PacificHealth.info

Did you know you were too dumb to order health products?

Well according to many nutritional companies, you are.

Its happening all over again and this time in the natural health industry.
Several major companies in the natural food industry are establishing hierarchical guidelines regarding the use of their products. Are their products any different than the ones they have been selling for the last 10-20 years? No they are not. Are they suddenly more dangerous? No. Are they responsible for many side effects or deaths? No.

Well then what’s the problem?

Good Question.

Probably due to a number of factors intertwining each other, (from establishing perceived market value, to reducing liability, to illusions of grandeur), some major players in the natural health industry are establishing restrictive guidelines that are beginning to create what was formerly considered the industries worst nightmare. A restrictive regulatory body that controls vitamin, minerals, herbs and other nutritional substances, heretofore marketed under the DSHEA regulatory statute as Dietary substances.

This has come about with the restriction of internet sales of their products to practitioners only. Cutting out the public from direct sales.
Is this done purely in the interest of safety for the consumer? Well perhaps partly, but it also prevents internet entrepreneurs from driving down the market value of the company’s products by discounting. And in doing so also prevents educated and responsible individuals from direct purchasing of the products without going through a third party the “health practitioner,” many of whom overprice the suggested retail of these products in their offices.

What are other consequences of these actions?

Well in a word “restriction.”

Elimination of internet sales of the product.

Reduction of health freedoms of the individual.

Inevitable introduction of new restrictive legislation regarding health products.

The danger of leading us into a restrictive era , where health nutrients are sold by prescription only and regulated by a hierarchy of nutritional companies and health practitioners. Vis-à-vis German Codex commission E.
Ah yes Germany, a lovely country where if you want some Vit C, you have to get a prescription from your doctor.

Establishing a hierarchy of health practitioners allowed to purchase nutrients and herbs. The ‘good ol boy’ networks. And the ultimate stripping of power from the individual lay person. The process of dumbing down the consumers. Easily done by intimidation with some technical jargon and research language.

Wether or not the general populace is intelligent, or really so dumb they need to be told what to do about almost everything or wether they just act according to the expectations put upon them so as to be perceived as agreeable is a matter for another article.

Meanwhile.

Meet the new boss.… same as the old boss.
Continue Reading »

FTC rejects Monsanto’s complaint against rBST-free dairies:

by Chris O’Brien

9/4/2007 4:03:59 PM

Last May, Monsanto filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission asking it to stop “deceptive labeling and advertising” by dairies that produce milk free of synthetic hormones. On August 28, the FTC denied that request, saying that in its review of the ads and packaging, it found no misleading claims.

Monsanto, producer of Posilac, a brand of recombinant bovine somatotropin, says rBST helps cows produce a greater volume of milk without putting bovine or human health at risk. The company said in its complaint that ads and labels including hormone-free production claims mislead consumers into believing that hormone-free dairy products are healthier and safer.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved rBST in 1993, and finds no health risk, other governing agencies and associations disagree.

“Monsanto and the FDA claim that there is no scientific basis for rBST- and rBGH [recombinant bovine growth hormone]-free dairy being safer or healthier,” said Charles Margulis, spokesman from the Center for Food Safety in San Francisco. “But the EU, Japan, Canada believe that there are risks and have banned the use of hormones from their dairy supplies for that reason.”

In addition to speculation on human health risks from consumption of dairy produced by hormone-supplemented cows, an ongoing animal welfare debate exists. While the hormone stimulates greater production of milk, rBST has been found to increase the risk of mastitis, infertility and lameness in cows, according to a 2003 report by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

Monsanto also claimed that the ads and labels were “artificially increasing demand” for rBST-free dairy products.

“There’s nothing artificial about that demand,” said Margulis. “That is completely real.”

As evidence of increasing consumer demand for hormone-free dairy, last January Starbucks began regionally eliminating rBGH and rBST milk from its stores. Recently, the Michigan Milk Producers Association decided to offer only rBST-free milk and asked its producers to comply with this change.

“Our major customers have indicated that it was their intent to transition to a rBST-free line of dairy products come next year,” said Carl Rasch, director of raw milk sales at MMPA. “Kroger initiated the action a month ago by notifying us of their decision to process and label products not containing synthetic growth hormone and their competitors have followed suit.”

This ruling by the FTC primarily affects conventional dairies that choose not to supplement their milk herds with hormones. Organic dairy is regulated by the USDA and already prohibited from using any hormones in the cows or feed, as well as pesticides, fungicides or synthetic fertilizers, and therefore any production claims by organic dairy farmers would fall outside the scope of Monsanto’s complaint.

But for mainstream producers and packagers who choose to use the hormone-free production claim on their dairy, the FTC ruling can be seen as a small triumph.

“The agency rejected Monsanto’s complaint, and that’s a victory for consumers who demand to know what is in their milk,” said Margulis. “A complete victory would be to require labels on all milk to inform consumers exactly what is in there and what the production standards are, but that probably won’t be happening too soon.”

Studies suggest natural treatment for menopause:

Studies suggest natural treatment for menopause
Peter Rejcek

9/4/2007 4:05:01 PM

A couple of recent but unrelated studies have found that flaxseed and pine bark extract may help calm hot flashes and other symptoms associated with pre- and postmenopausal conditions.

A small pilot study published in the summer issue of the Journal of the Society for Integrative Oncology reported that the frequency of hot flashes fell by nearly 60 percent for postmenopausal women with hot flashes who took flaxseed but refrained from taking estrogen.

“Hot flashes are a bothersome issue for women experiencing menopause,” said Dr. Sandhya Pruthi, the principal investigator for the Mayo Clinic team, in a release. “We hope to find more effective nonhormonal options to assist women, and flaxseed looks promising.”

A hot flash is described as a flush of intense warmth across much of the body that may be accompanied by sweating, reddening of the skin, or, occasionally, cold shivers. Hot flashes occur in varying frequency and duration, even during sleep, and often cause or accompany sleep deprivation, anxiety and irritability.

Twenty-one of the 29 participants in the clinical trial completed the study, receiving 40 grams of crushed flaxseed daily. The frequency of hot flashes decreased 50 percent over six weeks, and the overall hot flash score decreased an average 57 percent for the women who completed the trial. Participants also reported improvements in mood, joint or muscle pain, chills and sweating.

“While results were promising, we have more research to conduct,” Pruthi said. “Oftentimes, pilot studies show promising results that upon further study in a large, randomized placebo-controlled study turn out to be much less remarkable.” The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine reports on its Web site the science is mixed on whether flaxseeds decrease hot flashes. A 2006 study published in the journal Menopause reported that 99 postmenopausal women received no relief after eating muffins with 25 grams of crushed flax seeds for 16 weeks.

Pruthi’s research team hopes to begin a new, larger clinical trial in 2008 to evaluate flaxseed against a placebo to better refine the results, and to determine whether flaxseed is a viable treatment option for hot flashes in women.

In a study to be published in an upcoming issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, researchers found a possible link between pycnogenol, a pine bark extract from the French maritime pine tree, and the reduction of common symptoms associated with premenopause (also called perimenopause).

The randomized, double-blind study involved 155 perimenopausal women. Each day, participants either received 200 mg of pycnogenol or a placebo, and tracked their symptoms. After six months, LDL (bad) cholesterol levels dropped by 10 percent for those taking pycnogenol versus the placebo group, and other perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes, depression and panic attacks also improved for the former group and not the latter.

“There is a shift away from the use of hormone replacement therapy due to side effects,” noted lead researcher Dr. Peter Rohdewald, with the Institute of Pharmaceutical Chemistry at Germany’s University of Munster, in a release. Rohdewald said the pine bark extract could prove to be a natural alternative.

Despite a 2004 campaign promise to the contrary, President Bush continues to allow the mercury-containing vaccine preservative thimerosal to be added to childhood flu vaccines.

Thousands of parents believe the preservative has caused mercury poisoning and autism in their children. Still, President Bush plans to veto the HHS-Labor-Education Appropriations Bill, which includes a measure to ban childhood flu vaccines that contain thimerosal, because of the cost and “objectionable provisions.”

As it stands, flu vaccines which contain thimerosal, are recommended for all pregnant women, infants and children, even though the Institute of Medicine recommended in 2001 that these population groups not be exposed to thimerosal-containing vaccines.

One in every six women of childbearing age has enough mercury in their bloodstream to cause neurological damage to their unborn children, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Max Health July 20 2007

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service requested that all mercury-containing thimerosal be removed from vaccines all the way back in 1999.

Now, nearly a decade later, mercury is not only still a part of flu vaccines, but health officials are recommending them to the very population that mercury stands to harm the most: babies, children and pregnant women.

Children’s developing systems often cannot tolerate the assault from a potent neurotoxin like mercury, and there are many who believe mercury-containing vaccines have fueled the autism epidemic in America.

Aside from autism, mercury exposure has been liked to an alarming array of chronic health issues, including:

• Multiple sclerosis
• Central nervous system disorders
• Alzheimer’s disease
• Lower IQ levels
• Learning disabilities

The fact that thimerosal is still in vaccines is morally reprehensible, plain and simple.

If you are a new parent or parent-to-be, please read up on the risks of vaccinations so that you can make an informed decision for the health of your child.

And if you’re considering getting a flu vaccination, remember that there are plenty of natural ways to avoid getting the flu, without having to inject yourself or your child with a dangerous toxin.

Site Sponsored by:
PacificHealth.com your natural health supplement resource. Over 5000 products from over 60 health product suppliers.

Charles Bonnet syndrome—elderly people and visual hallucinations

Anu Jacob, research fellow¹, Sanjeev Prasad², Mike Boggild, consultant neurologist³, Sanjeev Chandratre, consultant⁴

¹ Department of Neurosciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L9 7LJ, ² Care of the Elderly, Calderdale Royal Hospital, Halifax HX3 0PW, ³ Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool L9 7LJ, ⁴ Care of the Elderly, Calderdale Royal Hospital, Halifax HX3 0PW

Correspondence to: A Jacob anujacob@liv.ac.uk

Introduction

When a patient presents with vivid visual hallucinations, a doctor probably considers common diagnoses such as delirium, dementia, psychoses, or a drug related condition. Charles Bonnet syndrome, however, is a condition characterised by visual hallucinations alongside deteriorating vision, usually in elderly people.1 The correct diagnosis of this distressing but not uncommon condition is of utmost importance, considering the serious implications of the alternative diagnoses.

Case report

Neighbours brought an 87 year old white widower—who lived alone in a flat—to the medical assessment unit of a district general hospital. They were concerned that he was becoming demented. Apparently he had reported seeing people and animals in his house—

including bears and Highland cattle. He verified these statements and said he had been seeing them for the previous six weeks. He had also often seen swarms of flies and blue fish darting across the room.

He knew that these visions were not real and they didn’t bother him much, but he thought he might be losing his mind. The visions lasted for minutes to hours, and the cattle used to stare at him while quietly munching away at the grass. The visions tended to occur more in the evenings before he switched on the lights.

His medical problems included chronic lymphatic leukaemia, which had been in remission for the past five years. He was registered blind and had been diagnosed as having gross bilateral macular degeneration. He had never had hallucinations before. He also had chronic obstructive airways disease and essential hypertension. He had had no other neurological illness and no mental health problems. He did not drink alcohol or smoke. He had been taking oxprenolol for hypertension for the past 10 years. He had no family history of note.

His cognitive examination was normal for his age, after the loss of vision was taken into account. His visual acuity in both eyes was 1/60 with loss of central field. Fundi showed macular degeneration. The rest of the neurological examination was normal.

Detailed investigations (including a full blood count; glucose; electrolytes; and tests for renal hepatic and thyroid function, vitamin B-12, and folate levels) yielded normal results. Detailed psychiatric assessment did not pinpoint a cause and suggested more detailed investigations for delirium. As a metabolic and infection screen was normal and he was otherwise well oriented, delirium did not seem a likely diagnosis. Electroencephalography and magnetic resonance imaging showed no important abnormalities. No diagnosis was apparent even after a week of inpatient tests and ward rounds. An early dementia seemed to be the obvious explanation—until we did a literature search.

Discussion

Differential diagnosis of visual hallucinations

Visual hallucination is defined as a perception of an external object when no such object is present. Hallucinations are different from illusions, in which real objects are misinterpreted. Visual hallucinations can occur in various medical, neurological, ocular, and psychiatric disorders and drug induced states. They may relate to anomalies in almost any part of the visual pathway.

Classification of visual hallucinations

Visual hallucinations can be classified as simple or complex. The simple type includes photopsia (flashes of light), lines or patterns (like fortification spectra, zigzags, or circles). They may be multicoloured. Simple hallucinations may occur in ocular disease such as vitreous detachment or in conditions such as optic neuritis, migraine, occipital lobe seizures, occipital lobe tumours, or other structural lesions.

Complex visual hallucinations, however, are usually well formed and relatively stereotyped and often involve animals and figures in bright colours and dramatic settings. The aetiologies vary and include delirium tremens, dementias, Parkinson’s disease, complex partial seizures, misuse of recreational drugs, schizophrenia, and uncommon conditions such as peduncular, hypnogogic, and hypnopompic hallucinations, migraine coma, and “Alice in Wonderland” syndrome.2

Charles Bonnet syndrome

Charles Bonnet syndrome is a less frequently diagnosed but rather common cause of complex visual hallucination. Its prevalence in patients with visual impairment varies from 10% to 15%.1 The condition is named after the Swiss naturalist and philosopher Charles Bonnet. He reported the hallucinations of Charles Lullin, his 89 year old otherwise healthy and cognitively sound grandfather, who was blind owing to cataract and yet vividly saw men, women, birds, and buildings.1 3

Diagnostic criteria and clinical featuresThough no universally approved diagnostic criteria for the syndrome exist, the core features are the occurrence of well formed, vivid, elaborate, and often stereotyped visual hallucinations in a partially sighted person who has insight into the unreality of what he or she is seeing. There should not be any feature of psychosis, impaired sensorium, dementia, intoxication, metabolic derangement, or focal neurological illness.3^-5 The syndrome occurs most commonly in elderly people, probably because of the prevalence of visual impairment in this group. The common conditions leading to the syndrome are age related macular degeneration, followed by glaucoma and cataract. These hallucinations, which are always outside the body, may last from a few seconds to most of the day. They may persist for a few days to many years, changing in frequency and complexity. They have no personal meaning, and many patients can voluntarily modify them or make the image disappear if they close their eyes. The imagery is varied and may include groups of people or children, animals, and panoramic countryside scenes.1 3 5

The syndrome can occur in people with normal vision.6 Some have argued that diagnosis of the syndrome does not exclude or require eye disease or brain lesions and that it could even be due to lesions that are not associated with the visual system.5 Reduced or absent stimulation of the visual system (deafferentation hypothesis) leading to increased excitability of the visual cortex is one of the hypotheses.1 7

Course, prognosis, and treatment

The course, prognosis, and treatment vary with the nature of the visual dysfunction. Removal of a cataract or recovery of vision leads to improvement. Other patients find relief when the eye disease progresses to total blindness.8 Some have suggested that the syndrome can even be an indication of early dementia9; this hypothesis needs to be validated. Treatments with drugs remain unsatisfactory, with only anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of atypical antipsychotics and anticonvulsants.1 Non-pharmacological interventions, such as increasing the lighting at home and reducing social isolation by encouraging interpersonal contact, are helpful.1

Clinical correlate

Our patient provides a classic example of Charles Bonnet syndrome. The clinical scenario and the nature of hallucinations are typical. The possibility of oxprenolol causing hallucination was remote as he had been taking the drug for 10 years whereas the hallucinations had been present for only a few weeks. Timely diagnosis and explanation, along with reassurance about the relatively benign nature of the condition, provided immeasurable relief. He still gets occasional hallucinations but considers them as “one of those things you have to put up with.”

Conclusion

As well as being common in partially sighted people, Charles Bonnet syndrome occurs in 1.85-3.5% of psychogeriatric patients who have been referred to psychiatrists by adult physicians, general practitioners, and ophthalmologists for visual hallucinations.1 10 11

Doctors are unfamiliar with the syndrome as a possible diagnosis.1 12 “Near misses” have been reported, in which patients were almost confined to mental health institutions.13 Given the prevalence of partial visual impairment, the number of people in the community, especially elderly people, who do not report the symptoms for fear of being labelled as mentally unwell or demented must be substantial. Clinicians must therefore be aware and ask elderly people with visual impairment whether they have hallucinations. Firm reassurance that the syndrome is not related to mental illness is in itself a major relief to an elderly person burdened already with failing vision, social isolation, and other medical problems.

Not all elderly people presenting with visual hallucinations have dementia

Contributors: AJ collected the data, did the literature survey, and wrote the paper; he is the principal author and is the guarantor. SP collected the data and gave advice. SC designed the study, gave clinical supervision and advice, and helped to write the paper. MB gave advice and helped to write the paper.

Funding: None.

Competing interests: None declared.

References

?. Menon GJ, Rahman I, Menon SJ, Dutton GN. Complex visual hallucinations in the visually impaired: the Charles Bonnet syndrome. Surv Ophthalmol 2003;48: 58-72.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

?. Manford M, Andermann F. Complex visual hallucinations. Clinical and neurobiological insights. Brain 1998;121(pt 10): 1819-40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

?. Fernandez A, Lichtshein G, Vieweg WV. The Charles Bonnet syndrome: a review. J Nerv Ment Dis 1997;185: 195-200.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

?. Damas-Mora J, Skelton-Robinson M, Jenner FA. The Charles Bonnet syndrome in perspective. Psychol Med 1982;12: 251-61.[ISI][Medline]

?. Gold K, Rabins PV. Isolated visual hallucinations and the Charles Bonnet syndrome: a review of the literature and presentation of six cases. Compr Psychiatry 1989;30: 90-8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

?. Podoll K, Osterheider M, Noth J. [The Charles Bonnet syndrome]. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 1989;57(2): 43-60. (In German.)[ISI][Medline]

?. Burke W. The neural basis of Charles Bonnet hallucinations: a hypothesis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;73: 535-41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

?. Teunisse RJ, Cruysberg JR, Verbeek A, Zitman FG. The Charles Bonnet syndrome: a large prospective study in the Netherlands. A study of the prevalence of the Charles Bonnet syndrome and associated factors in 500 patients attending the University Department of Ophthalmology at Nijmegen. Br J Psychiatry 1995;166: 254-7.[Abstract]

?. Pliskin NH, Kiolbasa TA, Towle VL, Pankow L, Ernest JT, Noronha A, et al. Charles Bonnet syndrome: an early marker for dementia? J Am Geriatr Soc 1996;44: 1055-61.[ISI][Medline]

?. Norton-Willson L, Munir M. Visual perceptual disorders resembling the Charles Bonnet syndrome. A study of 434 consecutive patients referred to a psychogeriatric unit. Fam Pract 1987;4(1): 27-35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

?. O’Reilly R, Chamberlaine C. Charles Bonnet syndrome: incidence and demographic and clinical features. Can J Psychiatry 1996;41: 259-60.[ISI][Medline]

?. Teunisse RJ, Cruysberg JR, Hoefnagels WH, Verbeek AL, Zitman FG. Visual hallucinations in psychologically normal people: Charles Bonnet’s syndrome. Lancet 1996;347: 794-7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

?. Hart J. Phantom visions: real enough to touch. Elder Care 1997;9(1): 30-2.[Medline]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Visual hallucinations due to dementia

SH Guptha

bmj.com, 30 Jun 2004 [Full text]

No mention of Polymyalgia Rheumatica or Temporal arteritis

James Cave

bmj.com, 2 Jul 2004 [Full text]

?Inappropriate medicines

Lionel KOWAL

bmj.com, 3 Jul 2004 [Full text]

Charles Bonnet Syndrome and statins

Anne Collins

bmj.com, 12 Jul 2004 [Full text]

Charles Bonnet syndrome-elderlypeople and visual hallucinations

Imran Rahman

bmj.com, 20 Jul 2004 [Full text]

Defining Charles Bonnet syndrome

Stephen A Madill

bmj.com, 29 Jul 2004 [Full text]

Charles Bonnet Syndrome

Philip J Hobson

bmj.com, 24 Jan 2005 [Full text]

Eating Blueberries Slashes Colon Cancer Risk:

Adding blueberries to your diet may be a natural way to prevent colon cancer, according to researchers at Rutgers University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In a study of 18 rats with colon cancer, those fed a diet supplemented with blueberry compound pterostilbene had 57 percent fewer pre-cancerous lesions after eight weeks compared to the control group. Pterostilbene also inhibited genes involved in inflammation, which is thought to be a risk factor for colon cancer.

A past study has also found that blueberries are beneficial; when blueberry skins were fed to animals, their cholesterol was lowered. It’s thought that pterostilbene may prevent colon cancer by lowering lipids in your body.

Blueberries are rich in antioxidants called anthocyanins, and are a good source of ellagic acid, which is known to block metabolic pathways that may lead to cancer. There are 30 different blueberry species native to North America.

Clinical Cancer Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, January 1, 2007: 350-355

Newstarget July 26, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

Blueberries are one of nature’s mightiest fruits. Their high antioxidant content makes them beneficial not only for colon cancer but also for preventing brain aging and urinary tract infections.

Adding blueberries to your ground meat before cooking it (ideally at low temperatures) is also an ideal way to prevent cancer-causing heterocyclic amines (HCA) from forming.

Though blueberries are low in sugar, it’s best to eat them in moderation to keep your insulin levels from spiking.

As for colon cancer, now the second leading cause of death from cancer in the United States, it’s considered one of the most preventable forms of cancer. There are several dietary factors, along with blueberries, that play a strong role in preventing this disease. They are:

• Selenium: Eating organic vegetables and whole apples is a good way to get plenty of selenium through your diet.

• Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA): As little as 0.5 percent of CLA in your daily diet could reduce your risk of colon cancer by more than 50 percent. Good sources of CLA include grass-fed beef and raw grass-fed dairy products.

• Folate: Whole, raw vegetables are loaded with folate.

• Omega-3 fats: Eating plenty of high-quality omega-3 fats, such as krill oil, on a regular basis is essential for protecting your body from all types of cancer.

Other than dietary factors, you can also help to prevent colon cancer by exercising, maintaining a healthy body weight, and getting plenty of vitamin D, ideally from safe sun exposure.

To cut your risk of cancer even further, check out my major recommendations to cut your risk of cancer in half.

Related Articles:

European Union Considers Banning Deadly Mercury-Containing Tooth Fillings:

The European Union is currently debating the issue of whether or not to ban mercury fillings.

“Amalgams,” which contain 50 percent mercury, is still standard issue in many European countries.

The EU has commissioned two working groups to sort out the potential health hazards, and environmental risks, and to report back by the end of 2007.

Mercury is fatal in high doses, but even low doses have been linked to a wide variety of adverse symptoms and illnesses, including:

• mild tremors
• neurological damage
• kidney problems
• autism
• Alzheimer’s disease

If you have not yet seen the telling video Mercury In Your Teeth?, then make it a point to watch it now. A visual demonstration of how the mercury fillings in your teeth vaporizes and spreads is worth more than a thousand words. You may also want to read through Mercury Toxicity and Systemic Elimination Agents, for more in-depth information about how to eliminate mercury toxicity from your body.

Reuters July 25, 2007

The 26 Beliefs That Drive Modern Medicine and the FDA:

Many levelheaded, rational, natural-health consumers are baffled by the seemingly unending ignorance of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the industry it serves.

It would seem as though the promoters of modern medicine, and the FDA decision makers, live in a world that is not of this world—a world that operates from a different set of beliefs and biological laws.

This Newstarget article spells out these “other-worldly” beliefs that are the bedrock of modern medicine and the FDA, including:

1. Nature cannot be trusted, and scientific progress is measured by the degree to which man dominates nature.
2. Vitamins and dietary supplements are both useless and dangerous, and they interfere with the action of pharmaceuticals. 
3. Allowing the public to have access to information about dietary supplements is dangerous; as people may be fooled into thinking they don’t need medical intervention.
4. Diseases are caused by pharmaceutical deficiencies, which can only be treated with patent drugs.
5. The only use for plant chemicals is to serve as ideas from which drug companies can synthesize patented drugs—by removing and using only the active ingredient. There is no such thing as “synergistic action.”
6. Nutrition has no role in human health. Healing with nutrition is quackery.

Newstarget July 27, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Yes, modern medicine, which is operating more and more like a drug cartel with their own FDA mob—shaking down the competition and running them out of town—does not seem to understand the basic laws of nature. They certainly do not understand the fundamental rules for good health.

I’ve been on the receiving end of their belief that “healing with nutrition is quackery.” I agreed to be interviewed by Fox News not too long ago, and the end result was anything but “fair and balanced.” If you missed that segment, you can see Part 1, and Part 2 here.

According to one pharmaceutical representative, I “under-represent, in a very marked way, the importance of the pharmaceutical industry in providing therapies for patients that need them.”

Not true. I simply represent, in a very marked way, the importance of nutrition and physical exercise as ways of achieving and maintaining optimal health.

It’s both aggravating and sad that the few pieces of information that are the basic cornerstones of good health, longevity, and freedom from disease are so threatening to this establishment that you have tofight for your right to get it—and I have to fight for the right to give it to you.

But I will, and I know you will too, or else you wouldn’t be reading this. You too know that the right food is the key to your health and well-being. Chronic obesity, cardiovascular disease, and other health related issues are more a result of your modern diet than anything else! Simple lifestyle adjustments can resolve so many of these issues, and might prevent them from manifesting in the first place.

Proper Nutrition

Eating right for your own personal biochemistry is key. What’s good for someone else may not be suitable for you—it all depends on whether you’re a carbohydrate- or protein-type, or perhaps you’re a mixed type, in which case you can eat a little bit of everything. You may also have certain food sensitivities or food allergies, which also need to be dealt with in order to optimize your health.

Physical Exercise

Nutrition and exercise go hand-in-hand. One without the other will not give your body the synergistic effects it needs to maintain overall health. Incorporate a comprehensive program that includes short bursts of activity at very high intensity.

It would be wise to have clearance by your physician if you’re not in good shape before embarking on a high intensity program. However, you could start by simply walking, and progress at your own pace as your fitness level increases.

Keep in mind—it’s the intensity that really gives you the maximum health benefits, including an even higher level of protection against heart attacks than long durational aerobic type exercises.

Rejuvenating Sleep

Sleeping less than 6.5 hours may cause disruption in insulin receptor sensitivity, which increases your risk for diabetes, obesity and heart disease. Too little sleep also accelerates aging, and affects your hormone levels.

Interestingly enough, too much sleep may also be detrimental. One recent study found people who slept more than 9 hours per night were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease than those who only got 6 hours per night.

The key is to get an optimal amount of sleep each night, and to maintain a healthy sleeping pattern, without the use of pharmaceutical drugs. If you suffer from any kind of sleep problems or disruptions, there’s a wide variety of all-natural, non-pharmaceutical, options available.

Related Articles:

100+ Nutrition Facts About 25 Well-Known Foods

Welcome to the Beginner Nutrition Plan!

Exercise Can Reverse Pre-Diabetes

Exercise Calendar

Sleep Problems May Complicate Many Illnesses

Drug Company Reps are Using Psychological Warfare Techniques on Your Doctor:

Pharmaceutical sales reps are trained in tactics that are on par with

some of the most potent brainwashing techniques used throughout the

world, according to an in-depth report, co-written by former Eli Lilly drug rep Shahram Ahari; and Adriane Fugh-Berman, associate professor of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, D.C..

Pharmaceutical companies spend more than $15 billion each year promoting prescription drugs in the United States.

These campaigns are designed to effectively alter prescribing behavior, in order to sell more of the high-profit drugs (as opposed to the most effective, and least dangerous.)

Newstarget July 30, 2007

PLoS Medicine 4(4): e150, April 24, 2007 (Free Full Length Report)

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

The fact that sales reps for drug companies serve no useful function other than driving up sales for their blockbuster drugs—at your expense—is no surprise. What may shock you though is just how insidious their sales tactics really are.

In the end, you are the one paying the price twice, by emptying out your wallet, and endangering your health with drugs you probably don’t—and never did—need in the first place.

Drug reps are not your run-of-the-mill salesmen. They are indeed sharks, meticulously trained to spot the “in’s” and weaknesses of every client. Doctors usually believe they are immune to persuasion tactics, and drug reps know just how important it is to maintain that illusion.

In the year 2000, pharmaceutical companies spent 4.8 BILLION dollars on “detailing”—a fancy word for bribing individual doctors. And industry claims it’s worth every penny, which only proves that drug reps most definitely increase drug sales, by influencing physicians to change their prescription habits.

But exactly how do they do it? What makes otherwise well educated, smart doctors turn their backs on their Hippocratic Oath (to do no harm) and do the complete opposite (prescribe completely unnecessary drugs)?

Turns out, doc’s out there are mostly unaware of just howextensive and detailed the drug companies’ profiling of them is. Not only are reps trained to assess their personality, practice style, and medical preferences, they’re also instructed to sniff out personal information, like the names of family members, birthdays and family interests; as well as the physician’s professional interests and recreational pursuits.

All of this information goes into a database for future reference. When the time comes to devise an “incentive”—say a dinner, game or a membership—it is custom tailored to suit the prey. It’s all about establishing personal rapport. Oftentimes doctors mistake the reps’ cleverly disguised interest in them as personal friendship. This is exactly how it’s designed to work!

Physicians are clinically dissected into “types” based on their personality, and encounters are specifically tailored for maximum effect.

• “Friendly” doctors get the buddy treatment. Samples and gifts are given, not because it’s part of the job, but because the rep “likes” them. Lunch may be brought in under the guise that the doctor actually provides “pleasant relief from all other doc’s out there.”
• Aloof and skeptical doctors receive journal articles and extensive data that counter the documented apprehensions he may have…  
• “Mercenary” physicians (who generally don’t prescribe as many drugs) receive a clear message that the dinner they just accepted implies their willingness to prescribe a particular drug to a certain number of patients exhibiting certain symptoms. Reneging on the prescriptions-for-dinner bargain gets broadcast over the jungle drums, and suddenly reps don’t come-a-knocking with goodies anymore…
• High-prescribers receive better presents, including unrestricted “educational” grants that essentially amount to cold-hard cash.
• Competing-drug prescribers are deftly manipulated into understanding how the drug will work better than the competitor’s for a certain patient niche (in order to circumvent their reluctance to switch).
  
• Acquiescent doc’s, who foolishly imagine that simply agreeing will get rid of the nuisance, realize all too late that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Gifts here are subtly used to enhance subconscious guilt and social pressure to reciprocate. Sales numbers shows it works like a charm.
• The hard-to-see physicians are actually not dissed by drug reps, because they’ve found that a good hand-delivered lunch to the office staff, followed by snooping under the guise of a friendly chitchat can work even better than talking to the doctor to find the right hot buttons.
• A certain class of doctors—charismatic, highly credentialed with an aura of integrity—is chosen as “thought leaders” to enhance and further certain drugs. These leaders are invited, and paid, as speakers to influence their peers. Depending on their level of allegiance and tact, they may be elevated through the ranks of speakers to the national circuit and beyond, gaining personal clout and fatter wallets as they go along with the program.

In recent years, physicians have become increasingly aware of—and dismayed by—the additional practice of script tracking. Health information organizations, like IMS Health, Dendrite, Verispan, and Wolters Kluwer, buy pharmacy prescription records and resell them. Drug companies keep tabs on the return on their bribes with this data, as it tells them the prescription rate of each doctor.

Patient names are not included in these records, but physicians are easily identified through either state license number, DEA number, or a pharmacy-specific identifier, through the American Medical Association’s master database. Physicians are then ranked on a one-to-ten scale, based on how many prescriptions they write, with a “10” ranking doctor being every reps dream date.

This information also reveals how many of a doctor’s patients receive specific drugs, how many competing drugs are prescribed compared with the target drug, and how the physicians prescribing habits change over time. It tells them if a drug is “in favor” or not, and gives them the tools to cook up a winning strategy for future manipulations.

Between 1990 and 2004, spending for prescription drugs increased five times, to a whopping $188.5 billion, and drug reps increased from 38,000 to 100,000 strong. That’s a ratio of one drug rep for every 2.5 physicians targeted for “detailing.” Talk about having a personal “Big Brother.”

The idea that reps provide some kind of valuable, informative service to physicians is total fiction, created and perpetuated by the drug industry, to keep this deadly, but profitable, scheme going.

Related Articles:

Drug Firms Still Lavish Pricey Gifts on Doc

Drug Companies Collect Secret Reports on Doctors

Do Free Samples Sway Your Doctor’s Prescribing For You?

Medical Journal Drug Ads Often Misleading

Are You Caught in the Drug Trap? Find Out How to be Set Free From a Drug-Controlled Life

More Fish Oil, Less Vegetable Oil, Better for Your Health:

Including more fish oil than vegetable oil in your diet may help protect your tissues and organs from inflammation, according to University of Michigan researchers.

In your body, both fish oil and vegetable oil are converted into chemicals called prostanoids. Though these compounds help to control blood pressure and prevent allergies, when produced in excess they increase inflammation, pain, swelling, and redness in body tissues.

The researchers found that prostanoids from fish oil and vegetable oil are not the same. Those made from fish oil are “less effective at causing pain and swelling than those made from vegetable oil,” researchers said.

Meanwhile, adding fish oil to your diet effectively decreases the amount of prostanoids made from vegetable oil, though sometimes in unexpected amounts.

In the study, researchers looked at the effects of both fish oil and vegetable oil in cultured cells. Both oils are converted into prostanoids by cyclo-oxygenases (COX) enzymes, types 1 and 2.

In reactions that involved COX-1, if more fish oil was present it bound to COX-1 preferentially and limited vegetable oil’s access to the enzymes. However, in reactions involving COX-2, an increased amount of fish oil did not change the binding process, so more vegetable oil was converted to prostanoids.

The findings suggest that the body naturally regulates levels of prostanoids produced by fish and vegetable oils, but the researchers are still investigating exactly why COX-1 and COX-2 act differently.  

They hope that, upon further investigation, they will be able to design new anti-inflammatory drugs that will bind to COX-2 and decrease the levels of prostanoids from vegetable oils.

Journal of Biological Chemistry August 3, 2007, Vol. 282, Issue 31, 22254-22266

Science Blog July 27, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

The central premise of this study is a great one: eating fish oil (omega-3 fats) is far better for your body than eating vegetable oil (omega-6 fats). These findings clearly show yet another reason why maintaining an ideal ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats is so important; it will help to reduce painful inflammation in your body.

However, the researchers missed the mark on their ultimate goal to develop more anti-inflammatory drugs. Rather than recommending the intuitive solution — that you could benefit from getting more fish oil, and less vegetable oil, in your diet — they are looking to develop drugs to lessen the potentially harmful effects of vegetable oil.

Vegetable oils like corn, soy, safflower, and canola are the worst oils you can eat. They are problematic not only because they easily become oxidized or rancid when exposed to heat from cooking, but also because Americans are consuming them in unprecedented amounts — up to 100 times greater than in the past.

The ideal ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats is 1:1. This is what your ancestors thrived on for millions of years. Today, largely as a result of consuming far too many omega-6 fats and too few omega-3 fats, our ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 averages from 20:1 to 50:1!

You may not think that you use much vegetable oil from day to day, however if you eat processed foods you are consuming large amounts of vegetable oils. The vast majority of foods on your supermarket shelves — from tomato sauce to bread — contain them.

Consuming too many vegetable oils has been linked to:

• Asthma
• Blindness
• Heart disease
• Cancer

To get your omega-6 to omega-3 ratio closer to the ideal 1:1, simply cut back on all vegetable oils (you’ll need to read labels if you eat processed foods) and get a regular supply of high-quality omega-3 fat, like that from krill oil, daily.

And remember, if you’re struggling with pain from inflammation, you can avoid the serious risks of anti-inflammatory drugs by trying out these natural anti-inflammatory alternatives instead. If you want a quick hint, omega-3 fat, which is known to effectively fight inflammation, is one excellent option.

Related Articles:

Entertaining Kids for a Dollar or Less — Without the TV:

Kids today are so enamored with TV, video games, and computers that they’re — at best — missing out on many of the simple joys of childhood, and at worst are increasing their risk of at least 15 different side effects, including obesity, cancer, diabetes, aggressive behavior, and more.

There’s absolutely no reason for your children to be watching two hours of TV a day — as 83 percent of kids 6 and under do. Even 90 percent of kids under the age of 2 watch TV, even though it can interfere with their rapidly developing brains, which need back-and-forth interaction during this crucial period.

If you need some simple ideas to have fun with your kids, with no TV involved, this LifeHack article has 10 greats ones that cost $1 or less, such as:

• Using large cardboard boxes to make houses and castles
• Planting something in your garden
• Letting kids run through a water sprinkler
• Making paper airplanes
• A telephone made from tin cans and string

Looking for even more fun activities for you and your children? Be sure to read this past article, 20 Activities to do With Your Kids Other Than Watch TV.

Lifehack.org July 29, 2007

Even One Glass of Alcohol a Day Can Lead to Bowel Cancer:

Cancer researchers in the United Kingdom have concluded that drinking as little as one glass of alcohol a day increases your risk of developing bowel cancer by about 10 percent. And, the more you drink, the more your risk of cancer increases.

The study included almost 480,000 people in the U.K., who were questioned about their level of alcohol intake, with follow-ups over the course of six years. In that period, 1,833 developed colon cancer.

The study showed that those who drank more than 30 grams of alcohol per day (less than two pints of strong lager) raised their cancer risk by about 25 percent.

According to Dr. Walker, Cancer Research UK’s director of cancer information, “While there is increasing evidence that over indulging in alcohol can increase the risk of some cancers, research also shows that by far the biggest risk for life threatening diseases is the combination of smoking together with drinking alcohol.”

BBC News July 30, 2007

International Journal of Cancer July 19, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

There is a lot of confusion over safe drinking levels. However, despite the fact that there are some studies touting “benefits” of drinking small amounts of alcohol, such as wine, I personally do not recommend drinking alcohol. There’s far too much evidence showing that alcohol is seriously detrimental to your health.

Alcohol is, in fact, a neurotoxin that can poison your brain. It can also cause serious disruption to your delicate hormone balance.

In addition to that, excessive drinking– just like smoking — may also be the cause of several other cancers, including:

• cancer of the mouth
• larynx
• esophagus
• liver
• colon
• breast
• pancreas, and
• lungs

A previous study on alcohol consumption and breast cancer, found that postmenopausal women who drink more than a half a glass of alcohol per day, and have low intakes of the B vitamin folate, are 60% more likely to develop breast cancer than those who do not drink alcohol and have the highest intake of folate. Does that mean you could just eat more vegetables (high in folate) and be safe? Not really.

Alcohol is broken down in the body into a chemical called acetaldehyde, which, by the way, is the chemical responsible for hangover symptoms. When acetaldehyde reacts with the neurotransmitter dopamine, it can cause mental and emotional disturbances such as anxiety, depression, and poor concentration. If you look up the toxicology of acetaldehyde, you find that it adversely affects many tissues and organs in the body, which may play a large part in increasing the risk of so many chronic diseases and cancers.

And, remember, wine does count as alcohol. Most of the benefits from drinking wine are largely related to the polyphenolic bioflavonoids found in the grape skins and seeds. It is not the alcohol or the carbohydrate content that is helpful.

Related Articles:

Drinking Alcohol Increases Allergic Reactions

New Approach to Solving the Alcohol Addiction Challenge

How Heart-Healthy is Alcohol?