Tamiflu no magic bullet on the flu

Digging into reports on Tamiflu's effectiveness yielded some surprises — and a $200 settlement.



Pharmacist Marty Feltner handles boxes of the antiviral drug Tamiflu at Kohll's Pharmacy in Omaha, Neb. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik / April 30, 2009)

By David Finkelstein

January 15, 2012


In recent weeks I've had occasion to wonder whether Talmudic scholars of yore ever debated the question of what to do when a nice Jewish boy came down with swine flu. Less shameful than a diagnosis of trichinosis, perhaps, in which the subject would surely be harshly judged for his complicity in having partaken of undercooked pork. Yet hasn't a swine flu victim also ingested (or at least inhaled) the virus one way or another?

Admittedly, this was not foremost on my mind when, in 2006, my wife and I purchased a drug called Tamiflu. It was at a time, you may recall, when every allegedly responsible health agency — including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and the World Health Organization in Geneva — warned of the imminent onset of an avian flu "pandemic" of lethal proportions, comparable to the Spanish flu of 1918, which claimed up to 100 million lives.

My wife and I were soon to be leaving on a writing assignment abroad, and Tamiflu was being touted as effective in reducing the "secondary complications" of flu, including bronchitis and pneumonia. As it turned out, however, trying to buy two courses of Tamiflu proved difficult. The pandemic scare had prompted a rash of panic buying, and nary a pill was to be found. As revealed later, President George W. Bush, ever solicitous of the nation's health — primarily the health of all those young men and women he had sent off to Iraq and Afghanistan — had spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money to stockpile the drug. We finally managed to get the pills through a mail-order pharmacy in Canada.

Not surprisingly, we never did come down with avian flu; hardly anyone did. The pandemic never occurred.

Fast-forward to 2011, when a random inventory of our medicine chest revealed the unused Tamiflu pills hidden behind a box of Band-Aids. Maybe we should have discarded them earlier, but our decision to keep them was no doubt influenced by a media campaign in 2009 that proclaimed the threat of yet another frightening outbreak. This time it was swine flu, and — surprise, surprise — Tamiflu was again touted as the drug to save the day.

So you can imagine our surprise when just a few months ago, while browsing through an article titled "Reckless Medicine" in the magazine Discover, we came upon an astounding story. After reviewing studies of Tamiflu during the avian flu scare, Dr. Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration, a nonprofit group dedicated to analyzing medical evidence, had concluded in a 2006 report that the drug was effective. "But," said the article, "several years later, another physician challenged that conclusion because 8 of 10 studies in a meta-analysis — a review of studies — that Jefferson relied on had never been published."

That prompted Jefferson to seek the raw data. "He was stymied when several authors and the manufacturer gave one excuse after another for why it couldn't supply the actual data. Jefferson's concern turned to outrage when two employees of a communications company … [revealed] they had been paid to ghostwrite some of the Tamiflu studies [and] had been given explicit instructions to ensure that a key message was embedded in the articles: Flu is a threat, and Tamiflu is the answer.

"After reanalyzing the raw data finally made available (they still don't have it all), Jefferson and his colleagues published their review [in December 2009], saying that once the unpublished studies were excluded, there was no proof that Tamiflu reduced serious flu complications like pneumonia or death."

In short, it appears the pharmaceutical companies had been as cunning in conning the public on matters of health as Wall Street had been on matters of wealth.

After reading this article and doing a morning's online research, we phoned Genentech Corp., a U.S. affiliate of Hoffmann-La Roche, the Swiss drug giant that holds marketing rights to Tamiflu. Our aim was simply to get the company's response to the allegations. But the customer service representative adamantly refused to discuss the issue, in essence telling us to get lost but to have a nice day.

Stonewalled, we wrote directly to Genentech's chief, Ian Clark, suggesting that because it appeared we'd been misled into purchasing Tamiflu, the simplest solution would be a return of the pills for a refund of the $120 we had paid for them. But unlike his underling, who at least had wished us a nice day, Clark didn't even bother to respond. And so, much as we two senior citizens from New York shrank at the thought of an early-morning PATH trip to Newark, N.J., we bit the bullet and filed a small-claims action in a New Jersey court, that jurisdiction being the closest location where Genentech was licensed to do business. Our suit alleged breach of contract by way of fraud.

Genentech must have dreaded the trip to Newark even more than we did, because a week before the scheduled trial we received a call from the company's in-house lawyer. Genentech, he said, was prepared to resolve the matter out of court, paying us the amount requested (now, with court costs included, an astronomical $200) in exchange for our signing a "standard release." Tucked within its numerous paragraphs was a clause stipulating that we consent to a monastic vow of silence on the issue, renouncing our right ever to mention it to anyone in the future.

Really? We asked ourselves. Were these Genentech guys so out of touch they didn't know the story of the rabbi's hole in one, the only one he'd ever hit in his life? It happens on a Saturday while he is playing a furtive round of golf instead of observing the Sabbath in the sanctity of his synagogue. An infuriated Moses, who wanted the rabbi punished for his sin, demands to know of God why the rabbi gets a hole in one instead. Jehovah, knowing the true horror of his punishment, explains, "But whom can he tell?"

Because, God knows, a triumph one can't talk about is no triumph at all, we rejected the release, stating that we'd prefer to have our day in court. Win or lose, we'd at least come away with our right to free speech intact. (We were fearful too that if we gave in on this one, ShoeMall.com might start demanding a secrecy agreement every time we sent back an ill-fitting pair of sandals.)

Genentech yielded, and sent the $200 check. And here we are, talking about it. An old-fashioned Jewish grandmother might well conclude this narrative with the slightly mocking Yiddishism: "Tamiflu, scamiflu, a bi gezunt" (meaning, what does it all matter, so long as you're healthy). To which our response would be, "Grandma, we may be healthy, but Tamiflu or not, the country certainly isn't."

David Finkelstein, formerly a China specialist with the Ford Foundation, is a New York-based writer and the author of "Greater Nowheres: Wanderings Across the Outback." Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

Find original article HERE

Calcium controversy explained - Vitamin K2 keeps calcium in your bones and out of your arteries

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 by: Elizabeth Walling
See all articles by this author
(NaturalNews.com) Popping calcium pills has become the norm in our culture where osteoporosis has become pervasive, but in recent years research points to calcium supplements posing a danger to our heart health. We're left to wonder: is calcium beneficial or dangerous? There is little doubt that calcium plays many key roles in our health, but the latest research clarifies that calcium alone is not the answer. Many leading experts say vitamin K2 is the missing link in the calcium puzzle.

Calcium belongs in our bones, not in our blood. When our vitamin K2 levels are low, calcium collects in our blood and can lead to calcification in our arteries. The Rotterdam Study, which followed about 4,800 individuals for a 10-year period, showed that individuals who consume the most dietary vitamin K2 experience 50 percent less arterial calcification and cardiovascular death.

This happens because vitamin K2 prevents calcium build-up in the arteries by activating the vascular protein MGP, which inhibits arterial calcification. Vitamin K2 also activates proteins that work to mineralize bones. These two important qualities help combat two diseases which pose serious risk for millions: heart disease and osteoporosis.

Experts emphasize that vitamin K2 is better absorbed and provides more benefits to bone and heart health compared to vitamin K1. Specifically, the MK-7 form of vitamin K2 (like that found in the fermented Japanese soy food natto) is especially potent and stable in the body.

Rule of thumb: Nutrients belong together

The problem with calcium is thinking in isolation. In nature, nutrients do not come in isolated packages. Even foods which are particularly high in one nutrient, also contain a spectrum of additional nutrients that enhance absorption and combat possible negative side effects.

Calcium is not meant to be consumed alone. In whole foods, calcium always comes packaged with nutrients like vitamin K, vitamin D and vitamin A. This is no coincidence. Research has shown all of these nutrients work together to promote better health.

Science may just be catching up to the idea that nutrients belong together, but it's something nature has known all along. A well-rounded diet that contains plenty of calcium with vitamin K2 and a balance of other important nutrients will be your best bet for saving your heart and your bones.


Interesting Comments to this Article

David Anderson
Unfortunately the food sources of this important nutrient (such as egg yolks, hard cheese and butter) were left out of this article. Interesting to me French cusine is high in vitamin K2....could that be the reason for the so-called "French Paradox"?

Chris Davis
Nice article. Rudolf Steiner, who started the Waldorf School system told us 100 years ago that calcium supplements shorten your lifespan! He also predicted mad cow disease which stems from forced cannibalization feeding practices (feed cows to cows and they will go mad).

Sources for this article include:

http://www.wholefoodsmagazine.com/columns/vitamin-connection/vitamin-k2-puts-calcium-bones-and-removes-calcium-arteries-part-1

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/healthcare/studies/story/2011-12-21/Study-Vitamin-D-helps-bone-health-only-with-calcium/52136618/1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11706280

About the author:
Elizabeth Walling is a freelance writer specializing in health and family nutrition. She is a strong believer in natural living as a way to improve health and prevent modern disease. She enjoys thinking outside of the box and challenging common myths about health and wellness. You can visit her blog to learn more:
www.livingthenourishedlife.com/2009/10/welcome.html

Articles Related to This Article:
• Are the coral calcium claims by Bob Barefoot credible and believable?

• Excess Calcium Intake Can Raise Your Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

• Do not fall for the calcium hoax

• Understand the calcium myth; here's what really makes healthy bones

• Medicine's assault on calcium: Quack science fuels calcium bashing frenzy

• How to Beat and Prevent Osteoporosis Naturally
Original (NaturalNews) article can be found HERE

PCOS: my journey to motherhood

Another Case history of infertility successfully treated by homeopath, Dr Johan P Prinsloo in Parent24.com

Before she fell pregnant with her son, Alexander, Antonella Dési tried for two years. This is her story.

By Antonella Dési

Pic: Getty Images

Article originally in Parent24

Related Articles

• Can homeopathy treat PCOS?
• PCOS: the insulin link
• Overcoming infertility

When my gynaecologist told me I had PCOS, I didn’t think much of it, until that is, she said that it could have severe negative effects on me trying to conceive. I remember my heart stopping when she said this – all I had ever wanted to do was to have baby of my own. This diagnosis marked the beginning of my two-and-a-half-year battle with “infertility”, which I am glad to say, I finally overcame.

I was 28 years old when I was diagnosed with the syndrome, but I had been displaying symptoms of PCOS since my early teens. The symptoms I thought were just the result of unfortunate genes – excessive hairiness (which I put down to my Italian heritage), bad skin and stubborn extra weight that was exceptionally difficult to lose. The one and only symptom that I mistakenly and very naively thought was not too bad, was the fact that I only menstruated around three to six times a year.

All of these symptoms, bar the hairiness, tended to disappear when I was on the contraceptive pill – unlike most of my friends, I actually lost weight on the pill, my skin cleared up and my periods became to-the-minute regular – that is, until I stopped taking it, and then everything returned to the way it was before.

Even though I had been going for annual pap smears since I was 18 years old (cervical cancer is common in my family), not one of the gynaecologists I went to actually diagnosed me with PCOS. Fortunately, my current gynaecologist, Dr Sumayya Ebrahim made the diagnosis during my annual visit, after I told her that I was having trouble falling pregnant after being off the pill for a year. She told me that she could prescribe some medication, called Clomid, which ought to induce ovulation.

Dr Ebrahim spoke to me at length about the side effects of Clomid, informing me that like all drugs, Clomid affects each individual differently. She listed the common side effects as including abdominal bloating, abdominal and breast tenderness, skin changes, headaches and mood swings. What she failed to impress on me however, was that Clomid would not only make me ovulate, but that it would turn me into a hormonal, raving mad, devil woman, who truly and honestly thought she was losing her mind. Not only did this put strain on my marriage, but it went so far that I sought the advice of a psychologist, who informed me that it was probably the Clomid that was making me feel this way.

I decided to stop taking the medication and my mental state immediately improved. I consulted with Dr Ebrahim again, telling her that I had decided to stop taking Clomid, and she said that the next feasible option was to visit a fertility clinic. The idea of visiting a fertility clinic scared me – from the perspective of the hormonal and emotional ordeal it promised, as well as the exorbitant cost.

I understood that ultimately I would pay anything to become a mother, but I was also desperately looking for a more “natural” alternative that wouldn’t transform me into the hormonal heap of emotions that put such strain on me and my relationship. It was around this time that my sister-in-law told me that her sister, another sufferer of PCOS, had recently fallen pregnant by undergoing treatment from homeopath, Dr Johan P Prinsloo. I got his number and traveled all the way from Johannesburg to visit him in Pretoria.

Dr Prinsloo spoke to me for an hour – asking me a wide range of various questions, which I remember thinking were relatively irrelevant, but I answered them anyway. After that, he pricked my finger, took a sample of my blood on a glass slide and disappeared into his back rooms to diagnose it. After 10 or 15 minutes, he returned and advised me to stop using any form of lubricant, to use pads instead of tampons, and to take the drops and pills he had prescribed three times a day. He also told me not to worry about quitting smoking just yet, as it would stress me out and that stress is far more damaging for possible conception than smoking is. His advice to me was to carry on as normal – to enjoy life, have fun with my husband and to try and forget about babies.

I felt completely normal and at ease on Dr Prinsloo’s treatment, however, after taking it for eight months, nothing much happened, I lost faith in the treatment and stopped taking it. I had resigned myself to the fact that I would need to go to a fertility clinic, Vitalab, and made an appointment for a month’s time. My husband came with me to the clinic, where the fertility specialist, Dr Stephan Volschenk, asked me a few questions and performed an internal ultra sound examination, where he showed us my ovaries and the cysts. As expected, he diagnosed me PCOS and explained that I should expect a difficult road ahead to successfully fall pregnant. After seeing him, I was transferred to one of his consulting nurses, who prescribed the various medication and a blood test once my first menstrual cycle started.

Exactly four days later, I went for lunch with my older sister, Nicolina. I told her about the pending treatment and during the course of the meal, I also complained of my breasts being sore, which I thought was a good sign as it probably signalled the beginning of my period. Nicolina was insistent that I take a pregnancy test, even though I shirked her off believing that this was an impossibility, especially in light of the fact that I had just been to see a specialist.

“Surely he would’ve picked up on the fact that I was pregnant during the ultrasound, and besides, I have been told that I can’t fall pregnant on my own,” I thought.

Later that day, Nicolina visited me at home with a pregnancy test she had bought for me and insisted I take the test. And that was when I found out I was pregnant!

The next day, at an appointment with Dr. Ebrahim, she showed my husband and myself the heartbeat of my new son, who she told me was nine weeks old already. What a miracle!

Have you struggled to fall pregnant? Share your story below or visit our Trying like you forum.
 
Read more on: antonella dési  |  dr stephan volschenk  |  dr sumayya ebrahim  |  johannesburg  |  pretoria  |  pcos  |  my journey to motherhood  |  clomid

The original article can be read HERE

Can homeopathy treat PCOS?

Homeopath Dr Johan P Prinsloo discusses this common cause of infertility in Parent24.com

Antonella Dési with Dr Johan P Prinsloo

Pic: Getty Images

Article originally in Parent24

Related Articles

• PCOS: the insulin link
• PCOS: my journey to motherhood
• Overcoming infertility

One of the most important aspects of infertility treatment is a lack of insight stemming from a lack of education and detail, leading patients to make wrong decisions. It is becoming such a niche money-making market that more and more patients are being taken for a ride with one-stop remedies and standardised protocols that cannot be effective in each case.

Homeopathic infertility treatment attends to the environment, the health and status of the patient and the entire reproductive system, including the uterus, cervix, ovaries, and so on. Although there is of course a place for treatments such as IVF (in vitro fertilisation), AI (artificial insemination), and other techniques, their success will always rely on the health of the environment.

Such interventions would be much more successful if they were done in conjunction with homeopathic treatment of infertility. One would be able to achieve a much higher success rate if only the conventional medical profession was prepared to work with their homeopathic counterparts. After all, we are supposed to be working towards the same common goal.

The focus of homeopathic treatment is upon the environment, the health state of the uterus, endometrium, healthy natural ovulation and production of a healthy ovum. This is done by treating endometritis, endometriosis, ovarian cysts, and everything that is involved in ensuring successful fertilisation, implantation and eventually a healthy pregnancy. It is also important to maintain normal hormonal balance. This is done with low potency and tincture preparations, which both supplement and restore balance, without massive increases in certain hormones that tip the balance unfavourably.

How long does the homeopathic treatment take to be effective?
Infertility treatment usually ranges from between three to six months. It may be longer, depending on the individual patient’s range of problems and history.

What do you think causes PCOS?
I’m of the opinion that our current lifestyle has much to do with it. The incidence of PCOS is on the increase and we are being bombarded with hormones in our diet. Red meat, chicken and eggs all contain hormones. Pseudo oestrogens resulting from the increased use of plastic containers also contribute to PCOS. The other problem of course is the rise in diabetes type 2. It is well known that blood sugar and insulin levels affect fertility and have an effect on PCOS.

What should women trying to fall pregnant avoid?
I am greatly opposed to the use of tampons, since they contain dioxin. In the USA, dioxin has been linked directly to thousands of cases of Toxic Shock Syndrome. Also, many lubricants have spermicidal properties and women should make sure that the particular lubricant they use is not spermicidal. It should not be necessary for women to use lubricants and vaginal dryness is one of the problems that should be addressed in their treatment of infertility.

Read more on: antonella dési  |  dr jp prinsloo  |  ivf  |  ai  |  homeopathy  |  pcos 
 
Read the original article HERE

Eating This Can "Tear Holes" in Your Gut

Dr. Mercola
Mercola.com
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:13 CST

Leaky gut is a condition that occurs due to the development of gaps between the cells (enterocytes) that make up the membrane lining your intestinal wall.

These tiny gaps allow substances such as undigested food, bacteria and metabolic wastes,that should be confined to your digestive tract, to escape into your bloodstream -- hence the term leaky gut syndrome.

Once the integrity of your intestinal lining is compromised, and there is a flow of toxic substances "leaking out" into your bloodstream, your body experiences significant increases in inflammation.

Also, your immune system may become confused and begin to attack your own body as if it were an enemy (autoimmunity).

Most often, leaky gut syndrome is associated with inflammatory bowel diseases like Crohn's and ulcerative colitis, or celiac disease, but even healthy people can have varying degrees of intestinal permeability leading to a wide variety of health symptoms - and this can be influenced heavily by the foods you choose to eat.

Grains Contain Anti-Nutrients

In the United States, we're told that grains (especially whole grains) are an important part of a balanced diet, necessary for obtaining our daily requirement of healthy nutrients and fiber.

However, according to a growing number of experts, including Dr. Loren Cordain, a professor at Colorado State University and an expert on Paleolithic lifestyles, humans are NOT designed to eat grains, and doing so may actually be damaging to your gut.

Dr. Cordain explains:

"There's no human requirement for grains. That's the problem with the USDA recommendations. They think we're hardwired as a species to eat grains. You can get by just fine and meet every single nutrient requirement that humans have without eating grains. And grains are absolutely poor sources of vitamins and minerals compared to fruits and vegetables and meat and fish."

Ironically, since we're often told that whole grains are the best for our health, the high-fiber bran portion of grain - a key part that makes it a whole grain - actually contains many of the anti-nutrients.But the problem isn't only that there are superior sources of nutrients; grains actually contain anti-nutrients that may damage your health. Dr. Cordain states:

"Grains are the seeds of a plant. They're its reproductive material, and plants don't make their reproductive material to give away for free to other animals. If they did they'd become extinct, and so the evolutionary strategy that many plants, particularly cereal grains have taken to prevent predation is to evolve toxic compounds so that the predator of the seeds can't eat them, so that they can put their seeds in the soil where they're meant to be to grow a new plant and not in the gut of an animal to feed it."

Grains - Especially Whole Grains - Increase Intestinal Permeability

There is a growing body of scientific evidence showing that grains, as well as legumes, contain anti-nutrients and other problem substances that may increase intestinal permeability. This includes:

Gliadin

Gliadin is the primary immunotoxic protein found in wheat gluten and is among the most damaging to your health. Gliadin gives wheat bread its doughy texture and is capable of increasing the production of the intestinal protein zonulin, which in turn opens up gaps in the normally tight junctures between intestinal cells (enterocytes).

In celiac disease the body will make antibodies to gliadin after it is digested by the intestinal enzyme tissue transglutaminase, resulting in severe autoimmune damage to the delicate, absorptive surfaces of the intestines. It does not, however, require full blown celiac disease to suffer from the adverse effects of this protein. In fact, it is likely that our intolerance to gliadin and related wheat proteins is a species-specific intolerance, applicable to all humans, with the difference being a matter of the degree to which it causes harm.

This helps to explain why new research clearly shows gliadin increases intestinal permeability in both those with, and those without, celiac disease.

Lectins

Lectins are a key mechanism through which plants protect themselves against being eaten, and are found in highest concentrations in their seed form - which makes sense, considering that seeds are the plants' "babies" and whose survival ensures the continuation of their species.

When animals consume foods containing lectins, they may experience digestive irritation, along with a wide range of other health complaints. The degree to which the adverse effects are expressed depends largely on how long that species has had to co-evolve with that particular form of plant food it is eating. Since humans have only been consuming unsprouted grains and beans in large amounts for approximately 500 generations, we still suffer far more than certain rodents and birds, who have had thousands of generations longer to adapt to this way of eating.

We are mostly exposed to lectins from grains, beans, dairy products and nightshade plants, such as potato, tomato, and chili peppers. However, bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) has a prominent role to play in lectin-induced adverse effects, due to the fact that it is a relatively new form of wheat, and contains wheat germ agglutinin (WGA) - a particularly resilient and problematic lectin, considering it is not eliminated through sprouting and is actually found in higher concentrations in whole wheat.

Studies indicate that it has the potential to contribute to a wide range of adverse health effects, including gut inflammation and damage to your gastrointestinal tract:

• Pro-inflammatory - WGA stimulates the synthesis of pro-inflammatory chemical messengers (cytokines) in intestinal and immune cells, and has been shown to play a causative role in chronic thin gut inflammation.
  
  
  
• Immunotoxicity - WGA induces thymus atrophy in rats, and anti-WGA antibodies in human blood have been shown to cross-react with other proteins, indicating that they may contribute to autoimmunity. In fact, WGA appears to play a role in celiac disease (CD) that is entirely distinct from that of gluten, due to significantly higher levels of IgG and IgA antibodies against WGA found in patients with CD, when compared with patients with other intestinal disorders.
  
  
  
• Neurotoxicity - WGA can cross your blood-brain barrier through a process called "adsorptive endocytosis," pulling other substances with it. WGA may attach to your myelin sheath and is capable of inhibiting nerve growth factor, which is important for the growth, maintenance, and survival of certain target neurons.
  
  
  
• Excitotoxicity - Wheat, dairy, and soy contain exceptionally high levels of glutamic and aspartic acid, which makes them all potentially excitotoxic. Excitotoxicity is a pathological process where glutamic and aspartic acid cause an over-activation of your nerve cell receptors, which can lead to calcium-induced nerve and brain injury. These two amino acids may contribute to neurodegenerative conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, Huntington's disease, and other nervous system disorders such as epilepsy, ADD/ADHD and migraines.
  
  
  
• Cytotoxicity - WGA has been demonstrated to be cytotoxic to both normal and cancerous cell lines, capable of inducing either cell cycle arrest or programmed cell death (apoptosis).
  
  
  
• Disrupts Endocrine Function - WGA may contribute to weight gain, insulin resistance, and leptin resistance by blocking the leptin receptor in your hypothalamus. It also binds to both benign and malignant thyroid nodules, and interferes with the production of secretin from your pancreas, which can lead to digestive problems and pancreatic hypertrophy.
  
  
  
• Cardiotoxicity - WGA has a potent, disruptive effect on platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1, which plays a key role in tissue regeneration and safely removing neutrophils from your blood vessels.
  
  
  
• Adversely Affects Gastrointestinal Function by causing increased shedding of the intestinal brush border membrane, reducing the surface area, and accelerating cell loss and shortening of villi. It also causes cytoskeleton degradation in intestinal cells, contributing to cell death and increased turnover, and decreases levels of heat shock proteins in gut epithelial cells, leaving them more vulnerable to damage.

As we noted earlier, the highest amounts of WGA is found in whole wheat, including its sprouted form, which is touted as being the most healthful form of all ... The traditional ways of addressing many of these anti-nutrients is, in fact, by sprouting, fermenting and cooking. However, lectins are designed to withstand degradation through a wide range of pH and temperatures. WGA lectin is particularly tough because it's actually formed by the same disulfide bonds that give strength and resilience to vulcanized rubber and human hair.

New Report Warns of the Sugar in Cereals Marketed to Kids

One of the most common ways we consume grains is in the form of cereal, many of which are marketed to kids and adults alike as "health foods." But cereal is anything but healthy, not only because of the grain it contains but also because many (particularly those for kids) contain excessive amounts of sugar.

A new report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) revealed that many popular children's cereal brands contain more sugar than snack cakes and cookies. For instance, one cup of Kellogg's Honey Smacks, which is nearly 56 percent sugar by weight, has more sugar than a Twinkie, while a one-cup serving of 44 other children's cereals analyzed contain more sugar than three Chips Ahoy! cookies.

If you need a recap of why sugar is a health disaster, you can find one here. However, as it pertains to leaky gut, you should know that sugar, like grains, can upset the balance of bacteria in your digestive tract, encouraging damage to your intestinal lining that can lead to leaky gut. So, sugary children's cereals are a double-edged sword, assaulting your fragile gastrointestinal tract with both damaging sugar and grains. Please do your kids a great favor and offer them a healthier breakfast instead.

Are Grains Causing Your Leaky Gut Symptoms? This Food is the "Antidote"

As you might suspect, leaky gut can cause digestive symptoms such as bloating, gas and abdominal cramps, but it can also cause or contribute to many others you may not, such as fatigue, skin rashes, joint pain, allergies, psychological symptoms, autism and more.

It's a vicious cycle because once your digestive tract has been damaged, it allows various gut contents to flood into your bloodstream where they wreak havoc on your health. The key to preventing this lies in altering your diet to eliminate the offending foods -- including sugars and grains -- as well as introduce healthier ones that will support a proper balance of bacteria in your gut. To restore gut health, and prevent leaky gut from occurring, eating traditionally fermented foods is essential.

Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride explains:

"Fermented foods are essential to introduce, as they provide probiotic microbes in the best possible form ... fermented foods will carry probiotic microbes all away down to the end of the digestive system. Fermentation predigests the food, making it easy for our digestive systems to handle, that is why fermented foods are easily digested by people with damaged gut. Fermentation releases nutrients from the food, making them more bio-available for the body: for example sauerkraut contains 20 times more bio-available vitamin C than fresh cabbage."

On Dr. Campbell-McBride's web site you can find recipes for many traditionally fermented foods, including sauerkraut, yogurt, kefir, kvass and more.

If you regularly eat fermented foods such as these that have not been pasteurized (pasteurization kills the naturally occurring probiotics), your healthy gut bacteria will thrive. If these foods do not make a regular appearance in your diet, or you've recently taken antibiotics, a high-quality probiotic supplement will help give your gut bacteria the healthy boost it needs. Once your gut flora is optimized, your leaky gut should improve naturally. As Dr. Cordain explains:

" ... when we have a healthy flora of bacteria in our gut, it tends to prevent leaky gut."

Is a Return to the Paleo Diet Right for You?

During the Paleolithic period, many thousands of years ago, people ate primarily vegetables, fruit, nuts, roots and meat - and a wide variety of it. Today, these staples have been largely replaced with refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup, cereal, bread, potatoes and pasteurized milk products... and a much narrower selection of fruits, vegetables, roots and nuts.

This is precisely the recipe for a leaky gut, and all of its associated health problems, which is why simply returning to a Paelo diet by eating foods that are concordant with your genetic ancestry may help you become healthier. This includes focusing on whole, unprocessed foods including vegetables (except corn and potatoes) and free-range organic meats, while avoiding sugars and grains.

As Dr. Cordain states:

"The nutritional qualities of modern processed foods and foods introduced during the Neolithic period are discordant with our ancient and conservative genome. This genetic discordance ultimately manifests itself as various chronic illnesses, which have been dubbed "diseases of civilization." By severely reducing or eliminating these foods and replacing them with a more healthful cuisine, possessing nutrient qualities more in line with the foods our ancestors consumed, it is possible to improve health and reduce the risk of chronic disease."

Sources

Me and My Diabetes December 3, 2011

USA Today December 6, 2011

Environmental Working Group December 2011
Comment: To learn more about the Benefits of a Paleo Diet read the following:

The Paleo Diet: Should You Eat Like a "Caveman"?
Should You Eat a Paleo-Diet for Health Like These Californians?
A Real Paleo Diet - Grassfed Meat, Fat, and Organ Meats

Monsantos Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked To Infertility

Sat 21 Jan 2012 14:48
By  Andre Evans - Activist Post

A recent study has found that Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide may be responsible for causing infertility. After reviewing the many already well-documented negative impacts Roundup has on the environment and living creatures, it is no surprise to add yet another item to the list.

Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility
Researchers tested roundup on mature male rats at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm), and found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed. According to the study, even at a concentration of 1 ppm, the Roundup was able to affect the test subjects by decreasing their testosterone concentrations by as much as 35%.

How can such small levels of exposure have such a profound effect on the reproductive system?

Roundup, being a glyphosate-based herbicide is also known to have endocrine disrupting properties.

Much like BPA, glyphosate-based herbicides have the ability to interfere with the natural hormonal balance in the human body, thereby introducing a number of health risks along with even the smallest levels of exposure. These chemicals are strong enough to affect your metabolism, behavior and mood, reproductive organs, and even provoke cancer.

As a result, any plants that are sprayed with Roundup carry with them a chemical effect similar to that of other endocrine disruptors, offsetting the hormonal balance and causing adverse effects, despite even the smallest levels of exposure. This in part contributes to the number of males with increased fertility issues in more recent times.

It is no surprise that Monsanto, a company already infamous for a whole slew of dangerous concoctions, would also be responsible for affecting another major aspect of human health on a large scale.

Ultimately it is highly important to avoid any products sprayed with pesticides or herbicides for the many associated health risks – now fertility included. In addition to avoiding food which has been tarnished by this pesticide, you may also want to consider investing in a water filter. Glyphosate, the carcinogenic chemical Roundup contains, has been found to be contaminating the groundwater in areas where it is being applied.

Being aware of the hormonal disruptors you face in your daily life such as BPA and now Roundup is a must. Even the smallest levels of exposure can have large negative effects.

Original article can be found HERE

World’s Top Commercial Weed Killer Linked to Infertility: Scientist

LifeSiteNews.com
May 11, 2011

The world’s top herbicide for decades has come under criticism after evidence surfaced suggesting that the chemical may be linked to infertility and miscarriage in animals, raising serious concerns about the possible effect on human consumers.

Glyphosate is the weed-killing ingredient introduced over 30 years ago by the multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto under the brand name Roundup. Monsanto also produces “Roundup Ready” corn, soybeans and cotton genetically engineered to withstand large doses of Roundup that would be deadly to normal plants.


But Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University and a well-known plant pathologist, wrote to both American and European officials earlier this year to express his concern over a newly-discovered, extremely small organism that has appeared in higher concentrations in conjunction with Roundup and Roundup Ready crops.

The “electron microscopic pathogen,” Huber wrote in a Jan 16 letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack, “appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings,” noting that preliminary experiments have been able to reproduce the pathogen’s effect of causing miscarriages.

Huber urged the Secretary to delay deregulation of Roundup Ready crops, saying that “such approval could be a calamity.” “I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency,” he wrote.

Lyndsay Cole, media coordinator for the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, told LifeSiteNews.com Tuesday that Vilsack had received the letter and encouraged “submission of any data or studies in support of his concerns.”

Eleven days after the date of Huber’s letter, the USDA announced its decision to fully deregulate Roundup Ready Alfalfa.

Huber’s letter was only one of many criticisms aimed at Monsanto recently, with several environmentalist groups and others calling for a global ban on the product that has netted the company billions in sales despite its troubling environmental track record. More evidence of the danger of glyphosate emerged in 2010; a study by scientists in Argentina concluded that glyphosate caused mutations in embryonic frogs and chicks, according to Reuters.

Glyphosate-based herbicides have also been available under generic brand names after Monsanto’s patent expired in 2000.

Reuters reports that the Environmental Protection Agency is investigating the possible dangers of glyphosate and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining what action, if any, the government should take against it.

Osteoporosis Is So Slow, Bone Density Tests Can Wait, Study Says

By GINA KOLATA

Published: January 18, 2012

Bone loss and osteoporosis develop so slowly in most women whose bones test normal at age 65 that many can safely wait as long as 15 years before having a second bone density test, researchers report in a new study.

Michael Nagle for The New York Times

Dr. Ethel S. Siris, director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center, stands in front of a bone density scanner at the Columbia University Medical Center New York-Presbyterian Hospital.

The study, published in Thursday’s issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, is part of a broad rethinking of how to diagnose and treat the potentially debilitating bone disease that can lead to broken hips and collapsing spines.

A class of drugs, bisphosphonates, which includes Fosamax, have been found to prevent fractures in people with osteoporosis. But medical experts no longer recommend the medicines to prevent osteoporosis itself. They no longer want women to take them indefinitely, and they no longer consider bone density measurements the single defining factor in deciding if a woman needs to be treated.

Now, with the new study, researchers are asking whether frequent bone density measurements even make sense for the majority of older women whose bone density is not close to a danger zone on an initial test.

“Bone density testing has been oversold,” said Steven Cummings, the study’s principal investigator and an emeritus professor of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.

The study followed nearly 5,000 women aged 67 and older for more than a decade. The women had a bone density test when they entered the study and did not have osteoporosis. (In a separate national study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 70 percent of women over age 65 did not have osteoporosis.)

The researchers report that less than 1 percent of women with normal bone density when they entered the study, and less than 5 percent with mildly low bone density, developed osteoporosis in the ensuing 15 years. But of those with substantially low bone density at the study’s start, close to the cut off point for osteoporosis of less than 2.5 standard deviations from the reference level, 10 percent progressed to osteoporosis in about a year.

Dr. Margaret Gourlay, the study’s lead author and a family practice specialist and osteoporosis researcher at the University of North Carolina, said she and her colleagues were surprised by how slowly women progressed to osteoporosis.

Medicare pays for a bone density test every two years and many doctors have assumed that this is the ideal interval, although national guidelines say only that screening should be done at “regular intervals.”

“I think this will change the way doctors think about screening,” Dr. Gourlay said.

The results, says Joan McGowan, director of the division of musculoskeletal diseases at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, “provide telling evidence that you are not going to fall off a cliff if you have normal bone density in your 60s or early 70s, that you are not going to have osteoporosis in the next five years unless something else happens.”

Dr. McGowan, who was not involved in the study, said a woman who had to take high doses of corticosteroids for another medical condition would lose bone rapidly. But the findings “cover most normal women,” she said.

Bone density screening took off after Fosamax, the first bisphosphonate, was approved at the end of 1995. For the first time, doctors had a specific treatment that had been shown to prevent fractures in people with osteoporosis.

For years doctors were overly enthusiastic, prescribing it for women whose bone density was lower than normal but not in a danger zone, keeping women on the drug indefinitely. They even gave a name, osteopenia, to lower than normal bone density, although it was not clear it had real clinical significance.

Now, osteoporosis experts consider osteopenia to be a risk factor, not a disease, and its importance varies depending on a patient’s age, said Dr. Ethel Siris, an osteoporosis researcher at Columbia University who was not involved in the study.

Doctors are more likely to prescribe bisphosphonates for older patients and recommend against them for most younger postmenopausal women with osteopenia.

The experts also generally recommend that most people on bisphosphonates take them for just five years at a time, followed by a drug holiday of undetermined length. The idea is to reduce the risk of rare but serious side effects, including unusual thighbone fractures and loss of bone in the jaw.

A risk calculator, FRAX, can help determine whether treatment is recommended. It assesses a combination of risk factors: whether a parent had a hip fracture, the age of the patient, steroid use, bone density at the hip, and whether the person has broken a bone after age 50, an especially important indicator. Nearly half who break a hip already had already broken another bone, Dr. Siris said.

“If you are an older individual, a man or a woman, who already broke a major bone — spine, hip, shoulder, or pelvis or wrist — take it very seriously and get treated,” she said. “If you have relatively good bone density then you are not at risk now.”

Read the original article HERE

Alcohol in Pregnancy: It’s Never Safe, Especially Not in the First Trimester

A new study finds that the developmental hazards of maternal drinking may be greatest at the end of the first trimester.

By Alice Park | @aliceparkny | January 18, 2012



Drinking and pregnancy don’t mix, but when are babies most vulnerable to the effects of alcohol?

The end of the first trimester appears to be the period when alcohol can wreak the most havoc on fetal development, causing physical deformities as well as behavioral and cognitive symptoms, according to research in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.

According to the March of Dimes, about 1 in 12 women admit to drinking during pregnancy, and 1 in 30 say they binge-drink, or consume five or more drinks at one sitting. Exposure to alcohol in utero leads to fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in about 40,000 newborns every year in the U.S. While adults can break down alcohol relatively safely, still-developing fetuses tend to keep more alcohol in their blood, which can hinder the development of brain and body.

MORE: Study OK’s Light Drinking During Pregnancy. Too Good to Be True?

Between 1978 and 2005, scientists at the University of California, San Diego worked with 992 women who provided information about how much alcohol they drank — as well as other substances they used — every three months during their pregnancies.

For every one additional drink the mothers consumed between their 43rd and 84th days of pregnancy, their babies had a 16% greater chance of being born smaller than average, which may put them at greater risk for mental and physical problems. Their infants were also more likely to have birth defects, such as a 25% higher risk of a smooth ridge linking the nose and upper lip, a 12% increased risk of an abnormally small head and a 22% greater chance of unusually thin upper lips.

MORE: What Scientists Know About the First Nine Months

While the data reinforce current guidelines that expectant moms avoid alcohol, it’s particularly difficult for those in the first days of pregnancy, especially since 50% of pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned. That means most women may not even become aware they are pregnant until the middle or end of the first trimester.

So even women who may not be planning to become pregnant should be aware of the risks of alcohol on developing fetuses. As Tom Donaldson, president of the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome told USA Today, “One of the challenges has been determining what are the windows of risk and the patterns in timing and quantity of alcohol use. This article very clearly demonstrates that risk begins with any use.”

The authors agree, writing that:

Based on our findings, there is no safe threshold for alcohol consumption during pregnancy with respect to selected alcohol-related physical features. Women who are of childbearing age and who are contemplating or at risk of becoming pregnant should be encouraged to avoid drinking, and women who are pregnant should abstain from alcohol throughout pregnancy.

Alice Park is a writer at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @aliceparkny . You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

Original article can be found HERE

Cancer Treatment Centers of America – marketing panacea or best in class cure?

Medicine and health today is all about marketing and money and has little or nothing to do with efficacy and health.

Cancer treatment is big money, same as with cholesterol treatments, ADHD, depression and the new big market being penetrated - vaccinations.

The following article was originally post here

*****

If you live around the Chicago area, you will be inundated with commercial for Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

These commercials have recently gotten to my mom. She had non-malignant skin cancer a few years ago. It was treated by surgery and some radiation. Her neck bothers her but the specialist couldn’t do anything for the tightness. His advice was to turn the neck a bit.

Now she feels that the new Cancer Treatment Centers of America will solve all her problems.

A few years ago, I did call Cancer Treatment Centers of America to ask about a female friends cancer. I couldn’t get off the phone with the marketing person. They were asking all kinds of questions about the patient, condition, etc., when all I was trying to do was get general information. They even wanted a doctor to talk to the two of us. But this is just my first phone call.



Image by afagen via Flickr

The same thing happened when I was trying to find out about university tuition. If I contact a university like the University of Phoenix or Full Sail University, I’m put through my paces with the marketing staff. If I contact a private Illinois university like Benedictine University, Aurora University or Elmhurst College, it’s more laid back and relaxed.

Most of the commercials show someone who has been helped giving a testimonial. But if I look at the U.S. News best hospitals for 2011-2012 at U.S. News best hospitals for 2011-2012, I don’t see them listed. And how do they compare with the University of Chicago or other top Illinois hospitals. If I go to the the University of Chicago’s hospital website at University of Chicago cancer hospital, it says “U.S.News & World Report consistently ranks our cancer program among the top in the United States and the highest in Illinois.” The website goes on to list other endorsements.

I looked at the U.S. News and World report for top cancer treatment facilities in Illinois at U.S. News and World report for top cancer treatment facilities in Illinois . I have found several hospitals listed – but not Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

I have found an interesting story in the Cancer Survivors Network about them at Cancer Survivors Network user chats. Here is what one person had to say:

“…my husband did not want to travel and be away from home for 3 days — he’s on a feeding tube and just feels more comfortable at home…I called them and told them based on the itinerary they sent it was a waste of time for us and I would prefer if they can review the records we provided them with and then tell us if there is anything they can do for my husband and if there is then we would come down, but if there is nothing they can do for us then there is no reason for us to come down. They agreed to this. Well — now I find out that they actually BILLED our insurance company for $500 to read the medical records — they NEVER said they were going to bill us and we never agreed to this.”

Interesting story!

So next time you are dying of cancer and live in the Chicago are:

Would you like to go to Cancer Treatment Centers of America based upon their excellent marketing commercials and commercialized testimonies?

Or would you prefer to visit the University of Chicago hospital, who give the following stats at University of Chicago hospital?:

• U.S.News & World Report consistently ranks our cancer program among the top in the United States and the highest in Illinois.
• We are designated a Comprehensive Cancer Center by the National Cancer Institute–one of only two in Illinois.
• In addition, the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer awarded the Medical Center a three-year accreditation with commendation.
• Our program earned the highest overall rating in seven areas, including prevention and early detection, outcomes analysis, and cancer-related quality improvements.

There are many other hospitals recognized in the US News and World Report recommendations. But they don’t run a TV commercial marketing blitz. The only other TV commercial for a cancer treatment program in Illinois is Advocate Health Care.  They are more low key and claim to “help more  people become survivors than any other facility in Illinois.” I probably can find them in the US News and World Report recommendations.

Seven Diseases Big Pharma Hopes You Get in 2012

Supply-driven marketing not only turns the nation into pill-popping hypochondriacs, it distracts from Pharma's drought of real drugs for real medical problems.

December 6, 2011

It used to be joked that a consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you what time it is. These days, the opportunist is Big Pharma, which raises your insurance premiums and taxes while providing you "low-priced" drugs that you paid for.
How did Pharma get a good third of the United States taking antidepressants, statins, and Purple Pills, albeit at low prices? By selling the diseases of depression, high cholesterol, and gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD. Supply-driven marketing, also known as "Have Drug — Need Disease and Patients," not only turns the nation into pill-popping hypochondriacs, it distracts from Pharma's drought of real drugs for real medical problems.
Of course, not all diseases are Wall Street pleasers. To be a true blockbuster disease, a condition must (1) really exist but have huge diagnostic "wiggle room" and no clear-cut test, (2) be potentially serious with "silent symptoms" said to "only get worse" if untreated, (3) be "underrecognized," "underreported" with "barriers" to treatment, (4) explain hitherto vague health problems a patient has had, (5) have a catchy name — ED, ADHD, RLS, Low T or IBS — and instant medical identity, and (6) need an expensive new drug that has no generic equivalent.
Here are some potential blockbuster diseases Pharma hopes you get in 2012.
Adult ADHD
Everyday problems labeled as "depression" sailed Pharma through the last two decades. You weren't sad, mad, scared, confused, remorseful, grieving, or even exploited. You were depressed, and there was a pill for that. But depression peaked just like the Atkins Diet and the Macarena. Luckily, there is adult ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), which has doubled in women 45 to 65 and tripled in men and women 20 to 44, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Like depression, adult ADHD is a catch-all category. "Is It ADHD or Menopause?" asks an article in Additude, a magazine devoted exclusively to ADHD. "ADD and Alzheimer's: Are These Diseases Related?" asks another article in the same magazine.
"I'm Depressed. Could it be ADHD?" says an ad in Psychiatric News, showing a pretty but pouting young woman. In the same publication, another ad titled "Broken Promises" says, "Adults with ADHD were nearly 2x more likely to have been divorced," while exhorting doctors to "screen for ADHD."
Adults with ADHD are often "less responsible, reliable, resourceful, goal-oriented, and self-confident, and they find it difficult to define, set, and pursue meaningful internal goals," says an article cowritten by Harvard child psychiatrist Dr. Joseph Biederman, who is credited with putting "pediatric bipolar disorder" on the map. They "show tendencies to being self-absorbed, intolerant, critical, unhelpful, and opportunistic," and "tend to be inconsiderate of other people's rights or feelings," says the article, describing most people's brothers-in-law.
Adults with ADHD will have trouble keeping a job and get worse without treatment, says WebMD, tapping into the second requirement of a blockbuster disease — symptoms worsen without pills. "Adults with ADHD may have difficulty following directions, remembering information, concentrating, organizing tasks, or completing work within time limits," according to the website, whose original partner was Eli Lilly.
How did Pharma get five million kids and now, maybe, their parents on ADHD meds? Ads on 26- by 20-foot screens in Times Square that ask "Can't focus? Can't sit still? Could you or your child have ADHD?" four times an hour couldn't hurt. (Bet no one had trouble focusing on that!)
Still, convincing adults they aren't sleep deficient or bored but have ADHD is only half the battle. Pharma also has to convince kids who grew up diagnosed as ADHD not to quit their meds, says Mike Cola of Shire (which makes the ADHD drugs Intuniv, Adderall XR, Vyvanse, and the Daytrana patch). "We know that we lose a significant number of patients in the late teen years, early 20s, as they kind of fall out of the system based on the fact that they no longer go to a pediatrician."
A Shire ad in Northwestern University's student paper this year takes the issue head on. "I remember being the kid with ADHD. Truth is, I still have it," says the headline splashed across a photo of Adam Levine, the lead singer of Maroon 5. "It's Your ADHD. Own It," was the tagline. (Was "Stay Sick" the runner-up?)
Of course, pushing speed on college kids (or anyone, for that matter) isn't too hard. Why else do meth dealers say, "First taste free"? But Pharma is so eager to retain its pediatric ADHD market, it has funded for-credit courses for doctors, such as "Identifying, Diagnosing, and Managing ADHD in College Students" and "ADHD in College: Seeking and Receiving Care During the Transition From Child to Adult."
To make sure no one thinks ADHD is a made-up disease, WebMD shows color-enhanced Pet scans of the brains of a normal person and an ADHD sufferer (flanked by an ad for Vyvanse). But it is doubtful the scans are really different, says psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Sinaikin, author of Psychiatryland. And even if they are, it proves nothing.
"The crux of the matter is that there is simply no definitive understanding of how neuronal activity is related to subjective consciousness, the age-old unsolved body/mind relationship," Sinaikin told AlterNet. "We have not advanced beyond phrenology, and this article in WebMD is simply the worst kind of manipulation by the drug industry to sell their overpriced products, in this case a desperate effort by Shire to maintain a market share when Adderall goes generic."
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Rheumatoid arthritis is a serious and dangerous disease. But so are Pharma's immune-suppressing biologic drugs like Remicade, Enbrel, and Humira, which are pushed to treat it. While RA attacks the body's own tissues, leading to inflammation of the joints, surrounding tissues, and organs, immune suppressors can invite cancers, lethal infections, and activate TB.
In 2008, the FDA announced that 45 people on Humira, Enbrel, Remicade, and Cimzia died from fungal diseases, and investigated Humira's links to lymphoma, leukemia, and melanoma in children. This year, the FDA warned that the drugs can cause "a rare cancer of white blood cells" in young people, and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) warned of "potentially fatal Legionella and Listeria infections."
Immune-suppressing drugs are also dangerous to the pocketbook. One injection of Remicade costs up to $2,500; a month's supply of Enbrel costs $1,500; and a year's supply of Humira costs up to $20,000.
Once upon a time, RA was diagnosed from the presence of "rheumatoid factor" and inflammation. But, thanks to Pharma's supply-driven marketing, stiffness and pain are all that are required for the diagnosis today. (Athletes and people born before 1970 — line forms to the left!)
In addition to diagnostic wiggle room and a catchy name, RA has other blockbuster disease requirements. It  will "only get worse" if untreated, says WebMD, and it is often "misdiagnosed" and underreported, says Abbott's Heather Mason, because "people often don't know what they have for a while."
So serious a disease, it costs over $20,000 a year to treat but so subtle you may not know you have it? RA sounds like a blockbuster.
Fibromyalgia
Another underreported disease is fibromyalgia, characterized by widespread. unexplained bodily pain. Fibromyalgia is "almost a textbook definition of an unmet medical need," says Ian Read of Pfizer, which makes the first drug to be approved for fibromyalgia, the seizure pill Lyrica. Pfizer gave nonprofit groups $2.1 million in 2008 to "educate" doctors about fibromyalgia and financed PSAs (pharma service announcements) depicting sufferers describing their symptoms without mentioning a drug. Lyrica now makes $3 billion a year.
Still, Lyrica has to fight Cymbalta, the first antidepressant to be approved for fibromyalgia. Eli Lilly prepositioned Cymbalta for the physical "pain" of depression in a campaign called "Depression Hurts" before the fibromyalgia approval. Treatment of a fibromyalgia patients with either Lyrica or Cymbalta hovers around $10,000, say medical journals.
Pharma and Wall Street may be happy with fibromyalgia drugs, but patients aren't. On askapatient.com, the drug-rating website, patients on Cymbalta reported chills, jaw problems, electrical "pings" in their brain, and eye problems. This year, four patients reported the urge to kill themselves, a frequently reported side effect of Cymbalta. Lyrica users on askapatient reported memory loss, confusion, extreme weight gain, hair loss, impaired driving, disorientation, twitching, and worse. Some patients take both drugs.
SLEEP DISORDERS
Middle of the Night Insomnia
Sleep disorders are a goldmine for Pharma because everyone sleeps — or watches TV when they can't. To churn the insomnia market, Pharma rolls out subcategories of insomnia, such as chronic, acute, transient, initial, delayed-onset, terminal, early-morning, menopausal, and the master category of nonrestful sleep. This fall, Pharma rolled out a new version of Ambien for "middle-of-the-night" insomnia called Intermezzo, even though Ambien is paradoxically notorious for middle-of-the-night awakenings: people "waking up" in an Ambien blackout and walking, talking, driving, making phone calls, and eating food.
Many became aware of Ambien's "lights-on-nobody-home" effect when former Rhode Island Representative Patrick Kennedy drove to Capitol Hill to "vote" at 2:45 a.m. in 2006 on Ambien and crashed his Mustang. But it was Ambien's EWI effect — eating while intoxicated — not DWIs that gave the pill its worst rap. Fit and sexy people awoke amid mountains of pizza, Krispy Kreme, and Häagen-Dazs cartons, their contents consumed by their evil twin on Ambien.
Excessive Sleepiness and Shift Work Sleep Disorder
Needless to say, people with insomnia won't be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed the following day —  whether they didn't sleep or whether they have sleeping pill residues in their system. In fact, they are actually suffering from the underrecognized and underreported epidemic of Excessive Daytime Sleepiness. The main medical causes of EDS or ES are sleep apnea and narcolepsy, but last year Pharma rolled out a lifestyle-caused "Shift Work Sleep Disorder." (No, it doesn't meant you can't sleep because your partner "shifts" in his or her sleep.) Ads for Provigil, a Schedule IV stimulant that treats EDS along with Nuvigil show a judge in his black robe, nodding out on the job, with the headline "Struggling to Fight the Fog?" ("Yo! Your Honor! I'm trying to plead!").
Of course wakefulness agents contribute to insomnia, which contributes to wakefulness problems in a kind of perpetual pharmaceutical jet lag. In fact, the sleeping pill/alertness aid habit is so common, it threatens to create a new meaning for "AA" — Adderall and Ambien!
Insomnia That Is Really Depression
Sleep disorders have also given a new lease on life to antidepressants. Doctors now prescribe more antidepressants for insomnia than they do sleeping pills, according to CNN. They also often combine them, since "insomnia and depression often occur together, but which is the cause and which is the symptom is often unclear."
WebMD agrees with doubling the drugs. "Depressed patients with insomnia who were treated with both an antidepressant and a sleep medication fared better than those treated only with antidepressants," it writes. Ka-ching!
In fact, many of the new blockbuster diseases from adult ADHD and RA to fibromyalgia are treated with new drugs piled on top of existing ones that aren't working, a Pharma contrivance called polypharmacy. It brings to mind the store owner who says, "I know that 50 percent of my advertising is wasted — I just don't know which 50 percent."

Martha Rosenberg frequently writes about the impact of the pharmaceutical, food, and gun industries on public health. Her work has appeared in the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, and other outlets.

Read the original artcile here

New Study Supports Claim That Breast Screening May Be Causing More Harm Than Good

Research: Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: Updated modelling of Forrest report

A new study published on bmj.com today supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening in the UK may have caused more harm than good.

Harms included false positives (abnormal results that turn out to be normal) and overtreatment (treatment of harmless cancers that would never have caused symptoms or death during a patient's lifetime). This may be because the cancer grows so slowly that the patient dies of other causes before it produces symptoms, or the cancer remains dormant or regresses.

It shows that the harms of screening largely offset the benefits up to 10 years, after which the benefits accumulate, but by much less than predicted when screening was first started.

The Forrest report in 1986, which led to the introduction of breast cancer screening in the UK, estimated the number of screened and unscreened women surviving each year over a 15-year period. Costs and benefits were measured in quality adjusted life years or QALYs (a combined measure of quantity and quality of life) but it omitted harms.

It suggested that screening would reduce the death rate from breast cancer by almost one third with few harms and at low cost.

Since the Forrest report, the harms of breast cancer screening have been acknowledged. So, researchers at the University of Southampton set out to update the report's survival estimates by combining the benefits and harms of screening in one single measure.

The results are based on 100,000 women aged 50 and over surviving by year up to 20 years after entry to the screening programme.

Inclusion of false positives and unnecessary surgery reduced the benefits of screening by about half. The best estimates generated negative net QALYs for up to eight years after screening and minimal gains after 10 years.

After 20 years, net QALYs accumulate, but by much less than predicted by the Forrest report.

The authors say more research is needed on the extent of unnecessary treatment and its impact on quality of life. They also call for improved ways of identifying those most likely to benefit from surgery and for measuring the levels and duration of the harms from surgery. From a public perspective, the meaning and implications of overdiagnosis and overtreatment need to be much better explained and communicated to any woman considering screening, they add.

However, the continuing uncertainty surrounding the extent of overtreatment is apparent in a study of French women published on bmj.com last month, which put overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to screening at around 1%.

Contacts and sources:
Emma Dickinson
BMJ-British Medical Journal

14 Proven Side Effects of Sitting All Day

Original article can be found here

It should come as no surprise that sitting around and not moving all day isn't really good for your body, but many may not be aware of just how many problems can be caused by such a sedentary lifestyle. Whether you choose to sit all day or are required to by the logistics of your job, you may want to take a new approach to your workday after learning just what health effects sitting can have on the body. It could impact not only your health, but the lives of your loved ones and expenditures towards healthcare.

1. Deep Vein Thrombosis. Most are familiar with this condition through warnings urging people not to sit without getting up on long flights. The same goes for sitting for hours on end anywhere– at work or at home– without moving. If you don't get up and walk around occasionally, you could be putting yourself at risk of potentially deadly blood clots in your legs.
2. Obesity. Surprise, surprise, sitting all day rather than standing or moving around can play a contributing role in obesity. While not burning enough calories is part of the problem, studies have also shown that being overly sedentary can slow your metabolism and change how your body functions, further contributing to weight gain.
3. Increased Risk of Heart Disease. You think a workout after work is enough to make up for sitting still all day? Think again. New studies have shown that exercise once a day, even for an hour, isn't enough to make up for sitting all day at work. Those who work out and sit all day are just as likely to develop heart disease as those who don't work out and sit all day, something that should make any health conscious worker reevaluate their daily schedule.
4. Risk of Diabetes. Along with an increased risk of heart disease, sitting for prolonged periods of time can increase your chances of developing diabetes by as much as 7 percent. Why? Sitting all day actually causes your body to slow down considerably and can result in increased blood sugar (since your body doesn't need the sugar for energy it simply stays in your system), insulin resistance and a much less healthy you.
5. Raised Cholesterol. Those standing desks and treadmills desks won't sound so bad after you learn what other side effects sitting all day can have. Not only will it raise your blood sugar, but your cholesterol as well. Sitting causes enzyme activity in the body to drop by as much as 90%, preventing those helpful enzymes from grabbing that fat and using it for energy. In fact, after a few hours of sitting, healthy cholesterol plummets by 20%.
6. Herniated Disk. Our bodies aren't really designed to sit all day long. Sitting puts a lot of pressure on your hips and spine, and can lead to some injuries in them over an extended period of time. One such injury may be a herniated disk. Continued pressure on your spine may cause a disk to come out of place, creating a painful condition that can require medication, physical therapy or even surgery.
7. Poor Posture. Do you always sit correctly when you're sitting down at work or at home? More than likely you're not, which can put undue pressure on certain parts of your body and lead to poor posture even when you're not sitting at a desk. Weakened muscles and tight joints caused by prolonged sitting take their toll over time, and can leave you feeling tired, cause extreme lower back and neck pain and harm your body as a whole.
8. Knee Pain. When you sit, your knees are generally at a ninety degree angle. At first, this doesn't seem so bad, but after sitting all day, for weeks on end, this can take its toll on your knees. Sitting in this position puts pressure on the kneecap and can lead to pain and swelling and may result in having to wear a knee brace while at work.
9. Muscle Weakness. It makes sense that moving less results in loss of muscle mass and muscle weakness. One of the hardest hit muscles is the gluteus maximums, or the buttocks. It is one of the largest muscles in the body and plays a big role in just about any movement you could want to do, so it's essential that it stays strong. Weak gluteus muscles can result in lower back pain and hip bursitis as well.
10. Increased Risk of Depression. Sitting at your desk all day may make you depressed through the sheer tedium of it all, but there's a scientific reason for it as well. Reduced movement means less blood flow. Less blood flow means fewer feel-good hormones are moving through your body, helping you keep depression at bay. The effects can be even worse for those who already struggle with or are more prone to depression.
11. Slowed Metabolism. When you sit for an extended period of time, your body starts to slow and shut down on a metabolic level. Since you're not moving around, your circulation slows and you're burning fewer calories and fewer fat burning enzymes are moving through your body. All of this can lead to an overall slowed metabolism that can affect your energy levels and cause you to gain weight.
12. Neck Problems. Many people who work at a computer extend their necks to see or bend them slightly when working. While over the short term this may not be a huge problem, but over long periods of time it can start to harm the muscles and joints in the neck and lead to pain even when you're not at work.
13. Back Aches and Pain. One of the hardest hit parts of the body when you're sitting all day is the lower back. It is under a large amount of pressure and can begin to ache while at work and for hours afterward. While stretching, working out the muscles and moving around can all help, many sitting all day just don't realize how much they're hurting their backs and could face long term problems trying to get them back into shape.
14. Shorter Life Span. Those who sit more than six hours a day are at an increased risk of early death from all causes, higher by an average 35% for women and 18% for men, for those who exercise. Those who don't exercise and sit all day are at a 94% higher risk of premature death for women, and a 48% higher risk for men. This is no joke for those who spend their days at a desk. Get up, get exercising and start reducing the effects of being sedentary before it's too late.