Health Read News

Hormone discovered - now no exercise needed?

2012-01-13T15:40:00.000-08:00

Big News flash - the discovery of a hormone which gives the benefits of exercising without exercising.

"Just take a pill and it will be like we exercised?" asked one newscaster of Dr Steven Garner who was not associated with the study. The doctor answered affirmatively, explaining that it switches the "bad fat" to "good fat". "If you want to do without exercise, you would only would take this pill for 10 weeks!" continued the doctor.

"Wouldn't there be other benefits of exercise though that this hormone would not provide?" The newscaster asked. Dr Garner admitted it did not build up muscle mass. And when the newscaster asked how much this pill would cost, Dr Garner suggested it might be very expensive because only one pharmaceutical has the patent.

I am a strong believer in "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't" so I investigated. An article by Bloomberg, admitted the hormone had only been tested in mice. That definitely, might be a problem as far as it working the same way in humans. For example, giving mice Leptin makes them slim and it was once touted as the magic obesity curing hormone yet it was very disappointing in human trials. For some reason, Leptin doesn't have the same effect on humans as it did on the mice. Whatever the case, the announcement that it would even be effective, let alone safe in humans was very premature.

The reality is first of all, it's unproven whether it's safe or effective in humans and Dr Garner on Fox News using buzz phrases like "all natural" and "no KNOWN side effects" is code for "we haven't really tested it and won't know about its safety or effectiveness until we market it and people live or drop dead."

Secondly, the greatest benefit from cardio exercise is exercising the heart and no pill will do that.

Bottom line, unless you trust the pharmaceuticals with your life, pass on this one and don't throw out your treadmills or bicycles.
More than likely, this headline was more about obtaining funding for the scientists rather than a real breakthrough and nothing does that so well as an eye catching, anti-obesity headline given to the news services.

Tylenol Deadly? Not according to this study!

2011-11-23T11:55:00.001-08:00

I find it very interesting that there is such ranting against one of the safer medications available, like Tylenol, and very little against meds like Cerebrex, or the statin drugs and ibuprofen - both of which are much more taxing on the liver than tylenol.

The latest study found that (as the headline on MSNBC read) "Even a tiny overdose of tylenol can be deadly".

Doing the math on this one.... The single dose of 27 grams was equal to 27,000 MG! That much of anything can be deadly!

From Google's calculator: 1 gram = 1000 mg. Extra Strength tylenol = 0.75 grams per pill, not even a gram.

Now if those folks took 24 grams of tylenol over "several days" (how many days "several days" meant isn't mentioned) but say they mean 14 days so that's 24/14 = 1.7 grams a day or 1700 mg so... if they broke it up into 4 doses, that would be 425 mg per dose.

It's true that this is a tiny over dose - your liver can only handle 325 mg at a time.

But then, do we know what other drugs these folks had been taking? They could have been taking statin drugs which are very hard on the liver. Marajuana, medical or not, is hard on the liver. Splenda and Nutrasweet really tax the liver as does Alcohol - which can be a liver killer - did they sequester these folks and give them two weeks of a healthy diet to make sure their livers were "clean"? Seems not.

"Staggered overdose patients may have fared less well because they did not receive the appropriate treatment soon enough, or because they had been drinking alcohol along with acetaminophen, he said."

Looking at the study, we find that they took 663 patients over a 17 year period having liver problems. Then somehow accessed how much tylenol they'd been taking (probably from hospital records which would be what the people self reported and people tend to understate what meds especially OTC's they are taking).

Then, looked at how many died.

But one may ask, how do they know it was the tylenol which caused the damage since there are so many other medications and substances people use which also cause liver damage?
Epidemiological studies are notoriously inaccurate because they never have sufficient amount of information on the cohort to make a good analysis.

A good example of this is the deviation in the results of the epidemiological studies on low dose birth control (for hormone replacement therapy) which found that birth control hormones greatly lowered the risk for heart attack and stroke, and the clinical studies on birth control hormones for HRT which found that these hormones greatly raised the risk for heart attack, stroke and thrombosis as well as significantly raised the risk for breast cancer.

Epidemiological studies can be misleading in other ways - they often can be manipulated to conclusions desired by those funding the studies. For example if they asked how many of those folks rode bicycles when they were kids, they would likely find that most or all of them did. Using the logic of the study they could then, reason that riding a bicycle when you are a kid burns your liver as an adult! No wonder Phillip Johnson a doctor of law, quipped that if lawyers used the same logic as scientists, they'd be laughed out of court! :)

A couple of months ago, a friend of mine collapsed with a heart attack from the medication she was taking. She didn't tell me what it was but I suspect something like Celebrex which raises the risk for heart attack. She was fine and then, suddenly, she keeled over. Of course, she's 78 years old so she could have had a heart attack anyway even without the medications. Hard to tell. If we don't get something else, we will get a heart attack sooner or later. Age 78 is pretty close to the expected lifespan of women in the USA and she also has had a lot of stress in her life since she was forced to move several times etc.

My spiritual advisor, a Jesuit priest, on Warfarin, was found in a pool of blood - brain bleed. He died in the hospital 2 hours later. The reason he was on Warfarin was because 2 years before I met him, in his mid 70's, he had been put on Vioxx. After two weeks of no arthritis pain, he keeled over suddenly, with a heart attack. A fit, active man who rode his bicycle at least once a week or so, he didn't expect a heart attack and attributed it to the drug, but again, it could have been that the occasional exercise he got, wasn't enough to really protect his heart, plus the extreme stress he was under, trying to keep working and being forced to retire because of his age.

It's true the warfarin saved him from another heart attack. He died of a brain bleed instead. I remember his arms being a sort of purplish from the obvious internal bleeding going on. Warfarin is also still used as "rat poison". We must ask if it is compartimentalizing too much to say that we should give one drug which works well for what it's specified but produces side effects which can be equal or worse than that from while the person is being "saved".

Nancy Rogers, MD, in her book, NO MORE HEARTBURN, observed that medicine seems to all too often treat one thing which is broken in the body by breaking something else.
Epidemiological studies are advantageous for making good news headlines as they use large numbers of people in the cohort and most folks don't question how the study was constructed so being published all over the world in the news media can open the door for large grants for the the researching scientists. One scientist told me "of course epidemiological studies are baloney sausage, but if they come out with a result we like, then we use them." :( As ex-NASA climatologist reminded, "Scientists are human too!" (Roy Spencer, PhD, CLIMATE CONFUSION, NY 2008)
I like this recommendation in the article:

"Acetaminophen also appears in combination with other drugs in certain prescription products. In January the Food and Drug Administration asked all manufacturers of acetaminophen to lower the dose in a single tablet to 325 mg. Even at this dose, patients who took two tablets every four hours for 24 hours would be at risk for a staggered overdose, Lenchus said."

I hope this goes through. Lately I've only been able to find Tylenol Regular, 325 mg a pill in house brand. I agree here. 1 pill, 4 times a day is about all a person wants to take. Of the pain meds, Tylenol in the proper quantities is about the safest and a whole lot safer than aspirin (which to me, is like playing Russian Roulette because if you do get a brain bleed from aspirin, you have only a 20% chance of surviving). Not withstanding aspirin can also cause a severe gastrointestinal bleed (1 in 1000 says the Bayer company) and microbleeds in the brain (one UK study found that a large percentage of those who took the daily aspirin got these).

I think more than tylenol, that ibuprofen, statin drugs, alcohol and aspartame are what is a huge factor in the increased incidence of liver damage we are seeing. As for this study, it sounds rather poorly designed to me!

But it did make a good news story! Which is of course, the bottom line.

Safety of Hospitals - check this out!

2011-09-01T12:38:00.000-07:00

Created by: Medical Billing and Coding

Essure birth control - miracle or not?

2011-06-15T12:22:00.000-07:00

Listen to the ads on Essure (and read the website) and it sounds really great - a one time non surgical procedure which takes care of birth control forever.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. They call it "non surgical" because although it involves a procedure which has to be done in the doctor's office, there is no incision but in another way, it could be considered surgical because it's invasive - it's just that they go in through an opening already there - that's why no incision. And also, they are inserting a foreign medal object (two of them) into your body in order to cause an irritation in the tubes which go from the ovaries to the uterus in order to force your body to create scar tissue in the tubes and thus, in theory, block the tubes.

The way that is said delicately on the website is "your body forms natural barrier around the micro-inserts that prevents sperm from reaching the eggs". Well, yes, scar tissue is a natural reaction but the irritation which caused it is not natural at all and can be a health risk!

And if you are still ovulating, blocking your fallopian tubes like this can raise the risk for ectopic pregnancy, a condition which can be life threatening for the mother.

That is, it doesn't take very much for a sperm to sneak through the scar tissue if it isn't really a super strong barrier. (Sperm are very small).

Also, it must be causing some other problems because the side effects are listed as heavy bleeding during periods, dizziness and more, which according to not happy campers, continue long after the procedure. We are not told why it's causing these side effects but a page on FaceBook where unhappy Essure patients hang out, confirms that at least a percentage of women get these uncomfortable side effects. The cramps the Essure folks warn can happen are described by some as "stabbing pains in the abdomen"

The women who are not happy with the procedure (posting on the complaint site), all say they are sorry they ever had it done and since it's permanent and the only fallopian tubes they will ever have, have been ruined, unlike something like "tubal ligation", Essure cannot be undone. The nice doctors who performed the procedure in the first place (there are 150 of them in my area for example) apparently, according to these women, are not any help when they are suffering side effects and some complain that the fatigue, nausea and dizziness, heavy bleeding etc, are pretty disabling.

On one site, there are more complaints about Essure.

Another side effect which doesn't seem to be listed in the Essure material but which many complain about, is weight gain.

On the website, they admit that the claim of rendering a woman safe from pregnancy was made from tests of less than one year.

This procedure doesn't sound like a real good idea to me. Sold on the premises Americans love, of "fast and easy", it sounds like if your body objects, it can be difficult and painful.

Do we sit too much?

2011-05-15T13:36:00.000-07:00

Computers are great but problem is, we don't have to expend much energy using them (says she sitting in her easy chair writing this blog)! :)

The following graphics are -er graphic but I thought rather informative. They have some good suggestions that those of us who sit a lot at computer (like MEEEE) can do to help our bodies and our hearts. Of course, they emphasize obesity (usual thing in our society which is fat-obsessed) but obesity is not really the issue here - it's making sure we move our muscles and work our heart for our health...

Via: Medical Billing And Coding

(also see How-to-geek infographics)

Aging musicians have sharp brains

2011-05-02T14:47:00.000-07:00

Did you study music as a kid or are you studying it now? I've never met anyone who was sorry they studied music but I've met quite a few people who tell me that they wished they had studied music or studied it longer! (the photo is of me in my 20's - I am still playing at the age of 66!)

Besides all the other benefits of musical study, here's a new one. Two scientists who tested a group of people with several levels of musical study, found that those who had studied music the longest, also did the best on cognitive tests - the type of tests that elderly usually don't do so well on. A news article on futura.org detailed the study.

Hanna-Pladdy and Alicia McKay, then both at the University of Kansas Medical Center, enrolled 70 individuals, aged 63-80 years old, in their study. Brenda Hanna-Pladdy, clinical neuropsychologist now at Emory University and lead researcher on the study commented that :

Musical activity throughout life may serve as a challenging cognitive exercise, making your brain fitter and more capable of accommodating the challenges of aging. ... Since studying an instrument requires years of practice and learning, it may create alternate connections in the brain that could compensate for cognitive declines as we get older.

Those with over 10 years of study, functioned the best, those with 1-10 years of study functioned the second best and the ones who functioned the least well were those with no musical training. All of the cohort were about the same fitness level and none had evidenced signs of Alzheimer's disease.

The study was published in the April 2011 issue of Neuropsychology Journal.

Dr Hanna-Pladdy did point out that more research is needed because they could not make a direct connection between musical training and better cognitive skills but the study results are interesting and makes sense to me - especially that I am an aging musician!

New York city not growing in population

2011-01-04T04:30:00.000-08:00

Will the familiar skyline which has signaled the excitement of New York City, change as the lights go out, one by one?

Indications are if NY doesn't stop aborting many times more unborn babies than carrying to term, it might indeed change things and not in necessarily a way people will like.

In the past decade, according to statistics, NY has only increased a modest 2.1 percent since over 1 million potential citizens were aborted.

The following were listed in a Molecular Biologist's blog as the repercussion of virtually no population growth:

NY has lost 2 representatives for the House in Congress so the state has less voting power

Like Japan which is suffering a similar program, NY is beginning to experience a labor shortage

Scientifically speaking, a society which is not reproducing itself, is a society which will not survive. Of interest to Hispanics and African Americans, statistically, 79 percent of babies aborted are either Hispanic or African American. (And that was actually founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger's original plan - she wanted to eliminate those populations she thought "inferior").

Dr Nadal the blogger concludes by writing "we are dying out".

To read Dr Nadal's blog which is well cited, please click here.

BPA - is it a threat to health?

2010-10-28T05:19:00.000-07:00

A recent article in Dr Gupta's CNN blog, carries the frightening headline "BPA may reduce sperm count". It goes on to detail a study in China of workers in plastics factories who had lower sperm counts (and high blood levels of BPA). The problem with this study is those workers are exposed to the chemical in a way that we will never be, from drinking from plastic bottles.

And yet, one wonders - how much chemical does leech into the substance in the plastic bottle? Do all plastic bottles leech BPA into your drink or food?

BPA is short for bisphenol-A, a chemical used in clear plastic. It has lately been loosely linked with numerous problems including obesity, cancer, brain damage and early puberty.

It is true that girls are exhibiting earlier puberty these days but that also could be attributed to other factors - pharmaceutical estrogen which is widely used for birth control and HRT, has been found in drinking water (it is thought to be excreted in the urine), and pollution in the atmosphere has also been suspected as a factor. So how much of the earlier development can be linked to BPA? No one knows.

As for obesity, here the links are very vague and much more likely factors can be named such as labor saving devices (our grandparents burned a whooping 800 calories more daily than we do, just in executing housework etc), and foods which are delicious but extremely high calorie while not being particularly filling. Lending fuel to those reasons is the lack of obesity found in environments which do not have easy access to fancy and fast foods and do not have labor saving devices like cars and automatic washers (for example, the PIMAs of Mexico who still live the same way they lived 1000 years ago).

Cancer? Well, here again, there are many factors have been strongly linked to it, including heredity, use of tobacco and alcohol, pollution in the air, synthetic estrogen and even some medications like those medications taken to lower cholesterol (statins).

So again, we are left with questions about BPA.

Even more concerning, is the fact that there is no way around plastic bottles - everything comes in it, from milk to water. So if plastic is really leeching into our food and causing health problems, where would we turn?

It seems in our modern society, rather than curing all the ills, we are often doing trade-offs like the vaccines which have been linked to the high incidence of autoimmune disorder in exchange for infectious disease. And I also wonder why some chemicals which happen to be popular or hot sellers are never mentioned in our many health warnings. Chemicals like aspartame which has been linked to brain cancer in 100 worldwide studies and is actually banned in some countries, or the preservative in vaccines which is a form of mercury, known to be extremely toxic, even in trace amounts. Or coffee, which contains caffeine, a stimulant which can, over a lifetime especially in larger quantities, disarray the dopamine in the brain, possibly leading to the development of Parkinson's disease (REF: PROZAC BACKLASH by J. Glenmullen, MD, NY,2005).

I would tend to think, if BPA is a player, it's a minor player in causing disease. But I guess it's more of a "stay tuned". Studies like the Chinese study of workers in plastics factories are not really telling us anything about the general public and BPA.

New Study finds high cancer risk with low dose birth control/hormone replacement

2010-10-22T02:37:00.000-07:00

Low Dose Birth Control Hormones are given for birth control and also for hormone replacement therapy (HRT). And the cancer risk with pharmaceutical estrogen first popped up in the 1930's when rats given the drug, all came down with breast cancer, both males and females. In the 1960's this study was repeated with the same results, but funded by Planned Parenthood which saw a gold mine in selling a medication for contraception, research pushed on and in the mid 1960's, the "birth control pill" became available, touted as safe and effective.

Epidemiological studies which are notoriously inaccurate but because of the large numbers involved, convincing to the public (and medical providers also) suggested that giving menopausal women estrogen (and later on, low dose birth control including estrogen and progestin) would relieve their hot flashes and other symptoms associated with menopause and even protect them from heart attacks.

But even after these studies, nursing magazines referred to the "estrogen - breast cancer risk". The Merck Manual also listed these medications as significantly raising the risk for heart attack, stroke and thrombosis (40% higher risk in those taking the hormones). But the general public never heard about these risks and the large epidemiological studies which suggested that this medication was "heart protective" were convincing.

In the year, 2000, 9 million women were on premarin for menopause.

Meanwhile, the incidence of breast cancer went from a low percentage in the 1950's to occurring in 1 in 8 women by 2000 (80,000 women die yearly in the USA, from breast cancer).

In the early 2000's, 2 NIH double blind studies had to be stopped mid-term because those on estrogen alone or low dose birth control - estrogen and progestin, were getting too many heart attacks, strokes and cancer. And pharmaceutical estrogen was put on the FDA list of cancer causing chemicals in 2005.

Recently a new study, an 11 year point analysis of the Women's Initiative Study Data, suggested that low dose birth control given for Menopause and Hormone Replacement significantly raises the risk of cancer.

The women taking both estrogen and progestin were found to have a much greater chance of dying from lung cancer or breast cancer (for example, women on HRT had a 70 percent greater chance of dying of lung cancer than those who never took the hormones).

The study was reported on in the AMA's Journal. Rowan Chlebowski, of the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, who led the analysis,told the press:

"Women taking estrogen plus progestin are at greater risk from dying from the two leading causes of cancer death in women."

In 2002, there were 110 million prescriptions filed for low dose birth control. By 2005 after both NIH studies had to be halted, prescriptions "plummeted" to 40 million. And the incidence of breast cancer also dropped somewhat.

However, today, millions of women still take the hormones as birth control and hormone replacement therapy. In my acquaintance, I've seen a 17 year old have a stroke (she was on hormones for birth control - it paralyzed her partially) and recently, a woman in her 50's with no other risk factors, had a major stroke paralyzing her totally on one side. This woman was likely on hormone replacement therapy.

It is hoped that with the new analysis, the public will finally consider not taking these hormones.

When my husband and I got married in 1966, the "pill" was a new thing. Everyone asked me enthusiastically if I was planning to take the pill. "No," I told them, "That's a system which is too sensitive and I have a hunch that dumping amounts of pharmaceutical hormones into my body would not be a healthy thing!" I never did take birth control medication - but had no idea how unhealthy and risky those hormones would turn out to be.

NOTE: Natural Progesterone Cream (like "Progesta-Care") is a nice alternative for menopause which cuts the symptoms but does not put the woman at risk. See "WHAT YOUR DOCTOR MIGHT NOT TELL YOU ABOUT MENOPAUSE" by Dr John Lee, MD. (No, I do not sell this but this is what I used to get me smoothly through menopause and also, to avoid a hysterectomy.)

Are the medications we use a factor in Alzheimers and Parkinsons?

2010-09-03T05:09:00.000-07:00

A few years ago, some very poorly publicized studies suggested that long term use of drugs and medications which alter the amounts of dopamine and serotonin in the brain, can injure the dopamine and serontonin receptors. This includes the use of medications in the often used SSRI group (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) which prevent the brain from absorbing the feel good chemical serotonin. These are used to combat depression and other uses including losing weight.

A book called "PROZAC BACKLASH" by Dr Joseph Glenmullen brought out another little known but possibly noteworthy, complication of these meds - the brain, like other places in the body is a finely balanced system - flooding it with serotonin causes it to produce greater amounts of dopamine to counteract what it detects as a "problem" and in the long run, said Glenmullen, this can cause Parkinsonism.

He pointed out that any stimulant has a similar effect and thus can raise the risk for Parkinson's disease and this causes me to wonder about even those well accepted stimulants like the caffeine in coffee.

Parkinsons is very common these days - could something so mild as our coffee drinking habits be contributing?

The fact is, medications have side effects - so do drugs and caffeine is a drug albeit people don't think of it as that because it's so commonly consumed.

In the NY Times recently a study was reported on which suggests that party drugs which give a "high" like meth and cocaine can damage dopamine receptors.

The article naturally, in the media fashion, emphasized the ill effects of meth and cocaine - drugs which most readings of that periodical won't be using but I have not seen much in the media about the real dangers of the SSRI's - the so-called Prozac group of medications which are widely in use.

Perhaps the legal drugs won't bring folks to the "edge of personal ruin" like the extreme case the NY times talked about... unless a case of Parkinson's would be considered somewhat ruining - I would consider it so.

Today I heard about two people I know - one formerly scholarly, talented university professor and the other, a talented string player who had chaired a section in a symphony orchestra - both downed with Alzheimers.

Everyone has heard of the nuns study on Alzheimers which was supposed to give us the exact cause of the disease (nuns allowed their brains to be dissected after death). It was a long carefully run study according to the book by the head researcher and midway into the study, they had a theory... nuns with alzheimers seemed to have smaller brains than those who retained their mental prowess.

But then came a 94 year old who was extremely mentally sharp, up to her death, teaching others, caring for nuns in the elderly home etc. When they dissected her brain, they found it was much smaller than another nun who'd had Alzheimers for several years.

"Now we are back to first base again," wrote lead researcher, David Snowdon, in his book published in 2007, "Aging with Grace"

Although the study revealed a lot about how to stay healthier and more mentally alert in one's Autumn years, it apparently left researchers with more questions than answers about Alzheimer's.

I continue to wonder though, could the chemicals we consume be a factor in some of these brain disorders? I would bet it's a good possibility.

Health shorts...

2010-08-18T08:20:00.000-07:00

Click the links to read the stories...

1 Unrestrained dogs in the car can endanger them and you by falling on you in an accident or distracting you from driving. If you want to travel with your dog, seat it in the back seat with a seat belt.

2. Is Cymbalta, originally sold as an anti depressant, safe and effective for pain? Lilly which manufactures it is seeking FDA approval for more uses than depression, fibromyalgia and diabetic nerve pain. Lilly would like approval for general pain. Cymbalta, besides a host of side effects including nausea, nightmares, insomnia, can also cause liver damage with long term usage. There are 14.6 million taking Cymbalta. Since Lilly stock dropped in value after a trial for a new Alzheimer's drug in which those not taking the drug did better than those taking it, perhaps, Lilly wants to make up the loss.

3. A new study found 3000 children from 12-18 with hearing loss. Loud music and blaring Ipods are a suspected factor.

4. Acai berries do not help you lose weight, say experts - but only work as a laxative. The FTC is going after a couple of internet places making claims for the product which the FTC expert says are false. Additionally, taking these herbs can cause damage on a longer term basis. Just because it's a herb doesn't mean it's safe.

Pillz pillz pillz - do they really offer hope for easy weight loss

2010-07-15T03:47:00.000-07:00

A headline in the AZCentral website boasts that "Experimental diet pill has promise, little risk".

Apparently a large study in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that this medication,

Lorcaserin caused more people to lose at least 5 percent of their body weight over one year, more than twice the rate achieved by those on dummy pills.

So what is this wonder drug? Yet another flavor of an SSRI i.e. like Prozac etc. And in fact, according to the newsletter, Heartwire, Lorcasin isn't that much different from fenfluramine - one of the medications in Phen-Fen:

Lorcaserin is a selective serotonin 2C receptor agonist, and previous studies have shown that drugs targeting serotonin are beneficial in weight loss. The nonselective serotonin agonist fenfluramine, which, along with phentermine, made up the antiobesity medication fen-phen, for example, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the early 1970s as an adjunct for the treatment of obesity. It was pulled from the market after reports it caused valve disease and pulmonary hypertension.

And what was this amazing weight loss the drug caused? Well, the average weight loss among the people in the study, was 12 lbs over a year which they apparently kept off mostly during the second year of the study. This compared to a weight loss of 4.8 lbs in those taking sugar pills (Placebos).

Adverse events according to the researchers on the study ( abstract is available,) were 'only' headache, nausea and dizziness.

Fact remains, to lose 12 lbs in a year, is easy even without their drug. For example something as small as a walk a day will do it. (That's about 1 lbs a month)In fact, a 2003 study (reported on in the JAMA) by Stanley Heshka found that people on Weight Watchers who attended most meetings, lost an average of 11 lbs in a year - without any drugs. (JAMA. 2003 Apr 9;289(14):1792-8.)

This isn't the only "wonder drug" coming out - there is another I recently read about called Qnexa which is really a combination of two already available medications, Phentermine (yes, the stimulant and part of Phen-Fen, the combination which caused Pulmonary hypertension in some people) and Topamax, the anti seizure drug. Vivus called the combination Phen/TPM in the FDA documents but obviously since that's uncomfortably close to the unsafe Phen-Fen, I'm sure it won't be marketed under that name.

According to the releases on this medication, the weight loss was better than the serotonin agonist above:

Qnexa showed the best weight loss results in clinical trials, with patients losing between 13 percent and 15 percent of their body weight. But the drug also had the highest rate of patient dropouts due to side effects, which include memory and concentration problems. Qnexa is a combination of two older drugs: the amphetamine phentermine and topiramate, an anticonvulsant drug sold by Johnson & Johnson as Topamax. According to the company, phentermine helps suppress appetite, while topiramate makes patients feel more satiated.

In other words, the Phentermine makes your heart beat faster (which can't be good for the heart) and the Topamax causes you to forget how hungry you are?

Kidding aside, there seems to be conflicting reports how much weight the cohort lost as well as what those side effects are. (Vivus, the manufacturer has not yet published their two 56 week long studies on the drug combo yet)

UPI reported a weight loss of 3-11 percent which is considerably less than reported in the Dallas news media:

Included in the review [for the FDA] are two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 56-week trials conducted by Vivus and presented at medical meetings, but not yet published in peer-reviewed journals. Under the low dose, body weight losses were 3 percent or more, while the higher dose (including 100 mg of Topamax - enough to cause the adverse side effects) resulted in a body weight loss of about 11 percent.

I have a friend who was put on Topamax for seizures - she didn't lose any weight and she complained bitterly about the side effects of the drug. What she described which seems to have been missed in the news but was described in an FDA memo document was as follows:

When used at doses of 100 mg to 400 mg per day for migraine prophylaxis and the treatment of seizures, topiramate is associated, in a dose-related manner, with an increased incidence of cognitive-associated adverse events including confusion, psychomotor slowing, difficulty with concentration/attention, and difficulty with memory, speech or language problems, particularly word-finding difficulties.

Another adverse side effect reported on in the FDA memo was Metabolic acidosis in a percentage of the cohort on Qnexa - this could cause kidney stones as well as osteopenia:

A mild, sustained metabolic acidosis increases the probability of developing nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] and adversely affects bone structure and function. In the one-year clinical trials, there were twenty-two reported cases of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in the PHEN/TPM group compared with five in the placebo group.

(Having gotten a kidney stone once in my life, I would add- you so don't want to suffer that one - yes, it is true what people say, that the pain is exquisite and intense!)

Finally the FDA memo stated that although cardiac arrythmias and other cardiovascular events were of low incidence, there was no information available about the repercussions of using it for the long term treatment of obesity.

And according to the FDA Briefing document from the manufacturer, most of the year, those on in studies were told to change their lifestyles to one of regular exercise and calorie restriction, which will, of course, cause a weight loss without the drug.

One blog stated that the FDA had concerns about the drug combo:

FDA reports show that Qnexa has potentially bad side effects on the heart. Increased heart rate, depression, adverse effects on pregnant women and memory and language problems were noted during testing. Attention span also seems to decrease with usage.

Unfortunately, I could not find the affore mentioned FDA reports and the blogger did not give the cite however, since Phen-Fen caused serious heart problems, I would not be surprised if Phen-TPM did also. They will only find that out in the aftermarket studies after thousands of people have been the guinea pigs for the new drugs.

There is a dark side of stimulants also, (and the serotonin agonists also work as stimulants which is why they are often used to treat depression) according to "PROZAC BACKLASH" by Joseph Glenmullen, MD, is that on the long term, they can significantly raise the risk for Parkinson's disease, something which people are seldom warned about despite a body of research suggesting this. Serotonin agonists tend to cause a flood of the brain chemical serotonin, which causes the brain to react by producing more dopamine - this imbalance of an overage of dopamine is what is thought to raise the risk for Parkinsonism.

Additionally some "whole life" animal studies have suggested that longer term use of the serotonin agonists can also damage the serotonin receptors in the brain.

The only wonder about these two drugs in my book is that I would bet people will buy them, still looking for the elusive "easy way out" of counting calories and exercising to achieve and maintain weight loss.

Truth being that people do not have to lose weight to get healthy - they only have to make mostly healthy food choices and try to exercise (cardio) 4-5 times a week - this is called HAES and is well proven by clinical studies including the 2 year study at USC - researchers on this clinical study were Linda Bacon and Judith Stern and since Stern is a member of the Weight Watchers International Medical advisory committee, she would have undoubtedly, preferred a different finding than the finding of the HAES study i.e. that healthy lifestyle without a focus on weight loss trumped dieting as far as reducing health risks.

Take a look: Link for the HAES study

For more info, also see Dr Bacon's website.

Music - are we body and mind alone?

2010-04-19T03:27:00.000-07:00

A friend who is a music teacher and I (another music teacher) were chatting this morning. He said that he believed we are mind, body and soul. And our schools do pretty well with the mind (academics) and the body (sports and phys ed). But the soul is often ignored and yet, might be one of the most important parts.

Specifically, when a financial crunch happens within the school system, what is it that is usually first deleted? The music program which apparently many feel is unnecessary.

In my some 50 years of being a violinist and teacher, I have met hundreds of folks who tell me that they studied a bit of violin or organ or piano or trumpet in their youth but gave it up and now are sorry that they didn't pursue the music because they so wished they could play now.

I have never met anyone who continued music and can play now who is sorry they continued music.

But music programs also enrich the mind - thus found several studies over the years. Typically children and adolescents involved in music tend to do better at not only academics but also at sports.

For example in a study reported in 2009, Laurel Trainor, director of the Institute for Music and the Mind at McMaster University in West Hamilton, Ontario, compared pre schoolers who had studied music with those who had not. She found the kids who had studied music had better responses on a test of brain development, suggesting music actually enhances the brain functions. She further noted:

Even a year or two of music training leads to enhanced levels of memory and attention when measured by the same type of tests that monitor electrical and magnetic impulses in the brain.

And

We therefore hypothesize that musical training (but not necessarily passive listening to music) affects attention and memory, which provides a mechanism whereby musical training might lead to better learning across a number of domains

Trainor said the reason for this might be:

"that the motor and listening skills needed to play an instrument in concert with other people appears to heavily involve attention, memory and the ability to inhibit actions. "

Harvard University researcher Gottfried Schlaug has also studied the cognitive effects of musical training. Schlaug and his colleagues found a correlation between early-childhood training in music and enhanced motor and auditory skills as well as improvements in verbal ability and nonverbal reasoning.

A study published in the magazine, "The New Scientist" suggested that music training can actually boast the IQ scores of children and adolescents!

Read the bios of the valedictorians of the High School classes and you will find that the overwhelming majority of them play a musical instrument.

So even if the happiness music brings us is not considered important, perhaps the powers that be will consider that encouraging music training will likely cause the participating students to get higher scores on the AIMS and/or Iowa tests also!

My friend and I talked about the recent Allstate festival in our state. This is where selected musicians and singers from all the schools are put together into a large chorus, band and orchestra and they practice and give a concert (or two). The result is simply amazing. My friend described it as "hearing the Chicago Symphony couldn't be better than this".

I totally agree with him because the thing I remember most vividly from High School in Chicago was the conference festivals (we had so many music schools and programs in the area that an "Allstate" orchestra might have been too large).

We rode on a bus to another school in our conference, we practiced in the afternoon, and then, the next evening went back to give the concert.

One has never lived until one has listened to (or better yet, participated in) these large orchestras, bands and choruses. A chorus of over 500 High Schoolers singing "The Seven Last Words of David"? I can still hear it, over 40 years later.

Or how about 25 trumpets playing on "The March from Ben Hur". After hearing this rendition, the movie version pales by comparison.

Not withstanding the rich experience of playing under famous conductors and meeting so many other High Schoolers and much more. We all looked forward to these festivals as the high point of the year!

Most people I've talked to, feel the music program in school gave them some of the best times in their lives, studies suggest that participation in music helps people for life and just talk to anyone you meet - everyone loved the music program and no one is sorry for having participated but many feel cheated that they gave up music too early in life!

So why are we always considering cutting the music program. Just consider this - the IPOD's are even more precious to the average teen than their cell phones (or they use their cell phones to listen to music).

We seem to have an inborn desire for music and all evidence suggests it not makes us happier and better adjusted people but actually makes us smarter too. Seems a win-win to me.

So let's consider cutting something OTHER than the music programs! Please! Trust me, your children will thank you for making sure these programs continue!

Tysabri for MS - re-visit

2010-04-06T03:20:00.000-07:00

I received a comment from "Enjolez" who is listed as having a blog but when you click on the link, it's non existent. The comment used explictives and suggested I didn't know what I was talking about when I wrote about the Multiple Sclerosis "disease modifying" medications, particularly a cancer chemo therapy drug named Tysabri which can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause a deadly type of brain infection called "progressive multifocal leukoencepelopathy" which according to the manufacturer of the medication, causes death or "severe disability".

Enjolez didn't mince words - he or she called me a f-king idiot but didn't bring up any facts to refute my claims. Despite the type of comment, I want to answer his or her issues because it's important that he or she (probably having infusions of this medication) has informed consent.

At a recent MS meeting, I was given a colorful brochure produced by Biogen. Biogen didn't mince words about the possible risks however or the fact that Tysabri hasn't been studied for "use longer than 2 years" (that's on the first page of the booklet). Interestingly enough, the gentleman I talked to, representing the company, really believed in the medication - he told me his wife was on it.

However, when the risk of a medication appears greater than the risks of the disease it is used to treat, it may be a smart thing to consider another type of treatment. Treatment with a medication which even the lax FDA approved with difficulty for MS, a disease which if treated properly is mild in most folks for years, sounds a bit to me, like playing "Russian Roulette".

From the "Safety information" tab in the same brochure from biogen we are informed that

Tysabri is not recommended if you have a medical condition that can weaken your immune system.

MS is a condition that can weaken your immune system all by itself because it's an autoimmune disorder and/or autoimmune/lymphocyte B disorder (the jury is still out on this). In other words, by having this drug infused into you, you could be dealing yourself a double whammy so to speak!

Biogen also warns that Tysabri can cause liver damage.

What many people do not know is that the nature of studying the MS disease modifying medications is such that they are typically studied in people who display "white spots" on an MRI of their brains but have not been formally diagnosed with MS yet i.e. they have no symptoms of the disease. Some of those in the studies cohorts never come down with MS!

Also, the white spots on the brain appear long before serious symptoms appear - progressive or intermittent MS is a mild disorder which takes many years to disable.

Back in the old days, people were not diagnosed until they had the clinical symptoms but now with MRI's, we have many cases of folks being diagnosed with some fleeting mild symptoms (one lady I'm thinking of, had some "weakness in the legs" but not enough to stop her from being in college athletics) and the MRI "white spots" and they are told that the sooner they get "on the medications", the better and because they had no real symptoms in the first place, and they "believe in" the medications, they naturally attribute this good feeling to the medications or the fact that they have virtually no symptoms but perhaps this is only because if they DO have MS, it's an early enough case that they would not have symptoms anyway. (We won't even discuss here, the possible ramifications of a "too early" diagnosis, psychologically which by itself is questionable since the person may never come down with active disease!)

In contrast, those who have a lot of clinical symptoms often do not experience the "help" that the early cases experience. One lady I talked to who was on Tysabri because she'd tried the other medications with no help, said she was disgusted with her neurologist because she'd been on Tysabri a year and no change. However, when I told her it was a risky medication, she shrugged her shoulders and said "Who cares?"

This attitude of doom and lack of knowledge of the nature of MS is, I think, what causes many folks with MS to take unnecessary risks.

I'm back from the 1970's before all the new treatments. Back then, the MS society told us that 10 years after diagnosis (from clinical symptoms), most folks with MS were still walking and many were still working. They advocated a healthy lifestyle with moderate exercise and range of motion moves, healthy eating and "some walking, some sitting, some standing and some lying down".

In my own research, I noticed that folks with MS who did the highly experimental medical treatments even like large doses of steroids, tended to have more disability in the long run. In fact, there were even a couple of studies which suggested that!

With today's "disease modifying medications" for MS, they don't promise patients anything as far as less disability but only (perhaps) less MS flare-ups. In the studies of these medications, "flare ups" are decided totally upon "new white spots" showing up on an MRI since those in the cohort have not formally come down with MS yet.

Our son, the medical provider, tells me that the disease modifiers for rheumatoid arthritis work well. These are also, medications which are not without risks, however, none of them have the risk (however rare) of causing a deadly brain infection like Tysabri.

Perhaps the problem with the MS disease modifiers is that they really don't know that much about the cause of MS i.e. they may know more about rheumatoid arthritis than they do about MS.

A favorite internist told me "neurology really don't understand a lot of these things". Well said.

Informed choice is the only way but that includes looking at the research behind the medication or at least just reading the caveats from the manufacturer. I wonder if the person who called me an "idiot" ever did the latter.

If "Enjolez" will write me privately and give me an email address to write him/her at, I will furnish more information about myself.

Football and sports in general - the other side

2009-12-25T08:15:00.000-08:00

We see it on TV all the time. Parents dreaming of their kids playing football and when this dream is fulfilled, they are standing there, watching their rising stars, with tears in their eyes.

High School football players, playing for a deceased brother or sister --- or loved one with a backdrop of stands filled with cheering people.

Sunday afternoon stopping while everyone gathers around the big tube watching the exciting finish to a professional football game.

We hear bits and pieces... football players making big bucks, 500 thousand a year or more. We see young athletes on TV smilingly saying how they are so happy to be a part of a professional football team. A young gymnast saying how her dream is to be a part of the Olympic team...

But over the years, I've heard some other small voices here and there. Things which are unsettling, like how a large percentage of kids who play High School football, sustain back and knee injuries which plague them for life.

A lone movie depicting football as an ultra rough game, injuring many players.

Joan Ryan's book "LITTLE GIRLS IN PRETTY BOXES" depicting the sports of gymnastics and figure skating as exploitive and taking a toll on the bodies of those who are barely teenagers. A gymnast, here and there dying of a head injury. Things none of us who love sports really want to hear.

I did not allow our son to participate in any sports besides swimming (which he did not like!). And I, myself, only did one swimming competition. But like everyone else, I love watching sports on TV.

What does happen to those who achieve the ultimate dream of playing professional football?

Finally one man is breaking the silence.

Former NFL star, David Pear, is speaking out. Pear played ball for Washington University and then, went on to play with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and finally was with the Oakland Raiders when they won the Super Bowl.

And David told a Sports Illustrator writer in a phone interview, recently, that he's sorry he ever played football and sends a warning to parents to not allow their children to EVER play football.

David explained that at the age of 56, he's a physical train-wreck. He's had multiple surgeries and suffers from pain throughout his body:

His neck hurts. His hips hurt. His knees hurt. His feet hurt. When he wakes up in the morning, pain shoots through his body. When he goes to sleep at night, pain shoots through his body.

David also walks with a cane - when he walks which isn't that much. And he suffers from vertigo and memory loss, he says.

He pointed out several other former NFL players who are in wheelchairs or in other ways, very disabled and all from football.

Football isn't the only sport which creates a lot of permanent injury. In following gymnastics, I remember Olympian JC Phelps requiring joint replacements at the tender age of 18 and a medical provider remarking that many gymnasts have the bones of a 70 year old before they reach the age of 20. A member of the gold medal winning Olympic gymnastics team telling reporters she (at the age of 22) no longer does gymnastics because her "body is too broken".

Tara Lipinski who won the Olympic gold medal for figure skating in 1998, dropped out of skating soon after. After a few surgeries on her hip and a serious back injury, she had to hang up her skates for life.

We never hear about those people - only about the ones who survive like Dorothy Hamill who skated into her 50's but it's not clear whether any of today's skaters who are required to do several triple jumps just to compete will survive to their 50's still on the ice. And did anyone notice that most gymnasts retire from participation after 1 or 2 Olympics? Does anyone care?

Elite Sports in general are more and more demanding and more and more hard on the bodies of those who participate also.

And some sports are overly demanding on the athletes even in the non elite arena - like football. For example how many people who "dream" of running marathons realize that the ambulances waiting in the background ARE there for more than decoration and that often, at least one person dies during or after doing a marathon. That seems a side of the story we never hear.

Don't get me wrong - I think sports are great - and I do confess that although I do not watch football, I do enjoy watching figure skating and gymnastics. How do I calm my niggling conscience that those who are so enjoyable to watch are quite literally giving their lives and health for my entertainment? Like the typical sports fan, I guess - I remind myself that they volunteered. I wouldn't want to do it myself but ...

The NFL gave Dave Pear, a yearly disability pay but not before several years in court and his pay is not enough to compensate for the constant pain he suffers, he told the SI reporter.

Seems like a no brainer that the human body was not made to throw around as is done in football, doesn't it? And yet, so many kids continue to go through hoops to become a part of a football team as parents and friends watch proudly because this is a story no one really wants to hear.

We don't even give folks "informed consent" for elective medical procedures, many of which bite hard after a few years so why should we consider "informed consent" for sports like football? Unfortunately, football is such a part of the American entertainment picture and considering that "informed consent" might greatly cut down the numbers of those who wish to participate, I suspect we will not hear more than a few lone voices crying out about the reality of it, in the near future.

Most of the injured ones will hang around in the background, quietly suffering.

I am reminded of the movie "The Matrix" where people live in a glamorous virtual reality while they waste away in tanks, their very lives being sucked out by a large machine. Art often reflects reality. Perhaps we should pay more attention to it.

Re-thinking narcotic pain control for chronic pain sufferers

2009-11-16T09:50:00.000-08:00

There is an ongoing discussion about pain control with the majority of medical providers taking the position of being very negative toward using narcotics.

For example, this news article quotes a committee on pain management:

Chronic pain, if not recognized and treated as a chronic illness, takes an enormous personal toll on millions of patients and their families, and leads to increased health care costs. Chronic pain can also compromise the productivity of the U.S. workforce.

The article answers:

"Maybe Portenoy and Foley and the other Committee Members contributing to this report would like to address the epidemic in this country of OxyContin deaths and addictions which has taken 'an enormous personal toll on millions of patients and their families'."

Oxycontin deaths? Are they talking about pain management or are they talking about drug abusers? I would bet they are talking about drug abusers and not folks WHO NEED good pain management. And in the case of drug abusers, have they considered the large number of people killed on the road by drivers inebriated by alcoholic beverages, a highly addictive drug to which no one, it seems, objects and which has little to no value, medicinally? Have they considered the large numbers of those addicted to alcohol? Somehow this does not deter folks from enjoying their occasional drinks... on the contrary.

And for kids suffering from connective joint disease (this has really increased, in our society), perhaps narcotic pain meds should be considered, as, young folks, if in serious pain, (which is not really helped that much by NSAIDS etc) tend to "bootleg" drugs if the docs do not prescribe them, an act which could endanger them much more than prescribed drugs.

Addictive people can get addicted on legal drugs like alcohol and cigarettes (cigarettes is one of the worst addictions to shake too with a very small percentage able to give it up without numerous tries) but no one even MENTIONS those addictions.

But somehow when it comes to chronic pain, people get very strange ideas.

Why is it, I wonder, better to cook your liver and burn holes in your stomach with the NSAIDS for limited relief than to use narcotics? Or better to endanger your heart with drugs in cox 2 inhibitor class?

An 80 year old friend of mine (R.I.P.) had a vioxx-related heart attack (and his heart was healthy before that - he exercised regularly etc etc) so after this happened, there was really no relief from his severe arthritis pain since he was not given narcotics. He suffered stoically but would have had a much better quality of life in his last 3 years of life, if he had been given even small doses of a medication like oxycontin.

Pain management providers point out that those who NEED narcotics do not get "hooked" anyway... they may get DEPENDENT but that's a different thing from addiction and yet, many do not make the distinction.

People should NOTE that 95 percent of Dr Kevorkian's "patients" who sought "assisted suicide" were NOT terminally ill - they were in CHRONIC PAIN and/or depressed - most of them told Kevorkian they just wanted to stop the pain. But it seems our society is actually more accepting of "assisted suicide" as a "treatment" for chronic pain than narcotics which are the only medications which are reasonably effective.

A study a few years ago found that 65 percent or more of the elderly did NOT have good pain management because of our society's non acceptance of narcotics for pain control.

And one of the doctors on a Discovery Health CME about "none small cell carcinoma" of the lungs commented that many medical providers will not give narcotics to terminal cancer patients for "fear of getting them hooked" and he asked if this wasn't more than a bit ridiculous.

In a society which considers personal privacy so precious that it does not protect the life of an unborn baby if the mother wants to terminate, why are we invading people's PRIVACY over their own bodies and the opportunity to get relief from chronic pain? This over zealousness about prescribed narcotics seems more than a contradiction of our beliefs about a "woman's right to do as she pleases with her body" (especially as medicine does not consider the unborn baby as a part of a woman's body but rather simply HOUSED there).

In our society which has a lot of aged folks due to modern innovations in medicine etc, we must realize that a LARGE percentage of the elderly suffer with ELDERLY diseases which DO cause chronic pain.

But interestingly enough I once asked a pain management specialist what type of patient are most of his patients who are on large amounts of narcotic pain medication and surprisingly he did not answer, the elderly... his answer? Pain caused by chronic disorders like fibromyalgia or ... surgery! i.e. joint replacements, back surgeries etc. A close friend who is an RN studying to be a nurse practitioner confirmed the thing about back surgery. She has several herniated discs in her back (she is 59 going on 60) but said she would not have surgery because she finds in many patients, the surgeries just worsen things. Many of the chronic pain sufferers I know, had gastric bypass (for weight loss) several years ago. Some of them get narcotics and some of them do not - many doctors balk at prescribing these for fear of repercussions from the Drug Administration and those who do not get pain meds suffer a huge amount of depression. A study on 10 year post op weight loss surgery patients found that there was a much larger percentage of suicide in this population than even in severely obese people.... (and obese people are basically shunned by society and medicine alike)

If we are really worried about addiction, why not go after the liquor lobby? Besides the huge number of people killed or maimed by drunk drivers, consider that every drink of an alcoholic beverage kills liver cells (and we wonder why in a society where liquor freely flows, we have a large percentage of liver failure?) Or the cigarette companies (especially when cigarettes and tobacco usage are a factor in 400,000 deaths a year in the USA and 95 percent of COPD and 90 percent of lung cancers)?

I think healthcare may be broken but not because of the 30 million uninsured (of which, some pundits tell us, the present "reforms" will only cover half of these, still leaving 15 million uninsured) but because of, for one, the prevalent strange attitudes on pain control.

As the committee mentioned in the article stated, chronic pain takes a toll on everyone, and most of all the sufferer, many of whom stay in and are not active due to poor pain management and worse yet, suffer reactive clinical depression due to very poor quality of life.

I would bet that none of the writers of the affore mentioned news article suffer chronic pain!

Congressman Rogers statements about Health care plan

2009-11-07T11:51:00.000-08:00

Thought provoking speech on the present Health Care plan under consideration...

H1N1 vaccine flu mist package insert - SHOULD READ before taking vaccine

2009-10-07T10:17:00.000-07:00

Please read the following excerpts from the package insert for the H1N1 vaccine (delivery - flu-mist) and then, read the insert itself. I have referenced the sections the excerpts were taken from for your convenience. The insert is a PDF file on the FDA website.

Package insert for H1N1 vaccine:

Contraindications:

Do NOT give to Children less than 24 months old

5.1 Risks in Children <24 Months of Age

DO NOT give to people with asthma - has not been studied in individuals with severe asthma!

5.2 Asthma/Recurrent Wheezing
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist should not be administered to any individuals with asthma or children < 5 years of age with recurrent wheezing because of the potential for increased risk of wheezing post vaccination unless the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk.
Do not administer Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist to individuals with severe asthma or active wheezing because these individuals have not been studied in clinical trials.

DO NOT GIVE TO Immune challenged (was studied in 57 people who were HIV positive but they say not enough data to justify administering in this group)

5.4 Altered Immunocompetence
Administration of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal, or FluMist live virus vaccine, to immunocompromised persons should be based on careful consideration of potential benefits and risks. Although FluMist was studied in 57 asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic adults with HIV infection [see Clinical Studies (14.3)], data supporting the safety and effectiveness of FluMist administration in immunocompromised individuals are limited.

"May not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine"

5.7 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal may not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine.

Later, they admitted the vaccine had not been evaluated for effectiveness (way down in the document!) Different story from what we have read on the news, right?

Clinical trials - adverse reactions:

6.1 Adverse Reactions in Clinical Trials

Increased hospitalizations in children receiving "flu mist"

Most hospitalizations observed were gastrointestinal and respiratory tract infections and occurred more than 6 weeks post vaccination. In post hoc analysis, rates of hospitalization in children 6-11 months of age (n = 1376) were 6.1% in FluMist recipients and 2.6% in active control recipients.

Adverse reactions in adults: (same section as above)

In adults 18-49 years of age in Study AV009, summary of solicited adverse events occurring in at least 1% of FluMist recipients and at a higher rate compared to placebo include runny nose (44% FluMist vs. 27% placebo), headache (40% FluMist vs. 38% placebo), sore throat (28% FluMist vs. 17% placebo), tiredness/weakness (26% FluMist vs. 22% placebo), muscle aches (17% FluMist vs. 15% placebo), cough (14% FluMist vs. 11% placebo), and chills (9% FluMist vs. 6% placebo).
In addition to the solicited events, other adverse reactions from Study AV009 occurring in at least 1% of FluMist recipients and at a higher rate compared to placebo were: nasal congestion (9% FluMist vs. 2% placebo) and sinusitis (4% FluMist vs. 2% placebo).

Post marketing experience: adverse reactions i.e. these are side effects of the vaccine noticed after they started marketing the vaccine!

6.2 Postmarketing Experience

Congenital, familial and genetic disorder: Exacerbation of symptoms of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy (Leigh syndrome).
Gastrointestinal disorders: Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
Immune system disorders: Hypersensitivity reactions (including anaphylactic reaction, facial edema and urticaria)
Nervous system disorders: Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell’s Palsy
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders: Epistaxis
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders: Rash

This vaccine is NOT approved for people, over 50 years old:

8.5 Geriatric Use
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal is not approved for use in individuals .65 years of age. Subjects with underlying high-risk medical conditions (n=200) were studied for safety. Compared to controls, FluMist recipients had a higher rate of sore throat.

8.6 Use in Individuals 50-64 Years of Age
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal is not approved for use in individuals 50-64 years of age. In Study AV009, effectiveness of FluMist was not demonstrated in individuals 50-64 years of age (n=641). Solicited adverse events were similar in type and frequency to those reported in younger adults.

They don't really understand HOW it works: (and how well it works)

12.1 Mechanism of Action
Immune mechanisms conferring protection against influenza following receipt of FluMist vaccine are not fully understood. Likewise, naturally acquired immunity to wild-type influenza has not been completely elucidated. Serum antibodies, mucosal antibodies and influenza-specific T cells may play a role in prevention and recovery from infection.

They don't know if this vaccine will cause infertility or cancer:

13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
Neither Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal nor FluMist have been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or potential to impair fertility.

This vaccine has not been found effective in people over 50 years old. In a subgroup of adults, 18-49, the vaccine reduced illness with fever from 10 percent to 23 percent. This was a study in non high risk adults i.e. adults with no other medical conditions.

14.2 Study in Adults

Effectiveness for any of the three endpoints was not demonstrated in a subgroup of adults 50-64 years of age. Primary and secondary effectiveness endpoints from the age group 18-49 years of age are presented in Table 5.

While in a double blind study (57 in experimental group) of adults with HIV, the vaccine did not cause any worsening of their condition, they did not know whether or not it was effective in proventing the swine flu:

14.3 Study in Adults with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection
Safety and shedding of vaccine virus following FluMist administration were evaluated in 57 HIV-infected [median CD4 cell count of 541 cells/mm3] and 54 HIV-negative adults 18-58 years of age in a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial using the frozen formulation. No serious adverse events were reported during the one-month follow-up period. Vaccine strain (type B) virus was detected in 1 of 28 HIV-infected subjects on Day 5 only and none of the HIV-negative FluMist recipients. No adverse effects on HIV viral load or CD4 counts were identified following FluMist. The effectiveness of FluMist in preventing influenza illness in HIV-infected individuals has not been evaluated.

Medical providers were told that they can receive the shot and immediately go back to their patients without worrying about transmitting the viruses to their patients. But that's NOT what the package insert says... on the contrary, they DO NOT KNOW whether or not these viruses can be transmitted:

14.5 Transmission Study
FluMist contains live attenuated influenza viruses that must infect and replicate in cells lining the nasopharynx of the recipient to induce immunity. Vaccine viruses capable of infection and replication can be cultured from nasal secretions obtained from vaccine recipients. The relationship of viral replication in a vaccine recipient and transmission of vaccine viruses to other individuals has not been established.

Although the PDF distributed to medical providers (containing a bunch of myths about the safety and efficacy of this vaccine) never mentioned this, look what *I* found on the LAST PAGE of the package insert information... basically MEDICAL PROVIDERS SHOULD GIVE INFORMED CONSENT about this vaccine:

That is, the package insert says on the last page that your provider of the vaccine should let you know ALL OF THE ABOVE BEFORE you consent to take the vaccine!

17 PATIENT COUNSELING INFORMATION
Vaccine recipients or their parents/guardians should be informed by the health care provider of the potential benefits and risks of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal, and should be advised that there are two influenza vaccine formulations for this influenza season, the monovalent vaccine against disease caused by pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus and seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine.

Convenient URL to share to read this package insert which is on the FDA website:

http://tinyurl.com/H1N1-pkg-insert (copy into email or blog)

testing a new vaccine - H1N1 but not telling you about it

2009-10-06T11:12:00.000-07:00

ABC has a video on their site showing several doctors who have the same concerns many people have about the swine flu vaccine - fast tracked, untested, too new - and are telling their patients to wait on this one. ABC news "medical expert" stated pretty much the same inaccuracies that our state health dept stated in the PDF below... "oh no, it's totally pure, been throughly tested" (in three months of testing?) And "it's the same as the regular flu vaccine" which is totally inaccurate - it's a totally NEW vaccine in concept, formulation and delivery.

Following are the inaccuracies the CDC in conjunction with the media and health depts are telling people all over the USA - this seems one step further than just not giving us informed consent that they are actually testing a new vaccine on US!

This is taken from a document released from our state health dept, a PDF to medical providers and contains pretty much the same inaccuracies I've heard from several places - here is the "informed consent information" people SHOULD be given about this new vaccine:

1. "You cannot get the flu from attenuated virus vaccines"

Inaccurate: you CAN get the illness from ANY LIVE virus vaccine.... do health care workers really not know this fact?

2. "Fact 6: The H1N1 vaccine has been properly and rigorously tested for safety and efficacy."

Inaccurate: This vaccine was "fast tracked" meaning it's not been well tested for EITHER safety OR efficacy. That's impossible with a fast tracked medication. Furthermore, its delivery as "flu mist" inhaled is controversial because concerns have been raised about the viruses attenuated or other (there are ALWAYS SOME WHICH DO NOT GET WEAKENED in live virus vaccine) crossing the blood / brain barrier and causing problems. Which is why "flu mist" has never been a real popular delivery... despite it being more "attractive" than an injection.

A friend of mine saw a CDC person interviewed on TV - he admitted that they were basically testing this on the public who will receive the vaccine. That's a no brainer with a very different vaccine which has been "fast tracked" to FDA approval.

3. "Fact 7: Multi-dose vials of H1N1 vaccine contain safe amounts of thimerosal, a vaccine preservative, which prevents contamination with bacteria and fungi."

Partially accurate. Thimerosal which is a type of mercury, is used as a preservative but there has been NO SAFE amount established and some studies have linked the receiving of a yearly flu shot with higher risk of neurological disease and Alzheimers. Mercury is highly toxic even in minute amounts.

4. "Fact 8: No causal connection has been found linking the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative and the incidence of autism, speech or language delay, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder"

Not accurate - some studies have found a link between the MMR and autism which has SUDDENLY greatly increased in incidence, including a well done clinical study of several years duration in the UK which has been ignored by the American media. (You know like the 38 worldwide studies suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer have been ignored by the AMC and the AMA?)

5. "Fact 9: Healthcare workers can safely receive the live attenuated (“weakened”) Influenza virus vaccine (Flumist) and go back to work immediately without risk of spreading the weakened virus to their patients UNLESS they work directly with bone marrow transplant patients."

May be inaccurate as flu can take 7-10 days to incubate and in that period, a person is said to be the most contagious.

6. "Fact 10: There is a much higher risk of getting Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) from having influenza illness than from getting vaccinated for influenza."

The CDC has admitted in other places, that there IS a risk of Guillain Barre with the H1N1 vaccine, specifically, and that it is unknown what that risk is. In 1976, they had 4000 cases of GBS FROM the vaccine and, by the way, the "great pandemic" predicted, never hit.

Australia ordered a version of the H1N1 vaccine without Thimerosal, without squalene and with DEAD viruses.... (i.e. their National Health Service).

The H1N1 vaccine also contains an adjuvant called "squalene" which is supposed to enhance the immune system however this has been poorly tested if at all and some studies have suggested it as a factor in the "Gulf war syndrome" (the vaccines given the soldiers had this in it and vaccines have not contained it since).

OK, Here's my take on this. The vaccine for H1N1 is TOTALLY new in every way for a flu vaccine, even the delivery. They are beta testing it on the public and if they pull it off i.e. do not have disastrous side effects, then think of what they will have... a vaccine which (1) enhances the immune system, (2) delivers a better immunity than a dead virus vaccine (though so far NONE of them deliver more than a couple of years immunity) and (3) has an attractive delivery system.... no shot!

Doing the math... a BIG SELLER! If they do have disastrous side effects, then they will say "oh well" because you know what.. the American public has a very short memory and so not much damage will be done... No one will remember it a couple of years down the line. So not really much of a risk for the pharmaceutical but a big risk for the American public who is NOT getting "informed consent" not even the medical providers... and if they JUST can test it on medical providers that will be enough of a test base for them. thousands. (a large segment of the public is NOT getting the H1N1 vaccine).

There was an article in Scientific American detailing this process - the fact that the pharmaceuticals (and surgeons) have to do this sort of thing with beta testing new procedures and drugs on the public largely because experimentation on human beings is against the law. They took the example of giving O2 to premies on the theory that it would help them... this blinded thousands of kids. They stated that if they had done a double blind study - 600 receive O2 and 600 do not, they would have found out within a year that o2 can cause blindness and you would have had no more than 600 blind babies instead of the thousands blinded over the 10 years they were testing this. But then, even if human experimentation WERE legal, who would volunteer?

They have done this sort of "beta test" several times... it's not a new concept and if Americans READ more instead of getting most of their info from TV, they would know this process... "who does not study history, is doomed to repeat it"

John McCain plain talks on the "Today Show"

2009-09-10T08:47:00.001-07:00

As we all know, the President made a passionate speech to a joint session of Congress yesterday which was televised to the American people, at times, yelling at them to stop bickering and pass the darned bill already. He then tried to de-bunk what he called the "myths" going around. "This bill will strengthen your insurance if you have insurance and offer insurance to you if you don't have insurance." "There are no death panels," he said, criticizing Sarah Palin's remark. Continuing, Obama said "of course there are some details to be ironed out..." a comment which got quite a laugh from the Congress persons in attendance, obviously surprising the president who apparently did NOT make that comment in jest.

And at one point, a Republican Congressman did the unbelievable. He interrupted the President, yelling "You're lying!"

He of course, apologized to the White House later, saying his conduct was inappropriate but this seemed to leave the media with the question of "was Obama lying?", a question never even asked about Bill Clinton who was known to spin a tale or two.

So this morning, the "Today Show" filmed a live interview with Vice President Biden and John McCain. First they talked to Biden and asked him "was the president lying?" Biden backed up the president but basically just reiterated what the president had said, as if he had, if not written the speech, then at least, was very familiar with it because he used basically the same words the president did.

Vice President Biden, when asked if the interrupting Congressman had represented some feelings among other Congress persons, emphatically said that he didn't believe it did, since John McCain and the rest distanced themselves from the remark. "I believe there is some real unity about this," said the VP, "and that we will have a bill before Thanksgiving."

But the shocker came when John McCain, specifically named by VP Biden, for being "in unity" with the President, was interviewed.

Matt Lauer asked McCain about several points in the President's speech - was he lying, Lauer wanted to know (this is interesting in itself because I have never remembered the media even THINKING that a president would be lying).

First about illegal immigrants... will they be covered in the present bill, asked Lauer. McCain answered, "Illegal immigrants are not covered," adding that it changes the number of uninsured in the USA from 47 million down to about 30 million.

Huh? You want to tell me that with all the bucks proposed to be spent, the govt getting into our health care etc, the bill will only insure 17 million more than are insured now?

But it gets better.

Matt Lauer asked if Palin's remark about "death panels" had any truth to it. John answered that the current bill does not establish death panels BUT added that a $500 billion dollar cut in Medicare spending is planned - he pointed out that in other countries when that large a cut in spending was done, rationing DID happen which could lead to the "death panels" so the concern of seniors was definitely appropriate.

Matt Lauer asked if the President was truthful about the three basics the bill established: ensure those who do not have insurance, provide stability to those who are insured i.e. guarantees that they can keep the insurance they already have and cuts costs.

McCain had aleady said that it does not provide health insurance for all - only 17 million of the 47 million uninsured. He now added that it did NOT cut costs -

"According to the Congressional budget office it's going to cost an additional TRILLION dollars - I have yet to see any REAL MEANINGFUL reductions in cost - in fact the Congressional Budget office said that there will be cost increases..."

He also pointed out that if your employer switches to the government option (which might be cheaper than their current insurance contracts), and you are getting insurance through your employer then you will NOT be able to keep your present insurance but will have to go on the government plan.

"The president keeps saying if you like your Health Insurance policy you can keep it - well if the govt option is adopted by an employer and you have employer provided insurance then you're not going to be able to keep it so that's false also. It's certainly not accurate."

It should be noted that 2 of my friends' employers have already said if they pass a government plan, they will switch.

So much for our choice in keeping our present insurance.

Will the Plan add to the deficit and will there be spending cuts, asked Matt Lauer.

McCain's answer was:

"We've now gone from a 7 trillion dollar deficit to a 9 trillion dollar deficit just in the last few weeks over a 10 year period. There is very little if anything in this package that calls for real spending reductions and a trillion dollars is basically what it's going to cost. And that's according to the Congressional budget office!"

John McCain added that pork barrel spending and earmarking continues despite the President's promise to curve this.

And is it true as VP Biden said, that there was cohesiveness on this bill or should we start from scratch, Lauer asked.

McCain said that it had NOT been, (as the President told the American people) a bipartisan effort at all and in fact, so far, NOT ONE Republican had been present at the negotiation sessions.

"Perhaps we should start over and really BE bipartisan. The president mentioned that it has gone through 4 of the 5 committees but it has done so, without a single Republican negotiator in the room! There has been NO bipartisanship in addressing the Health Care Issue! I've BEEN in bipartisan negotiations. I know what they are and it has been totally absent from the addressing of this issue. Maybe we ought to really sit down and negotiate which we haven't done. Facts are stubborn things."

McCain concluded that he hoped Congress WOULD have a bill soon because we needed reform and there were many areas of agreement, but that it should be a REAL bipartisan effort and it should NOT lay another trillion dollars to the deficit, the real brunt of which would be felt by the next generation.

Thanks to John McCain for having the courage to speak out on the "Today Show". He is an American hero who is admired on both sides of the fence and known to be a "Plain talker". But today, he became even more of a hero to me and perhaps many other Americans who want to hear the real story on this.

New York Times says seniors' concerns are real

2009-08-24T10:02:00.000-07:00

I've been studying the pro's and con's of the proposed health care bill and it is confusing.

The most voiced fears are those of seniors who fear health care rationing, a restriction on expensive procedures to prolong life for a few years and limited access to specialists.

I have said since all the debating began that a financially sustainable single payer healthcare system MUST, in fact, include the above and even WITH including the above, did anyone add the price of covering "everyone"? No, I'm sure they didn't but no one has noticed that the income taxes in countries with single payer healthcare are THREE TIMES higher than they are in the USA.

And of course, the President has said several times that we would all have to sacrifice and that he did not agree with a knee replacement for his grandma etc.

And if we had any doubts of this, there is a well researched book by medical ethicist, Daniel Callahan called "FALSE HOPES" where after researching all the single payer, govt systems in the world, he states the same sobering facts (even though he states up front, he feels a single payer system is the way to go).

But many have listened blindly to the politicians telling us that these worries are a "myth". Those were the nice politicians. The nasty ones tell us that the concerns and questions (which were NOT answered in the so called "Town Halls") are a conspiracy by the Republicans and/or Conservatives and/or religionists or whatever.

But now, those of us who have had concerns have had a breakthrough. The New York Times printed a story which included a statement that these concerns of rationing, limited access to specialists and restricting of expensive procedures for the elderly are NOT unreasonable at all.

In fact the Medicare advisory committee, concerned that Medicare is going broke, this week, suggested .... rationing, limited access to specialists (GPs are just as good they say - which we know is a crock) and restriction of expensive procedures as a way to save Medicare!

And we all know that if the New York Times prints it, people will believe what we have been saying for a couple of months now. Because people believe the New York Times like it's the gospel.

Here is another statement in another story in the New York Times (Gospel again, right?). This comes from a story called "Tackling the Mystery of what it costs".

"Under health insurance reform, insurance plans will be required to give consumers much more information about what is covered and what is not. They will be expected to warn consumers that if they go out of network, they can be hit with some very high costs."

To someone not involved with one of the large insurance companies, this may not mean much but I, being thus involved myself, can attest to the fact that we HAD to go "out of network" because the IN network providers were not only "not too good" but absolutely horrendous - wrong diagnosis, unneeded surgeries, wrong treatment etc.

So I HAD to go out of network. And the idea of "high costs" is not a nice one to me.

And then, there are things like the place where you are supposed to get your blood work, looks kind of like you are going to catch something. That is, IF they can get the needle IN. Most always I've gone there, there is a new person just learning - on me. Hence, we finally are paying the doctor's assistant to do the draw!

The pundits tell us that the in network providers will have to be improved. Anyone holding their breath for this to happen?

Anyway, there are REAL concerns for seniors - you can believe it because the New York times printed it. :)

figures, statistics and lies

2009-08-19T17:43:00.000-07:00

Today, I got an "alternate health" ad in the mail. It claimed that the number 36,000 deaths a year from flu was a false figure and in fact only about 750 people died a year from the flu and "that was from the CDC".

I didn't believe it. I had never questioned the 36,000 deaths a year from the flu and had quoted the figure myself because it came from the CDC.

But the ad got my curiosity going. Easy enough to look up. I looked up "FLU DEATHS" CDC" and got this page.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

As you can see, it IS on the CDC website. Turns out that the truth (according to the CDC) is no one KNOWS how many die from the flu so the estimations were made from a percentage of those who die from respiratory disease deaths and other mathematical constructs.

The CDC writes:

Does CDC know the exact number of people who die from flu each year?

CDC does not know exactly how many people die from flu each year. There are several reasons for this: First, states are not required to report individual flu cases or deaths of people older than 18 years of age to CDC. Second, influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates of people who die from flu-related complications [12]. Third, many flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person’s initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-infection (such as a staph infection) [1,8,11] or because influenza can aggravate an existing chronic illness (such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) [3]. Also, most people who die from flu-related complications are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when influenza can no longer be detected from respiratory samples. Influenza tests are only likely to detect influenza if performed within a week after onset of illness. For these reasons, many flu-related deaths may not be recorded on death certificates. These are some of the reasons that CDC and other public health agencies in the United States and other countries use statistical models to estimate the annual number of flu-related deaths. ***

Oh - that's enlightening! No one KNOWS so they use a mathematical model to come up with the 36,000 deaths a year from the flu. Here is it, right from the horse's mouth! But when this figure is quoted, have you ever heard they say they really DO NOT KNOW how many a year die from the flu and that the deaths are usually from something else? hmmmm

This even shocked ME....Somehow I had never questioned the 36,000 deaths they were claiming...

So why DOES the CDC "ESTIMATE" the number of deaths from flu (and puff it up... hmmm)

Here is their answer to that one:

Why does CDC estimate deaths associated with flu?

CDC feels it is important to convey the full burden of flu to the public. Flu is a serious disease that causes illness and deaths nearly every year in the United States. CDC estimates of annual influenza-associated deaths in the United States are made using well-established scientific methods that have been reviewed by scientists outside of CDC [10]. CDC feels that these estimates are a timely representation of the current burden of flu on the United States.

But these numbers are used by the media etc to scare folks into getting the vaccine which is BIG MONEY for the manufacturers....

Enlightening. That's why it's good to read EVERYTHING. I didn't believe the alternate health ad but that claim was bold enough for me to question something I might have never questioned and which, I guess, should have been questioned in the first place.

So let's talk about the proposed Health Care program. Obama tells us that the concerns of the public are all because of the evil Republicans and all a bunch of lies.

For example, abortion won't be paid for in the Health care bill, he tells us. But the bill says different. ALL SURGERIES are paid for and abortion is a surgery. So some Democrats and Republicans tried to introduce amendments that made sure abortion was EXCEPTED out of surgeries. And the amendments failed.

If abortion is not paid for, why didn't the amendments pass? We all remember the youtube video how Obama promised Planned Parenthood that he would not deviate from his total abortion stance (from conception to birth).

Seniors are concerned that the Health Care bill might mean rationing of care for seniors. Obama answers us with "there is no rationing in the bill" and that seniors are not to worry but seniors were not born yesterday. Treating seniors is expensive and they suspect unless there is an amendment which GUARANTEES them treatment, they don't trust Obama's reassurance, especially when he admitted that it was right to not give his grandmother a joint replacement and has talked about how expensive it was to treat seniors when they might only have a few years of life left. Seniors know that the expensive health care program has to be paid for in some manner and that in other plans, care IS rationed to save bucks.

This is not the "evil Republicans" or "insurance companies". This is just people finally beginning to do what they should have done in the first place. Question - everything and trust - no one.

You know the old "In God we trust - all others pay cash" idea?

Multiple Sclerosis- Tysabri - miracle drug?

2009-06-30T03:38:00.000-07:00

Biogen, the manufacturer of Tysabri, saw its stock fall this week when 3 people taking the medication for Multiple Sclerosis, recently, came down with a potentially deadly brain infection called "progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy", or PML. This was a disappointment because Biogen had hoped to make its mint off Tysabri since its other drug, Avonex has a lot of competition from similar drugs like Rebif. Biogen apparently is already doing damage control with a video on Fox news promising great results for the medication.

But if we listen closely, even the video tells us some rather unsettling things:

How it works: this medication prevents immune cells from crossing into the brain (probably why it can cause that severe brain disorder - how many OTHER brain disorders can it cause which may not have yet, been connected to tysabri?)

The patient said it was nice she didn't have to do daily or every other day injections like with the other medications she had tried, but the picture of how Tysabri is administered was quickly flashed with no explanation. It is INFUSED which is done in the oncology ward - an outpatient procedure in the hospital which comes with some issues of its own.

Tysabri gives many patients a 70 percent improvement in symptoms said the video - but remember the placebo effect with MS is 85 - 90 percent (i.e. 85-90 percent of MS patients get better even if given sugar pills!) so that means not only is Tysabri NOT effective but since it doesn't even match up to the placebo effect, it must be making some patients worse.

Because several in the Tysabri trials also got PML (2 of whom died which is really bad because Multiple Sclerosis does NOT kill its victims), the medication was shelved by the FDA in 2005 pending more research. However pressure from several including a couple of celebs who wanted to take the drug and probably Biogen, caused the FDA to conditionally approve it the following year with a warning label.

And unfortunately many people with MS who are desperate (and feel they would rather be dead than totally paralyzed) flock to DO SOMETHING, take SOME medication even though with NONE of the MS medications is anything like a "cure" promised. The available drugs are called "disease modifying" which in plain English means it MAY make your symptoms better (but no guarantees), something we are hearing more and more often from the medical profession which no longer promises to "first do no harm".

The truth about the slowly progressive MS (which is the only type the medications are supposed to help) is that if you live healthy, do not smoke or drink, do NOT take any drugs or have any surgery for it and get your head together, reduce stress and other healthy things, MS will likely not progress to the point of causing much disability until you are VERY elderly (if at all).

One study by the MS society found that 10 years after diagnosis, the majority of MS patients were still walking and medical treatment of which the side effects are worse than the disease, has traditionally been that which causes early disability as do bad health habits like smoking, party drugs etc. (Note: this study was long before the so called "disease modifying" drugs many MSers take now)

When Sylvia Lawry was alive, and president of the MS society (which she founded - her brother had MS) the society was not real well funded and did not advocate any medical treatment, repeatedly assuring members that the best treatment for MS was good nutrition, good health habits and "some walking, some sitting, some standing and some lying" (i.e. rest periods during the day).

And as many folks who got sick from medical treatments, people still flocked to each new one. There was for example, the Medrol treatment which initially lightened symptoms but in the long run made patients worse and caused tuberculosis in some,and surgery like stereo-tactic brain surgery which Annette Funnicello had - despite the fact that it was condemned as a too risky not effective treatment for MS tremors at the 1972 symposium for MS at UCLA. There were the less risky quack treatments also, like the guy who sold small trampolines and said if you jumped on them facing east every day, the earth's magnetic field would cure your MS.

But when Lawry died, the MS Society took a different turn, perhaps one which Lawry would NOT have agreed with and formed alliances with several pharmaceutical corporations which yielded them millions of research bucks, and bucks for glitzy monthly magazines but had the down side of causing patients to be "strongly encouraged" to buy the medications from the pharmaceutical companies, most of which had not even been tested on diagnosed patients (they were tested on people who were thought to be coming down with MS) and were not shown very effective. (why they call the drugs "disease modifying").

I once asked one of the researchers why no "double blind studies" had been done on the medications offered for MS and he said "well, because they do show improvement in patients, it would be considered unethical to deny the controls the help." Sounded lame to me. Especially as the "improvement" is judged by the number of white patches in the brain which show on the MRI which are thought to be MS related, but the doctor admitted that these can change by the hour and one patient having a lot of white patches in one MRI could have several of these move or disappear in the next MRI. He also admitted that the white patches seen on the brain could be NON MS related.

All seems a bit of a house of cards to encourage patients to put a chemical into their bodies which is known to challenge the immune system thus making them more susceptible to illness INCLUDING cancer.

As shakey as the research was on the so called "ABC" drugs (Avonex,Betaserone and Copaxon), Tysabri was a different case because even their less than great research found the deadly repercussion of PML. (Other side effects include flu like symptoms, infusion-site reactions, fatigue, headaches, joint pain and Increased Susceptibility to Infections.)

It might be prudent for MS patients to rewind back to the society's advice before their marriage with the pharmaceutical companies - live healthy, de-stress and don't overdo - still the best "treatment" for Multiple Sclerosis.

It seems that only miracle about Tysabri is how MS patients flock to take it!

NOTE: a certain number of people diagnosed with MS may be actually suffering neurological symptoms from other disorders including aspartame allergies and/or B12 shortages. Newly diagnosed patients should quit drinking diet soda and other things with aspartame/nutrasweet in them and also consider taking B12 supplements or even B12 shots.

History repeats - swine flu scare campaign to sell flu shots

2009-06-23T02:12:00.000-07:00

This video of a CNN "60 minutes" show on the swine flu shot propaganda in 1976.... 4000 people got Guillan Barre (French Polio) from the shot for the "pandemic" which never hit, is a MUST SEE. The show exposes the propaganda, how the tested shot wasn't the one that was eventually given to the people, how the names of celebrities were used to sell the shot. Also interviews one of the victims who survived Guillian Barre. One lady in our church was made a widow by her husband getting Guillian Barre from that flu shot! This show is important considering the propaganda machine is again ramping up to sell us the THREE flu shots for the oncoming flu season.

http://tinyurl.com/swinelie

It should be noted that so far, the swine flu virus seems to be a very mild flu - most of the deaths were in Mexico and we know that 4 of the deaths in the USA were ill people to begin with.

Additionally, the flu vaccine apparently requires a lot of preservative and they use a substance called "Timerisol" which is a form of mercury and very toxic. Some studies have suggested that people who regularly got flu shots are more likely to come down with neurological disease and alzheimers etc.

I took a flu shot the year I was carrying our son in pregnancy and STILL got the flu! Right then and there, I decided that the flu shot didn't work.

It doesn't because there are some 22 flu viruses circulating, any one of which can hit you and cause you to become ill and only 5 or 6 of which are covered in the vaccine.

This Fall we will be pushed to take 3 shots, one for flu, one for Swine Flu and a third booster. As Obama is again buying TV time to push his "fix" for Health care, he has ALREADY stated that he is planning "an aggressive education" of the American people to sell us the flu shots in the Fall.

Finally, to compare the 1918 pandemic to now is ridiculous! In 1918, they had NO INDOOR PLUMBING, no anti biotics, very little idea of sanitation and no idea of nutrition or vitamins (people still died of Beri Beri). The swine flu in 1918 killed 10 percent of the public which means that 90 percent LIVED from it.

Since then, we have been through several "pandemic" (which just means that the same flu hit all around the world during flu season). In the less developed countries with less sanitation, there are more deaths. Here in the USA, most deaths from flu are actually from opportunistic bacteria and we have anti biotics for that.

Bottom line, don't panic... watch this video:

http://tinyurl.com/swinelie

Then perhaps visit the national vaccine information center to make an informed choice. Best way to handle flu is a healthy lifestyle, and if you get sick, rest, lots of liquids and antibiotics if you need them.

Swine Flu Primer - myths and realities

2009-05-06T10:26:00.000-07:00

Since the Swine Flu craze started I have been studying it and finally, have enough information to give you a feel for what to expect, what is true, what is a myth or misunderstanding and how to figure out what is happening. Here for your edification is a FAQ. Save this because as you see, you will need it this Fall also, when the swine flu might (or might not) hit hard. (Flu viruses cannot live in the heat of summer).

1. The Swine Flu virus is a new virus so you have no immunity to it. True?

Well, yes but it isn't as bad as it sounds.

A virus is different from a bacteria which used to be called a member of the plant kingdom but now has it's own kingdom. A virus is something inbetween a protein molecule and a simple form of one celled life like a bacteria. It looks kind of like a soccer ball (but is so small it cannot be seen without a very powerful microscope). A virus doesn't eat but it reproduces. That's why it doesn't exactly fit the explanation of "life" (must eat and reproduce)

The way your body recognizes a virus is by its "cover" and when a virus mutates, it changes its cover - think of a pillow - someone changes the pillow cover while you are not looking and you wouldn't recognize it as a pillow you know, would you? This is a simple explanation but without getting into the 50 dollar words, this is similar to your immune system and a mutated virus. That is, ANY mutated virus looks brand new to your body and can get you sick before you have time to make antibodies to fight it. (Antibodies latch on to each virus and disable it).

So it doesn't matter whether it's an old re-worked virus or a new one like the swine flu virus - it's all the same to your body. The body has to make new antibodies to disable it and until it gears up, you might get sick (or you might NOT get sick!). Our body's immune systems make antibodies a whole lot faster than the pharmaceuticals can make a vaccine! Thank Heavens!

2. What does "level 5" pandemic mean?

Well, that doesn't mean it's a killer flu. It doesn't really have much to do with how sick any flu virus will make you, says the CDC. On "the Doctors" TV Show, Dr Stephen Galson, acting surgeon general stated that

"The level 5 is how public health officials communicate with each other on how they will prepare for the flu as far as vaccines etc."

He added:

"The levels do not tell about the severity of the outbreak and people should not pay attention to the levels..."

3. But shouldn't I worry? There have been 2 deaths from the swine flu in the USA now!

Let's look at the 2 deaths. The first was a 22 month old baby who had "other health issues" that is he'd been ill for a while - he was born in Mexico. The second is a lady who had "chronic health issues" (something like MS or Lupus or ?).

38,000 people die each year, as a repercussion of the several flu viruses going around. Now that sounds like a lot but consider that 25 to 50 million GET the flu every year and so those who die are a very small percentage - 1.5% to less than 1% of those who get the flu.

To put this into prospective, Malaria kills 1.5 to 3 million people a year and affects 40 percent of the world's population, about 2400 million. ref: Malaria what it is

So it's not that the swine flu is necessarily deadly (it seems to be not real contagious or deadly but the public health dept has to be ready just in case) but that next flu season, some of the 38,000 deaths from the repercussions of the flu might be from the swine flu.

As Dr Frank Joseph, MD stated in a recent letter to his mailing list (and you can ask any medical provider about this - they will tell you the same thing!):

People do NOT die from the flu, it's the complications that are deadly --mostly pneumonia. In 1918, there were no antibiotics. The people who have currently died from the flu probably waited too long to seek treatment.
Personally, I do not believe in giving antibiotics for every little thing that comes along but in this case they are warranted.

Which brings us to our next question:

4. I worry that a pandemic of flu will kill thousands of people like it did in 1918.

Ever wonder why we have not had such a pandemic since? We had NO ANTIBIOTICS back in 1918. Also no indoor plumbing, no central heating and not a real good idea of vitamins or nutrition. All of which would contribute to people getting pneumonia or some other repercussion of the flu and dying. As the Junkfood science blog pointed out, we have lived through many "pandemics" since then without them killing huge numbers of people.

NOW IS DIFFERENT. Don't worry about it. Tell your friends. This is one of the biggest misconceptions I've heard from many people.

5. Can you catch the flu from a toilet seat?

OK, I'm being silly here but it got your attention, right? :) There seem to be many misconceptions about how you catch the flu. You don't catch it from shaking hands with someone or touching your dog although you can pick up bacteria that way.

Viruses travel through the air when someone coughs or sneezes. That's why flu is so contagious. Being in the same room with a person with flu will expose you.

Another misconception is that if someone coughs at you, and you go home and get sick the next day, you caught whatever that person had.

WRONG. It takes about 2 weeks for you to come down with the flu after you have been exposed to it. (So think about who coughed on you two weeks ago!)

Worse yet, the person is the MOST contagious JUST BEFORE they actually come down with the flu. Nice huh? Viruses are sneaky.

6. So what's the best thing to do if I come down with flu?

Remember the old fashioned remedy? Go to bed, drink plenty of liquids - juice not coffee (and yes vitamin C does help), get lots of rest, eat veggies. If you are a person who works out regularly (I hope you are! Exercise is the best way to help your health!) then continue to work out but do a shorter lighter work out. Why? A workout wil,l believe it or not, help you get better faster. But DO NOT OVERDO IT or you will make things worse. If you are a runner, for example, just walk slowly on the treadmill for a half hour or so.

And if it hangs on or you start getting major chest congestion, see your medical provider! Whatever you do, DO NOT IGNORE IT. This is the best way to get a bacterial infection which can be very nasty.

7. What about the flu vaccine?

Unfortunately, the last vaccine for swine flu was a disaster. The swine flu never really hit but the vaccine ended up killing about 500 or more people.

The CDC assures us that they have a good system for testing in place and the new vaccine should be safe but no one can be sure, they disclaim.

If you are a person who gets a chill and gets pneumonia, you should probably get a jab. If you are a person with a normal immune system (or reasonably normal), it's your choice.

They have announced that for Fall (the start of flu season) they cannot add the swine flu virus to the flu vaccine already in production, so they will have a separate jab or two for it. Three shots they are talking about.

"That's a hard sell" observed Meredith Vierra of "The Today Show" and the official answer was that President Obama is planning "an aggressive education of the public through TV" in favor of getting the shots. (We know President Obama can do 'aggressive TV campaigns" very well!)

In other words, expect a scare campaign from the media which makes our present scare look like kids stuff.

That's why you might need to look at this blog again to remind yourself of the myths and misconceptions.

You might also want to bookmark the National Vaccine Information site. It's your choice, remember and scare tactics are scare tactics. They rarely resemble the truth.

As for me, I took a flu shot when I was pregnant, figuring I didn't want to get the flu then. I still got the flu. I figured the flu shot didn't work and that was my last flu shot and it was a while ago, since the baby I was carrying, our son, is approaching his 40th birthday.

Which brings us to the last question...

8. Why is it that some years I get the flu vaccine and I STILL get the flu?

As I explained before, it takes the pharmaceuticals several months to make a flu vaccine. Here's how they do it. They look at Asia and see what type of flu is going around. Then, out of some 22 flu viruses available, they select 5 or 6 which they think will be THE BIG pandemic or epidemic of the coming flu season and they start making the vaccine for the Fall. That's why there will be several jabs necessary this Fall to protect against the regular AND swine flu. Because they've already picked the 5 or 6 viruses and are producing this Fall's vaccine as we speak and it would be too costly to add the swine flu virus to the vaccine in production.

But of course, as luck will have it, typically the flu which hits the hardest might not be included in the vaccine. It's kind of a game of chance whether it will be included or not. Viruses aren't that predictable unfortunately.

And of course, having the vaccine won't guarantee that another one of the unpicked viruses won't hit. That happened this year - the stomach flu virus which was a really nasty flu hit hard and had not been included in the shot so everyone got that one! (me too!)

As they say, education is our greatest tool in any fight including the fight for good health.

Also, consider a healthy lifestyle - not for weight or size but just for health! I know - that's a strange concept. Bear with me. :) You know, no fast or junk food, no chemicals like aspartame, lots of veggies and EXERCISE.

Some must reading on influenza and scares
Swine Flu update April 29, 2009 - scare tactics and reality

All humanity under threat - not really - Junk Food Science blog

link between anti depressants and sudden death?

2009-03-12T12:42:00.000-07:00

Anti depressants are very common prescribed. In fact, most folks I know are taking one of the SSRI's considered to be among the "safe medications".

That being said, Dr Joseph Glenmullen, MD in his "PROZAC BACKLASH" book stated that there is a possibility that long term use of the SSRI's can cause damage to the brain and even Parkinsonism. He should know - he's a psychiatrist and has done research as well as years of observation.

However, what did come as a bit of a surprise is a new research study which suggested that these anti depressant drugs might be linked to sudden cardiac death. The study was published in the American College of Cardiology Journal (J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009; 53:950-958, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.10.060).

This was an epidemiologal study using the famous "Nurse's study data" (i.e. a "data dredge" study) so I was about to dismiss it except for when I read the last paragraph of the blog which reported the study.

The author reminded that the prescribing information from Eli Lilly for Prozac listed the following side effects:

* Frequent: hemorrhage, hypertension, palpitation
* Infrequent: angina pectoris, arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, hypotension, migraine, myocardial infarct, postural hypotension, syncope, tachycardia, vascular headache
* Rare: atrial fibrillation, bradycardia, cerebral embolism, cerebral ischemia, cerebrovascular accident, extrasystoles, heart arrest, heart block, pallor, peripheral vascular disorder, phlebitis, shock, thrombophlebitis, thrombosis, vasospasm, ventricular arrhythmia, ventricular extrasystoles, ventricular fibrillation.

That definitely changed my opinion of the research as just another "data dredge study" to a HMMMM, might be some truth in it.

How many people taking Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft et al, have seen the physician prescribing information.

Kevin Trudeau in his newest book, "More Natural Cures" has a solution which I've seen some folks follow... don't take ANY medications. But truly, there are times when medications can be a lifesaver.

The best approach may be to study things like the prescribing information and to weigh the risks vs the benefits. Since we have only one heart, perhaps the SSRI's should be a last resort rather than so often prescribed (a solution which may not be popular with those who manufacture these medications).

Abortion and Breast cancer

2008-12-14T02:39:00.000-08:00

"Abortion does not cause breast cancer" states several news media articles and now, a new health site.

There is one problem with this - it's unproven. In the article I read on the health site, they did not specifically name their cites upon which they are wanting to risk YOUR life but they talked of an (unnamed) 2004 study which is likely the "Melbye study". In this study, Dr Melbye admitted that any woman who had had an abortion before computer records was likely listed as "not having abortion" since ONLY computer recorded abortions were noted in the study AS aborted women. One estimate puts the number of aborted women "overlooked" as 60,000! And these were, of course, the older women who were more likely to have breast cancer. If these 60,000 women were (correctly) recorded as HAVING HAD abortions, the Melbye Study would suggest a STRONGER link between breast cancer than some of the other 38 world wide studies which suggest a link.

Another study they may have used to "prove" that abortion does not cause breast cancer was the Beral study. This study not only used an inappropriate group for comparison (women who had never been pregnant who were known to have a higher risk for breast cancer) but omitted several studies which suggested a link including three of the study author's OWN studies! About this type of study, Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S. wrote:

>>>>Studies that take data from many previous studies and reanalyze” them (or put them into a meta-analysis) need to have sound scientific reasons for excluding some published studies. Without valid exclusion and inclusion criteria, the results can be skewed and inaccurate because they may allow an author’s personal bias to consciously or subconsciously enter the selection process, thus corrupting the conclusion. Undoubtedly, this sort of bias is what has led some observers to call epidemiology a pseudoscience.<<<< (Ethics and Medicine, Vol 29, 11 November 2004)

Just another example of the media perpetuating bad science to the American people to support a billion dollar industry which does NOT care about your body.

More information:
Breast Cancer Faq

Crestor reduces heart disease by 50 percent

2008-11-27T00:30:00.000-08:00

The latest study on statin drugs boasts that the medication, Crestor, reduces heart attacks by 50 percent.

As several have pointed out, this study called "The Jupiter Study" was financed by the manufacturer of Crestor and in the FenPhen trials, Wyeth petitioned to not have to testify in court about their removal of negative results from the FenPhen studies because the removal of negative study results was "common practice" in the pharmaceutical field. Their petition was granted and this aspect was never saw the light in court.

Additionally, several (including Dr Mercola and Dr Linda Bacon, in "HEALTH AT EVERY SIZE") have cited studies which suggest that the corporation which finances a study is likely to find positive results FROM the study for THEIR product. In the post graduate class about de-coding studies, students were taught that the first step is to ask who is financing the study.

Supposedly according to Dr Mercola, in the group of 17,000 participants in the Jupiter study, less than 2 perent had a cardiovascular incident (these were generally healthy people with high C Reactive protein levels). That is, 2 percent in the control group and 1 percent in the Crestor group.

True that can be expressed as a 50 percent less chance of heart disease in those on Crestor but in reality the percentage is only 1 percent less which isn't exactly astounding.

It is enough to create a splashy headline though and sell lots of Crestor, even to people of normal cholesterol levels. (As if they are not selling enough already - I guess never too much in sales is the rule here). :)

But for a 1 percent less chance of heart attack is it really worth it to deal with the side effects of Crestor which include (according to Dr Mercola):

• Anemia
• Acidosis
• Frequent fevers
• Cataracts
• Muscle pain and weakness
• An increase in cancer risk

But many will rush out and ask their doctors for Crestor and the cha-ching of the money coming in, will be heard 'round the world. Another successful endeavor by the pharmaceuticals...

Doctors knew the dangers of cigarettes in 1900?

2008-08-24T14:04:00.000-07:00

Today I got quite a shock when someone sent me an article from a website about Lucy Page Gaston. Apparently she waged quite a battle against cigarette smoking, even almost managing to get it prohibited in Illinois in 1907. Wait a minute. 1907? But didn't we see the cover of the American Medical Association Journal (JAMA) in 1938, featuring a group of doctors, all smoking cigarettes and telling folks how healthy smoking was? And what about all the doctors in the 1950's who advocated this or that brand of cigarette in TV ads.

So how exactly DID Ms Gaston almost get smoking banned in 1907. Well, it seems that she was supported by quite a few doctors who had noticed that their patients who smoked had more respiratory disease and heart disease than those who did not smoke!

Another shocker. Gaston wasn't connecting smoking with what one may THINK it might be connected back in the dark ages of the 1900's i.e. immorality, lack of courtesy etc. Gaston was connecting smoking with what it now is KNOWN to be connected with as a DIRECT cause. i.e. heart disease and COPD!

Lung cancer, which had been virtually unknown, was formally recognized as a disease for the first time in 1923 and became widespread in the 1930s.

So if many doctors had joined Gaston's movement, where was the mainstream medical establishment? It seems they ignored the Gaston crowd saying there was "no evidence based research suggesting the risks of smoking". But why when so many doctors had observational evidence, weren't some studies started?

Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the profits of the tobacco industry were an obscene 2.5 BILLION bucks at the turn of the 20th century. Can you imagine? When the average working man made $5-10 dollars a week for six 12 hour days of work?

Despite all of Gaston's efforts, annual cigarette sales in the United States had soared from 2.5 billion at the turn of the century to nearly 80 billion when she died. ... Cigarette consumption continued climbing, even after the U.S. Surgeon General issued a landmark report on its dangers in 1964.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2008/The-Smoking-Gun/

The conclusion we must draw is sad. Seems the medical industry could be bought even 100 years ago and excluding the few lives that Lucy Gaston saved through her hard work, many people died (including my own father) partially, due to a medical industry which apparently may not have had the best interests of the people at heart.

Even now, if a slim person who smokes goes to the doctor, they may or may not be told that "perhaps they should consider cutting down their smoking" but if an obese person goes to the doctor, the first thing they typically hear is "LOSE WEIGHT OR DIE" even though to date there is neither observational NOR evidence based research DIRECTLY connecting obesity and disease (only lifestyle in folks of all weights and disease).
http://obesitysurgery-info.com/fatoid.htm

We know about the profit motive there. The diet industry in the USA profits a whopping 50 BILLION yearly.

We as consumers should know about the possibility that some things being sold to us (or not sold to us) by our medical providers may or may not be tainted by profit interests. The AMA itself has written a lot about pharmaceutical companies enticing providers with gifts, dinners, trips etc to prescribe certain medications and even some surgeries sold, may be influenced by the profit motive. We do know that most medical providers allow the pharmaceutical companies to educate them about the latest and greatest in medicine because their overburdened schedules often do not allow them to read the books which are not tainted by the need to sell certain procedures and medications.

What we didn't know is that even in the "good old days" the profit motive loomed ominously behind medical care (or lack thereof).

But Lucy Page Gaston, in her blunt manner, lives on, in cyberspace, warning us from the distinct past to always remember even WITH medicine "let the buyer beware".

Poisoned tomatos?

2008-06-04T10:18:00.000-07:00

One of the top news stories for the last few days has been the salmonella cases resulting from eating fresh tomatoes. Salmonella is what commonly causes food poisoning or what we call "the green apple two step". Only 40 cases of salmonella have been identified throughout the USA - which is an infinitesimal percentage of the millions who eat fresh tomatoes on a daily basis. And we are never told if the 17 who were hospitalized were elderly or already ill from other things but I suspect they were. Most of us get food poisoning regularly and it just means we have to stay close to a toilet, a good excuse to stay home from school or work and play GTA or other video games while we "recuperate". (Oh the pain)

I remember in my fast food days many years ago, saying that certain places had the word "Express" in their names not because of the rapidity with which one was served but rather the fact that the food seemed to "express" more quickly than desirable from the South end of my body.

That this article about a small percentage of folks getting food poisoning from tomatoes has been headline news for three days now, is only nice in that it gives us a break from the usual election fighting and emphasizing how many deaths there have been of Americans in Iraq (which are reported and stressed even if the deaths had nothing to do with the fighting). The fact remains that many people do not wash their veggies before eating and most of them do not get food poisoning from it.

Many restaurants do not bother to take the time to wash the fruit or veggies before serving so the bottom line of this little piece of news may be something we all know already - one takes a risk of food poisoning every time one eats fast food or restaurant food.

My answer to seeing the article for the umpteenth time was lighthearted. I pointed out that if folks ate chocolate instead of fresh veggies they would not face this danger. (Chocolate is a veggie, you knew that, right?)

However, that being said, I have heard that one should wash the veggies with soap... I have a concern about that as soap is a chemical and may leave a residue or worse yet, be absorbed in the veggie. They have a non soap substance you can use to wash veggies in but who knows how safe that is (they advertise it in infomercials... which isn't exactly the greatest source of the truth).

And washing even with soap, may or may not help the salmonella issue - the little buggers may be living INSIDE the tomato anyway.

There is pretty good evidence that we cannot digest fresh veggies as well as we can cooked veggies, and if one is going to cook them, one can wash them with water - that gets the soil off etc - and then the cooking takes care of the rest including any nasty bacteria which are hiding within.

As the recent study suggested, we lack the enzyme to break down the cell walls of plant material so cannot access many of the nutrients of uncooked veggies. I learned that in biology also.

Since salads are such a staple among the weight conscious (that's probably most of us whether we are fat or slim), saying things like fresh veggies may not be as nutritious as cooked veggies may be an unpopular statement. However, from what I have studied, it certainly might be something to consider.

With regards to fresh fruit, further study however, in researching about the ill effects of methanol in aspartame/Nutrasweet, revealed to me that at least some fruit allowed to remain on the bush for even a short amount of time, builds up methanol in the cell wall - this apparently dissolves in cooking the fruit but if the fruit is eaten raw and the passage through the small bowel is slowed down for any reason, it can ferment and release the raw methanol which then DOES get into the system. The biochemist who showed me the studies was making an argument for saying that there is just as much methanol in fruit as in Nutrasweet (he loved Nutrasweet and didn't want to give it up). Though I was never much of a fruit eater anyway, that revelation rather killed my desires completely for uncooked fruit....

That being said, although the excuse of diagnosing better is used for everything (as in the reason why there are 1 million new cases of cancer each year now, as opposed to 100 in the early 1900's), there may be some basis for a case of over diagnosis in the case of the bacteria laden tomatoes. Many of us can get food poisoning (which is basically what salmonella can cause) from anything and not notice it because it's self limiting... As in "oh I have food poisoning today and have to be close to the toilet but I'll be back to work or school tomorrow".

Our wily news media has discovered that if folks are scared, they tend to watch the news more carefully (and also listen to the commercials which is the main point of TV anyway). So it's good to keep that in mind when listening to the news - or perhaps, better yet, when deciding it might be time to turn off the news.

Even thin people get diabetes

2008-05-29T10:32:00.000-07:00

An article carried on MSNBC (reprinted from the magazine "MensHealth") began with this promising headline.

Unfortunately, the headline of the article was probably the best and truest part. At least 33 percent of type II diabetics have never been fat in their lives.

But the article itself is typical from what can be expected from "MensHealth" magazine - MensHealth is a real pop science mag and not an accurate source at all. We KNOW that MSNBC would LIKELY NOT print a REALLY informative article about anything regarding obesity or diabetes and in that way, this article did not disappoint.

Most people will NOT slog through the verbiage which is very extensive ... I slogged through about 3/4 of it and then, decided the rest was more of the same.

The picture most people will take away with them from reading a couple of paragraphs, however, is the gaunt emaciated father (whom the author carefully avoids directly SAYING has diabetes by the way, so he may not even have the disease) who is in a nursing home and obviously suffering from Alzheimers. Well, news flash...Alzheimers is not only NOT related to diabetes (it's a gene also) but it's one of those diseases which fat people seldom get for some reason.... My FIL, a thin man who had diabetes and lost his legs to the illness, was intelligent and sharp up to the day he died just short of his 70th birthday. And my hubby's cousin is the same age as the author's gaunt father, has diabetes, takes medication and has a BMI which is in the high 50's or even the 60's - she travels all over the place, goes on cruises and doesn't even particularly adher to avoiding the sweets she's always liked. And she certainly is NOT senile in any way - she still lives on her own, having out lived her slim, health minded husband by several years, by the way.

Most people will just read the first couple of paragraphs and take with them the frightening picture of the senile father with Alzheimer's which the author has now connected with diabetes. But the media has that covered - most will scan the sub-headlines and get the message they want to convey anyway. One of these, is suggesting "low carb diet" for diabetes. But in reality that the reason even the ADA has NOT embraced low carb diets for diabetes is because there is NO PROOF that these diets are of ANY benefit to reducing sugar levels. It seems logical but people forget that EVERYTHING ends up glucose for energy. And I've seen my hubby, GG, a diabetic diagnosed 15 years ago, eat an all carb dinner and have a high reading in the morning and then the next night eat totally not only carb but fats and simple carbs and sugar and then have a low reading the following morning.

Diabetes sugar levels do apparently not rely on what you eat. They MAY rely on HOW MUCH you eat but the jury is still out on that one also. However there is certainly more observational evidence that eating less can bring down sugar levels but some of the slimmest diabetics have very high sugar levels so who really knows?

I have a friend who BELIEVEEEESSSS in the low carb way... she is an apostle for low carb eating. But her husband on much more metformin than GG even though HER husband is newly diagnosed, and who eats faithfully low carb, has sugar levels which range in the 300's (morning reading). She is not deterred however. Low carb dieting has not been kind of her figure either - she's got a high BMI even with never touching sugar and seems unable to lose the weight which has bugged her for decades. (We know she IS upset about her weight because she had weight loss surgery which was a health disaster for her, many years ago)

The article has a short blurb about exercise and this is about its only saving grace however, in the length of it, I bet most folks will have missed the paragraph about exercise so here it is for your convenience:

*** Just how powerful an antidote is exercise? A study published recently in the American Journal of Physiology — Endocrinology and Metabolism revealed that insulin resistance in rats decreased more from exercise than from taking metformin, the leading diabetes drug.***

That's it... pretty slim for what probably is the ONLY thing they know of to help control sugar levels besides medication. And by the way, they have a lot more than RAT studies suggesting the benefits of exercise for everyone and specifically for diabetics (i.e. intentional cardio).

More inaccuracies of the article? Diabetes is NOT the fastest growing disease. In fact, levels have DECREASED slightly in the last decade or so. How they are proclaiming that the incidence of diabetes has increased, may be because they are now counting everyone with a slightly elevated sugar level as in the realm of diabetic. Also they count women with gestational diabetes however, it has been observed that only about 50 percent of those with gestational diabetes actually come down with the illness. Often fat people even those with normal sugar levels are counted among the "pre diabetics".

The statement about diabetes greatly rising in incidence among children is erroneous also. People are BORN with insulin resistance - what is rising in incidence is our ability to DIAGNOSE insulin resistance in kids - something we were not able to do a couple of decades ago. But are we using this to get ALL KIDS to exercise or re-instituting P.E. on a daily basis in the schools? NOPE! It's just used as a scare tactic to sell diets and diet foods and impose diets on our children in their most vulnerable years.

What IS scary is not the "shockers" this article promises but rather than there is so much misinformation floating around about diabetes, it's frightening. Few doctors REQUIRE exercise of diabetics even though that's the only thing which has been shown to help.

Luckily we have medications which are excellent like metformin and do not have to rely on the "pancreas" burners like our parents were stuck with.

Many diabetics die of heart disease (which the media is quick to blame on the disease thus forgetting that heart disease in general IS the leading cause of death of ALL Americans not only diabetics!). And the greatest help in preventing or healing heart disease... The big "E" word, exercise.

Only 25 percent of Americans exercise cardio (which is what strengthens your heart) 3 times a week. Only 5 percent of Americans do daily cardio which is really what you need.

That (and not this inane article) is sobering and scary. Have YOU done your cardio today?

Vaccines - how urgently do we need them?

2008-05-10T09:35:00.000-07:00

As people who know me, know, I am very against hard advertising of medical procedures and drugs to the public. As for vaccines, I don't know HOW I feel about them. I'm not totally against them but I feel perhaps, they are overused in our society and have become a cash cow.

Gardasil the so called HPV vaccine is being more heavily (and emotionally) advertised than many other drugs and I ask myself - why does the pharmaceutical company feel it has to spend this type of money on advertising this vaccine.

Perhaps because the side effects of the vaccine are a bit much for many people? Apparently the CDC has received thousands of complaints and some of them are serious things like serious illness and death.

Also according the ads, gardasil does NOT cover all the viruses causing HPV. According to one article I read, it only covers FOUR of the 100 some HPV viruses. That doesn't seem very many.

But another niggling doubt I have, is this business of "blaming" unvaccinated kids for the outbreaks of things like measles, AMONG vaccinated kids. We would think that if a kid was vaccinated, they would be IMMUNE to the viruses, right? I mean isn't that the idea of vaccination in the first place?

The only "excuse" I've heard is "well vaccines aren't 100 percent effective".

Well duh. If they have a measles outbreak among vaccinated kids, it seems they are a lot LESS than 100 percent effective. It seems they are not very effective at all.

This year's flu vaccine covered apparently none of the flu's going around. "OOPS" said the manufacturers.

But I've seen that the flu vaccine only seems to cover the prevailent flu about once in every 10 years. I experienced that myself when as a good girl, following my doctor's advice when I was pregnant, I took the flu vaccine that year. I still got the flu which was going around. I decided forget that vaccine and have never taken it again. So when the swine flu vaccine came around which was supposed to "protect us" from the threatened "pandemic", I skipped taking that one too. Good thing, because 40 percent of those who took it, got a serious complication from it, much worse than the flu it was supposed to protect against, like Guillan Barre or "French Polio". And the threatened pandemic like so many of the other "media crisis" never arrived.

So again, why take it especially when it's one of the vaccines that still contains mercury as a preservative?

And really I would like to hear more about how "not completely effective" these vaccines are because today's new born baby has received a bunch of vaccinations before he or she is even 3 months old. And some studies (which the pharmaceuticals have tried to discount) have found a connection between some vaccines like the MMR and autism.

Maybe there are good reasons to take vaccines but it seems that no one is talking to us - except the anti vaccine folks who have come up with some rather good reasons to say "no" to many vaccines.

And to those questioning like myself, seems that the pro vaccine folks ought to be able to answer some of my questions and doubts about vaccines if vaccines are REALLY as great as these folks are claiming.

I do remember when the Salk vaccine came out. We were shown photos of kids from the 1940's in the "iron lung" wards and sufficiently scared about polio. We were never told that modern sanitation and good medical care is all that is needed in most cases to prevent disability.

We knew a post polio guy who was a quadriplegic. One of his Dad's favorite tricks was to stick his head in the toilet where there was usually urine (Mom didn't flush the toilet after going most times). The house they lived in was more than filthy and he surely, an unwanted kid, didn't get much medical care when he GOT the disease.

But frankly I didn't know any kids in any school I went to who got polio. And my mother wisely kept us out of park swimming pools because in the 1950's they didn't know that chlorine didn't work if the water was not of an acid PH.

We just accepted that it was a "grave danger" based on the photos from the 1940's and early 1950's of the "iron lung" wards.

Later on, the Sabin vaccine came out. Our son had that but I had my doubts about it. We knew it caused a certain percentage of cases of polio because it was a "live virus" vaccine. And in the last decade, the Sabin vaccine (taken by mouth) has all but disappeared - why? Because they realized that most of the cases of polio they were seeing in the 1st world were CAUSED by the vaccine.

I do know that if a person wants to keep immune using the vaccine "system" they have to get the full compliment of vaccines every 2 years. And of course, that's something even the pharmaceuticals with heavy duty emotionally based advertising couldn't push down our throats.

But since vaccines have prevented some of us from HAVING those childhood diseases like measles and mumps and German measles which gave us a lifetime immunity, I think many folks are walking around and NOT immune to these diseases (because they are not getting vaccinated every 2 years to keep up their immunity) but in our modern sanitized society, it apparently isn't that much of a danger.

Great sell for the manufacturers, isn't it? Did anyone do the math about the profits on vaccinating babies (breast fed babies are immune and don't need vaccination because the mother's anti bodies are passed through breast milk) and lining up our kids for one time vaccinations? I suspect it even makes the diet industry profits pale by comparison.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against vaccines, but I think if they are so important as the media seems to feel, why can't those folks answer some of my questions better than "well, it's better than nothing" or "well vaccines aren't 100 percent effective". I think if they want us to take these jabs, they should give us better information than that? Unreasonable of me? So bite me! :)

Why was the diabetes study ACCORD halted?

2008-02-06T17:08:00.000-08:00

Halting a major study is not something done quickly because it can mean a drastic loss of money for those funding the study. But recently a huge study (named ACCORD) on aggressively treating diabetes by greatly lowering the blood sugar levels, greatly lowering the cholesterol and trigycerides and also blood pressure was halted.

The news stories were indefinite about why the study was halted and what WERE those treatments which proved to be too risky. I decided to research it.

First, I found that ACCORD has a website although nothing on there about halting the study!

I was curious about the treatments which turned out to be MORE dangerous than the standard treatment. From the protocol PDF, I found:

For blood sugar control: control group: metformin, and for the experimental group: glipozide and injected insulin (as an aggressive way to greatly lower A1C)

Lowering cholesterol and trigycerides: for the experimental group: higher doses of Zocor combined with fenofibrate (Tricor) and they did express some concern about the "adverse events" going in:

Because 40 mg of simvastatin may increase the risk for adverse events, particularly in the patients receiving fenofibrate, participants will be followed closely and CPK regularly measured.

The control group was just given Zocor. The experimental part was mixing Tricor with higher doses of Zocor. From websites on Tricor, I found the following general warnings:

Before taking fenofibrate, tell your doctor if you have
· liver disease,
· biliary cirrhosis,
· kidney disease,
· gallbladder disease,
· hypothyroidism (an underactive thyroid gland), or
· diabetes.

Fenofibrate apparently interacts adversely with the statin drugs and therein one suspects, lay one problem of this study:

Before taking fenofibrate, tell your doctor if you are taking any of the following medicines:
· an anticoagulant (blood thinner) such as warfarin (Coumadin);
· cyclosporine (Neoral, Sandimmune);
· lovastatin (Mevacor), simvastatin (Zocor), pravastatin (Pravachol), fluvastatin (Lescol), atorvastatin (Lipitor), or cerivastatin (Baycol); or
· cholestyramine (Questran) or colestipol (Colestid).
• You may not be able to take fenofibrate, or you may require a dosage adjustment or special monitoring during treatment if you are taking any of the drugs listed above.
• Drugs other than those listed here may also interact with fenofibrate. Talk to your doctor and pharmacist before taking any prescription or over-the-counter medicines.

On another website, there are extensive lists of medications which can interact adversely with Tricor.

According to the ACCORD website, ACCORD was heavily funded by pharmaceuticals:

Abbott Laboratories (and Fournier Laboratories)
AstraZeneca LP
Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
MediSense Products (Division of Abbott Laboratories)
Merck & Company, Inc.
NetGroup Diabetic Services
Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Omron Healthcare, Inc.

According to one blog, the intensive treatment group (the experimental group) had more deaths than the controls:

The ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) study enrolled 10,251 participants. Of these, 257 in the intensive treatment group have died, compared with 203 within the standard treatment group.

The researchers stated they did not know why they had a higher death toll in the "intensive treatment" group.

The interesting thing about this is that if you read the protocol PDF, on paper, their ideas seemed well based in former studies and logic. And yet, in reality that wasn't the case at all.

My suspicions are it had something to do with mixing the statin (zocor) with fenofibrate since on the fenofibrate website, that's in the warnings as a definite "no no".

The fact that the news stories about the study were so indefinite about the nature of the treatments, intrigued me enough to research it further...

Mystery kind of solved.

the only way to prevent cervical cancer?

2008-01-07T09:32:00.000-08:00

About a year ago, someone (or someones) came up with the bright idea that they should force all 12 year old girls to have a vaccination against HPV. Well, actually we know who the someones were. The manufacturer which to date has made millions of bucks with this new vaccine, Gardasil.

Merck, has spent millions of dollars promoting this vaccine, using one of their best weapons, TV ads. Healthy slim smiling young ladies are shown in a PE class (in one of the ads) saying how happy they were to be "protected" against cervical cancer. In the background, one hears the necessary disclaimers "this vaccine does not protect against all types of cervical cancer nor does it prevent STD". But how many listen to the background disclaimers anyway?

The American College of Pediatricians came out with a statement against the forced vaccination of 12 year old girls with the HPV vaccine as a requirement to attend school in 2007. They brought up the following points:

1. the vaccine is tested but long term immunity is not known yet. The College suggests establishing data banks to trace how effective the vaccine is, on the long term. As the college stated "waning protection is an issue with almost every vaccine"

2. parents rights should be respected as to whether they want their girls to receive the vaccine or not. It may not be appropriate for MOST young girls unless it is known that they are very sexually active and having unprotected sex. Receiving the vaccine should be totally voluntary on the part of the individual, states the ACP and medical providers should inform parents that the ONLY TOTAL protection from infection is abstinence.

3. AT LEAST (that they know of) 30 percent of HPV is caused by strains NOT covered in the vaccine

4. the trials were only 2-4 years long - but the average time from infection with HPV to cervical cancer is 20 years (probably why some experts have opined that the vaccine may not be needed because pap smears identify atypical cells long before the person is in danger of cervical cancer and it can be treated at that time)

5. Basically the position of the ACP is that there are far too many questions yet to be answered about this vaccine, that cervical cancer can be prevented through regular pap smears and treatment of HPV long before there is a danger of cervical cancer and that parents rights and the right of the individual to make the decision whether or not to get the vaccine, should be respected.

It should be noted that in the double blind trials with the HPV vaccine, individuals in the vaccinated cohort showed 16.5 percent fewer procedures for cervical problems involving HPV and 25 percent fewer genital warts.... this is not exactly total protection considering that this vaccine can cause some rather serious repercussions like Guillian Barre' etc. We should also remember that these trials were run by the manufacturer of the vaccine - and in the Phen Fen trials, Ayrest-Wyeth admitted that removing negative results was "common practice in the pharmaceutical industry thus the less than impressive results from the Merck trials might have been "sanitized"....

The Chicago Sun Times also ran an OP-Ed against forced vaccination - their reasons were simple - parents should have the final say. The Sun Times pointed out that the jabs were expensive (about $120 bucks a piece) and that a series might consist of 3 of them.

Recently another news article described the vaccine injection as a big "OUCH" for many girls (some have fainted or gotten other reactions).

In this, as in all vaccines, parents should proceed with caution especially as the long term repercussions of the vaccine itself are not known (and many vaccines concern a type of mercury used for preservative, that some studies have suggested can raise the risk for certain disorders like Parkinson's). Also, most vaccines are only good for a couple of years and boosters are needed regularly to continue protection.

There is a much simpler way to protect our teens against HPV. This also protects teens against HIV, and STD as well as broken relationships. What is this magic bullet? Abstinence outside of marriage. The argument is, of course, that teens cannot abstain. I think this is underestimating our teens. I have yet to meet the teen who doesn't WANT to abstain after they really learn the repercussions of NOT abstaining. As the Gardasil vaccine has an "OUCH" factor and unknown protection and/or repercussions, shall we give teaching our teens about abstinence, a good try before allowing our daughters the Gardasil injection?

Santa Claus revisited

2007-12-26T13:58:00.000-08:00

When my mother tried to tell me about Santa Claus, I looked amazed. "How can one person visit ALL the homes in the world on Christmas eve especially when the way he comes (down the chimney) is not the quickest way to enter a home? And what about all the homes which HAVE NO chimney?" (I was thinking of our home, for example) I was 3 years old at the time. My mother was so amazed at the logical questions from a child this small that she walked away, muttering under her breath.

Of course, now in a time where sometimes superstition and science get confused, one sharp scientist, North Carolina State University’s Dr. Larry Silverberg, professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, has come up with an explanation of how Santa can deliver all those presents to all the kids in the world in one night.

"Based on his advanced knowledge of the theory of relativity, Santa recognizes that time can be stretched like a rubber band, that space can be squeezed like an orange and that light can be bent," Silverberg says. "Relativity clouds are controllable domains – rips in time – that allow him months to deliver presents while only a few minutes pass on Earth. The presents are truly delivered in a wink of an eye."

Santa can also, using cell phone technology, listen to kids' thoughts and that way know what kids want, says Dr Silverberg.

There are some serious problems with his theory. To be outside earthtime, Santa would have to travel in space and unless he was not human, he could not do so unless he wore a space suit. Also, a reindeer pulled sled would NOT serve as a space worthy vehicle. (That's assuming that reindeer could fly of course, an assumption that a smart scientist like Dr Silverberg, could not, in true sanity, make). Everyone, reindeer and Santa alike, would run out of Oxygen to breathe way before they got to the place where they would be outside of earthtime! :)

And last I heard, cell phone technology could not read minds.

So even for space age kids, the idea of Santa delivering all the gifts in one night holds serious problems....

The problem might be, though that in a society which questions the age old wisdom of the Bible, popular myths like Santa or what purpose he serves (other than filling the stores' coffers) are not questioned.

I always felt the concept of the baby Jesus, lying in the humble manger in God's Act of giving Himself to the world, was something kids could much better relate to than the unbelievable story of Santa Claus (not withstanding, that myth making Christmas into a "gimme" instead of a GIVE TO OTHERS).

The other day I questioned whether "Toys for Tots" had to remain politically correct and not mention God or whether "the reason for the season" could be talked about while giving the gifts to kids. The Colonel I asked got very huffy and suggested I was questioning his own Christian beliefs (I wasn't at all) and when I tried to get back to my question, he got judgmental and questioned MY Christian beliefs. Should we as Christians give (indiscriminately) to any charity which gives out toys?

Well, not really. If one feels the story of the Christ child IS the greatest gift we can give to kids then we should seek charities which share this story along with the gifts (which ones like St Vincent De Paul and World Vision do). This was never saying I was knocking other charities but simply talking about supporting charities which perpetuate what I feel to be the truth.

I have been greatly criticized for denying our son the Santa myth. I simply didn't see a need for it and I also had a bit of a problem with lying to my son about Santa's existence. (OK more than a bit of a problem).

Our son felt so deprived about this that he not only did NOT do the Santa thing with our grandkids but also my daughter-in-law seemed to agree with this decision. They do the Advent wreath and family prayer instead and from the feedback I've gotten from the kids, they love it. (they also do the gifts).

Santa will live on, I suspect, although the fat phobes would have him change his appearance into a slimmer fitter Santa. Turns out they feel that as he is, he's a poor role model for kids because of his size. Poor Santa. :)