk]

My 10 Favorite Supplements

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:44:00 +0000

As a doctor there are certain supplements which I find to be especially beneficial for people. These are not supplements which treat all conditions or just one condition. These are supplements which I find to be especially valuable in maintaining health. Of course there are other supplements which are extremely valuable in treating various conditions and I do not mean, by not having them on this list, that they are not of value. It's just that for the patients I've seen, these seems to be most helpful.

Some of these you may not have heard of, but I suggest you find out about them and see if they need to be worked into your supplement schedule.

So here goes: My 10 Favorite Supplements.

1.Reduced Glutathione: Glutathione is a sulfur bearing amino acid which is invaluable in protecting, detoxing the liver. The liver detoxes the liver in Phase 1 and Phase 2. Without going into too many details, Phase 2 is the final detoxification step the liver takes and there are six pathways it uses to remove toxins from the body. Each pathway uses a different molecule to activate the pathway. The most important pathway is the Glutathione pathway. This pathway detoxes up to 60 % of all toxins. It detoxes alcohol, chemicals and bacteria and if you do not consume enough Glutathione from fruits and vegetables, the Pathway will fail to operate efficiently and you will become toxic. You can take Glutathione orally, by injection or by IV. Orally you absorb about 25% of the dose, so you must take a high enough dose for it to work. I suggest 200mg a day. It must be "reduced glutathione" or it will not work. Look on the label and make sure it says "reduced". This is a critical supplement for anyone who drinks alcohol, has hepatitis B or C, or is overly toxic and wants to detoxify. Very important.

2.Alpha Lipoic Acid: ALA is very important as it is both water soluble and fat soluble. This means it is easily absorbed and can build up some level in your fat cells for use later. It is essential for detoxifying and protecting the liver. It is used in Germany as a prescription medication for use in diabetic neuropathy. It can be used with Glutathione to help with liver conditions, especially Hepatitis C. The only negative is after taking it your urine will have a unique smell like "maple syrup". This means it has been absorbed and is being used. I recommend 600 mg a day for most people, but have had patients on as much as 3,000 mg a day, depending on their condition. It is very safe and very useful.

3.Calcium - D- Glucurate. This is another supplement which helps the liver in Phase 2 detoxification. Cal.-D-Glucurate provides glucuronic acid for the Glucuronidation Pathway (one of the six Phase 2 pathways). It detoxifies excess estrogen. Many women have too much estrogen which leads to menstruation problems, fibrocystic breasts and sometimes breast cancer. Female sex hormones (Estrogen, Progesterone and Testosterone) all need to be in certain ratios at different times of their menstrual cycles. Often estrogen becomes too high, screws up the ratio and problems occur. Calcium D-Glucurate will provide the necessary glucuronic acid for the Glucuronidation Pathway to be able to break down estrogen so the ratio's are better balanced. I recommend 500 mg three times a day if this is something you need.

4.Garlic: Ah, yes, the old stand by...Garlic. My father swears by its miracle healing powers. Garlic can act as an antibacterial, antiviral, anti-fungal, lower blood pressure, help strengthen the cardiovascular system, lower cholesterol, and keep vampires away. There is almost nothing this wonderful herb cannot do. It is recommended to use the odorless kind such as Kyolic, or someone will accuse you of drinking alcohol and trying to hide the smell under garlic (this happened to me one time) and follow directions on the bottle for dosage as different dosages are used for different conditions.

5.Andrographis: I discovered this wonderful herb accidentally while using it in Chinese Medicine. It is unparalleled in fighting off colds and flu. When you first get symptoms, start taking andrographis three times a day for the first two days. Generally the cold or flu is stopped in it's tracks. I've never seen anything like it. We try to keep some around the house for good measure. There are other things it can do, but I use it solely for colds and flu.

6. Curcumin: Curcumin comes from the Indian spice Turmeric. It is an orange supplement with many excellent attributes. First it protects the liver. Including protection from cancer of the liver. If you have hepatitis, cirrhosis, toxic liver, curcumin is definitely for you. Studies are showing it can be used for other types of cancer also. It is a powerful anti-oxidant and will protect the body from the ravages of free radicals. It is an anti-inflammatory as effective as Prednisone only without the side effects which Prednisone brings along with it. It helps with digestion and with its anti-inflammatory properties can be used for colitis. Crohns disease and other bowel diseases. Lupus, Sjogrens disease, Fibromyalgia, RA, OA basically any inflammatory disease will benefit from this herb. It is an excellent supplement to keep in the house.

7.Reveratrol: Comes from red grapes and a few other plants, but more and more is learn frequently of this miracle supplement. It is anti-aging, anti-cancer, strengthens the body and mind and for immune suppressed people it can help improve the immune system. It will also decrease the "bad" cholesterol (VLDL VDL) and INCREASE the good cholesterol (HDL). It is an immune modulator. I had a patient with major depression, severe type 1 diabetes, hormonal dysfunction whom I placed on resveratrol and she swore it helped her in all areas and made life a little more worth living. It can be used for many conditions such as diabetes, heart conditions, fibromyalgia and mental issues, amongst others.

8.Milk Thistle. My old favorite and stand by is Milk Thistle. It helped save my wife's life when she came down with auto-immune hepatitis. It help her liver function again. It is the only known herb or medicine than has been proven to help the liver grow new hepatocytes (regrow liver cells). It is also helpful for kidney health. It should be used by anyone with liver problems...whether by alcohol abuse, drug usage, hepatitis, toxicity, auto-immune problems with the liver. It is a miracle herb. You can also grow it in your yard, eat the leaves in a salad, and after it flower collect the seeds and grid them up and place in oatmeal, grits or salads. Save some for replanting, though.

9. Melatonin: This is a hormone which is naturally produced in the Pineal glad (located in the brain) which is used to regulate your circadian rhythm (your sleep- wake cycle). If you suffer from insomnia it is a wonderful way to go to sleep without drugs such as Ambien. It also will reset your biological clock when you travel through various time-zones on business or vacation. It is known to help in high doses with cancer, with ITP (low blood platelets), and other medical conditions. But for just sleep it is safe, not habit forming and reliable. You will not wake up groggy the next morning.

10. Vitamin D: Vitamin D is not really a vitamin. It is a pro-hormone which means it is converted into a hormone with powerful actions. New studies show it will fight off the flu and colds (it was recommended for people to take when the swine flu threatened the universe this year). It is anti-cancer and can be used in cancer therapies, it helps with asthma, osteoporosis (it helps get calcium into the bone), protects the skin from sun damage, improves cardiovascular health and as it is being studied more and more benefits are being found out about this pro-hormone. Make sure to use the Vitamin D3 and not Vitamin D1 or 2.

So this is my list of my 10 favorite supplements, some are minerals, some vitamins, some herbs, some hormone but all exceedingly important to good health. If you are curious about these, simply Google these to find out more information. MY goal was to get your attention to these, your job is to do the leg work.

Best of Health.

Dr. Mike

Artificial pancreas works in 11 patients: study

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:09:00 +0000

Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO
Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:55pm EDT

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A test run of an "artificial pancreas" that monitors blood sugar and delivers both insulin and regulatory hormone called glucagon helped patients achieve near-normal blood sugar levels for more than 24 hours, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.

Health

The system -- made up of a glucose monitor, two pumps and a laptop -- is designed to better mimic the body's natural mechanism of controlling both high and low blood sugar.

In previous tests of artificial pancreas systems that deliver only insulin, some patients have developed dangerously low blood sugar, known as hypoglycemia.

Adding small doses of glucagon, a hormone released by the pancreas to raise blood sugar levels, helped overcome this, according to the study published in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

After some adjustments to a sophisticated computer program that acts as the brain of the system, all 11 adults in the study had good blood sugar control without experiencing hypoglycemia, even after eating three high-carbohydrate meals.

"This is the first artificial pancreas device that has used both insulin and glucagon," said Dr. Steven Russell of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who helped lead the study.

The finding is the latest in what has become a race to develop a fully functioning artificial pancreas that can give patients with type 1 diabetes an automated way to control their blood sugar.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the body destroys its own ability to make insulin, rendering sufferers unable to properly break down sugar. People with the condition must frequently monitor and take insulin to regulate blood sugar and prevent diabetic complications such as eye damage, kidney failure and heart disease.

Devices like continuous glucose monitors, such as those made by Medtronic or Abbott Laboratories, that constantly track blood sugar and pumps that inject insulin help, but patients still risk hypoglycemia.

That is where glucagon comes in, Russell said. In people with type 1 diabetes, glucagon does not work properly. Building this into the system helps balance out both the highs and the lows of blood sugar control.

SURPRISE FINDINGS

The system was developed in the lab of Edward Damiano, a biomedical engineer at Boston University whose son David developed type 1 diabetes when he was a year old.

Damiano's team developed the brains of the device, the computer program that constantly analyzes blood sugar and calculates when diabetics need a dose of insulin or glucagon.

Initial tests of the system revealed a surprise. While the computer program was based on recommended doses of the fast-acting insulin Humalog, made by Eli Lilly and Co, they discovered that many diabetics in their study process insulin much more slowly than expected.

Tweaks to the computer program fixed the problem but the issue demonstrates the complexities of treating diabetes.

In February, British researchers tested a similar system on 17 children and found it kept their blood sugar levels within the normal range for 60 percent of the time.

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation has teamed up with Johnson & Johnson's unit Animas, which makes insulin pumps, and DexCom Inc, which makes continuous glucose monitoring devices, to develop and test an artificial pancreas system.

Generation 'could die before their parents' as avoidable health complaints soar

noreply@blogger.com (Dr. Mike) — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:31:00 +0000

I had written an article last year about the baby boomers were going to die younger than their parent and for many reasons. We were the first generation to begin getting so many vaccines (which decreases your immune system, we were the first generation who's food were laced with pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, artificial flavorings , we were the first generation raised with microwave ovens for cooking our foods, the air is dirtier, the water almost undrinkable, and scientists keep playing around with various man-made virus's and bacteria to make weapons of mass destruction. I will wager that the average baby boomer will die 10 years before the age their parents died. All you have to do is check the obituary section of your newspaper and see how many people in their 40's and 50's are dying of cancer, heart attacks, and chronic diseases, etc.

Now the British Medical System is saying the children of Britain will be dieing even earlier for various reasons.

We are the only animal on earth who will soil their own bed and wallow in it. It is no wonder life expectancy is dropping and will dive over the next decade.

Read the article and learn and if you so choose go back and read my original article.

Dr. Mike

By Daily Mail Reporter

Today's children could die at a younger age than their parents as preventable diseases reach epidemic levels, the UK's leading hospitals warned today.

Doctors from Liverpool's Alder Hey Children's Hospital said the number of avoidable health complaints such as obesity and tooth decay were booming.

As a result they were spending an increasing amount of time dealing with avoidable conditions.
tooth decay

Around £1m and hundreds of hours are being spent each year on treating health complaints such as obesity and tooth decay

Dr Steve Ryan, medical director at Alder Hey, said: 'It just shouldn't be happening.

'These children should not be suffering from these problems and they should not be here at this hospital.

'People are starting to say maybe this is a generation where children will be dying before their parents.'

Alder Hey is one of Europe's biggest childrens hospitals, providing care for more than 200,000 children each year.

One of the areas most affected is the dental department. More than half of the 1,000 dental operations carried out each year are on children under the age of six.

Research has shown people with gum disease and tooth decay have a higher risk of heart disease.

Meanwhile between 500 to 1,000 children a year end up in hospital because they are exposed to their parents' smoking.

Another report predicted that eight out of 10 men and almost seven in 10 women will be overweight or obese by 2020.

BBC's Panorama programme 'Spoilt Rotten? claims around £1m and hundreds of hours of treatment time are being spent each year treating obesity, tooth decay, alcohol abuse and health complaints associated with passive smoking.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1265600/Generation-die-parents-avoidable-health-complaints-soar.html#ixzz0l5ZmsJfm