Rosacea, psoriasis, and eczema triggered by food intolerance

Anne Angelone, L.Ac
Primal Docs
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:26 CST

Anti-aging skin products and treatments comprise a $10 billion market globally. Rosacea, psoriasis, and eczema affect millions of Americans, sending them in search of topical skin care solutions. While the effectiveness of anti-aging and skin care treatments range in their success, they overlook the most vital aspect of skin care: addressing skin health from the inside out.

The skin is an immune barrier. Another large immune barrier is the digestive tract. Both the skin and the gut protect the sterile bloodstream from potentially harmful substances from the outside world. Other immune barriers are the respiratory tract and the blood-brain barrier.

Skin that ages too fast

These barriers can break down when health is suboptimal. In this way, the skin is a window into the health of the gut and the rest of the body. While aging skin is normal, especially with more exposure to sunlight, accelerated skin aging can indicate poor digestive and immune function. In women it may also indicate a hormonal imbalance as healthy, elastic skin depends on sufficient estrogen and progesterone levels. Good skin care includes addressing the health of the body.

Rosacea, psoriasis, and eczema

Other common problems people grapple with are rosaceaeczema, and psoriasis, which cause red, inflamed, patchy, or oozing skin. These embarrassing and sometimes painful conditions are signs of inflammation or an autoimmune reaction, in which the immune system attacks the body. Rosacea, psoriasis, and eczema are frequently triggered by a food intolerance, such as to gluten, egg, dairy, corn or other grains, or soy.

Adult acne

Some adults grapple with acne long after their teen years. Acne can have its roots in many things, including poor diet, inflammation, or a candida (yeast) overgrowth. In women, acne may also signal a hormonal imbalance, such as excess testosterone. A diet high in sugars and carbohydrates causes a woman’s body to overproduce testosterone and throw hormones out of balance, which not only can cause adult acne but also affect skin health in general.

Skin care secrets from the inside out

Because the skin is an immune barrier like the gut, skin that is aging too fast or is affected by rosacea, psoriasis, or eczema is a sign the gut has become inflamed and overly porous (“leaky gut”), which means it’s allowing undigested foods, bacteria, yeast, and other pathogens into the bloodstream. This can trigger inflammation, autoimmune reactions, and disorders that affect the appearance and aging of your skin.

By following the basics of gut repair, many people see great improvement or complete alleviation of rosacea, psoriasis or eczema, a more youthful glow, and reduced signs of aging.

Basics of skin care from the inside out

  • Find and eliminate your food intolerances, such as gluten, dairy, soy, eggs, or grain. Either lab testing or an elimination-provocation diet can help you do this.
  • Follow an anti-inflammatory diet. If your body is inflamed your skin will show it. Avoid sweets, sodas, fast foods, and processed foods and instead follow a cleaner, whole foods diet with lots of produce rich in antioxidants and vitamins. This not only will prevent assaults on your skin health, but will also feed your skin with the right nutrients. You may also want to support gut repair with nutritional compounds designed to restore the immune barrier.
  • Address yeast and bacterial overgrowths. A leaky and inflamed gut harbors yeast and bacterial infections, which will inflame your skin as well. Yeast overgrowths are often implicated in rosacea, psoriasis, eczema, and acne.
  • Stay hydrated. Drink plenty of clean water and avoid or minimize the beverages that are hard on skin: caffeinated drinks, alcohol, and of course sodas.
  • Reduce stress. Lack of sleep, over exercising, over working, or constant anger or negativity are some other ways you can speed the aging of your skin. Chronic stress promotes inflammation, imbalances hormones, and accelerates aging, which show on your face.
Comment: For more information, check out Life Without Bread.

Avoiding complications and death from Influenza

Dr. Mark Sircus
Greenmedinfo.com
Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:37 CST

As soon as flu vaccinations start next month, some people getting them will drop dead of heart attacks or strokes, some children will have seizures and some pregnant women will miscarry. – New York Times, 2009

With flu cases in this city up tenfold from last year, the mayor of Boston declared a public health emergency on the 9th of January. Right behind them the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared that influenza has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, with 7.3% of deaths last week caused by pneumonia and the flu. U.S. health authorities say the flu arrived about a month earlier than usual this year, and the flu strain making most people sick – H3N2 – has a reputation for causing fairly severe illness, especially in the elderly and increasingly in the young.

Nothing is said, of course, about the year-by-year weakening of the population (through numerous and ingenious ways like poisoning of the public water supplies with fluoride, the immune depression from yearly flu vaccines, increasing exposures to toxins in the environment, toxicity from pharmaceuticals prescribed by doctors, as well as accumulating nutritional deficiencies), all of which make unsuspecting individuals increasingly vulnerable to complications from the flu and from the flu vaccines that deliver a yearly toxic blow.

Dr. Charlotte Ingle is telling her cancer patients, “We would advise that all cancer and hematology patients receive the vaccine unless they have contraindicated allergies regardless of whether or not they are receiving chemotherapy. We have advised the patient that they should have a flu vaccine as well as the pneumonia vaccine.” This is not bad advice – this is medical insanity that will lead people closer to death’s door. But that is what most pharmaceuticals do, so we should not be surprised.

In the olden days, medically speaking, pediatricians and general practitioners understood that you don’t vaccinate a child who is already ill, even if they simply have a bad cold or light flu. It is obvious Dr. Ingle does not know or remember this medical wisdom and that vaccines do have a depressing effect on the immune system. In suggesting that her patients who are already struggling for their lives expose themselves to dangerous vaccines that can bring on the flu and even more complications, she is leading them closer to, not further away from death. Last I checked, that’s not what doctors are supposed to be doing. Truth be told – vaccines hold the potential power to kill the cancer patient before the cancer does.

The mercury in the flu vaccine would be contraindicated for cancer patients because the shot’s toxicity from heavy metals adds to the chance that cancer will continue and get worse. People with weak immune systems should not get vaccines that contain live viruses, mercuryor any vaccine for that matter. Fatal infections have been caused by giving live-virus polio, measles, and smallpox vaccines to patients with weak immune function.

Living with cancer increases your risk for complications from influenza (“flu”). If you have cancer now or have had cancer in the past, you are at higher risk for complications from the seasonal flu or influenza, including hospitalization and death. This is especially true if you are having surgery, chemotherapy or radiation. Cancer patients should be on a radical protocol of medicinals that can quickly increase their resistance to infection. Allopathic medicines are more than worthless in this regard.

Flu (seasonal influenza) is NOT to be mistaken for the common cold. Although the flu may seem like a minor illness, it is a serious respiratory infection that can lead to severe complications and even death. That’s the official word from the Centers for Disease Control and they are correct especially if you do not treat it appropriately.

“People tend to underestimate the effects of flu (and doctors underestimate the dangers of vaccines), but it puts several hundred thousand people in the hospital every year. It can kill up to 50,000 people every year, and there are certain groups – people with underlying medical conditions, the elderly and the very young – who are at risk for severe illness from flu,” said Dr. Michael Jhung, a flu expert at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although it varies widely from year to year, the government and the medical establishment makes a point of scaring the public enough so they are herded in large numbers into getting their dangerous and unnecessary flu shots. They do not want the public to understand anything about the flu and what to do about it; they only want you to silently and obediently comply and get your flu shot.

“This is a bad year. There’s no question about it,” said Dr. William Hanage, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Hanage also admits the poor percentage of people for whom vaccines are effective. It’s a bad year because doctors simply ignore treatments that make sense. They are correct to warn about the dangers but they fail to give the whole picture:

More than half a million U.S. children yearly have bad reactions or side effects from widely used medicines that require medical treatment and sometimes hospitalization.

The study appears in October’s 2009 Pediatrics. It’s based on national statistics on patients’ visits to clinics and emergency rooms between 1995 and 2005. The number of children treated for bad drug reactions each year was mostly stable during that time, averaging 585,922.

There is no unequivocal scientific support to the belief and/or propaganda that flu vaccines are safe and effective. And there is a conspicuous absence of conclusive evidence as to the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in children under twohealthy adults,the elderly, or healthcare workers who care for the elderly.

We have to conclude from hard medical data the obvious: It makes no sense to treat the complications of influenza with drugs backed by no evidence supporting their benefit while at the same time offering a range of dangerous side effects.

Natural Allopathic Emergency Medicine

An intelligent protocol against influenza involves the use of the basic emergency room and intensive care medicines that are an integral part of Natural Allopathic Medicine. Magnesium chloride, iodine, sodium bicarbonateseleniumvitamin C and vitamin D3 (if possible through sun exposure) are all medicines that help patients resist and even avoid dangerous complications from the flu. So does breathing retraining as this aids in increasing CO2 and O2 levels, and of course the application of full hydration therapy is essential.

The primary symptoms of a cytokine storm (what kills the patient with influenza) are high fever, swelling and redness, extreme fatigue and nausea. In some cases the immune reaction may be fatal. To stop the cytokine storms and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)[1] that can lead to death, we have to turn away from the orthodox medical responses of using vaccines and drugs like Tamiflu. In Dec. 2012 the FDA approved Tamiflu for use in two-week-old babies. Now people are clamoring for this drug and shortages are being reported; all this despite the fact that Tamiflu has been shown to cause adverse effects and at best only shortens a bout of the flu by about one day.

Nutrient deficiency is one of the main reasons for a cytokine storm in response to a virus like H1N1, along with heavy metals and other chemicals that are flooding out of the cells when one has the flu. Many naturopaths have always seen the flu as a detox dump because as the body detoxifies, it is not uncommon to experience flu-like symptoms. (Some people also make a direct relation with Chemtrails painting the skies with Ethylene Dibromide and the flu epidemic.)

Data from clinical trials involving patients with sepsis-induced ARDS have shown a reduction in organ damage and a trend toward improvement in survival (survival in ARDS is approximately 60%) after administering a variety of free radical scavengers (antioxidants).

Anti-inflammatory therapy, antioxidant therapy, full hydration and increasing the CO2 and thus O2 levels of the blood and tissues constitutes a natural form of treatment that can make a difference starting from the first hours that treatments are applied.

Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda)

“In 1918 and 1919 while fighting the ‘Flu’ with the U. S. Public Health Service it was brought to my attention that rarely anyone who had been thoroughly alkalinized with bicarbonate of soda contracted the disease, and those who did contract it, if alkalinized early, would invariably have mild attacks. I have since that time treated all cases of ‘cold,’ influenza and ‘la gripe’ by first giving generous doses of bicarbonate of soda, and in many, many instances within 36 hours the symptoms would have entirely abated,” wrote Dr. Volney S. Cheney to the Arm & Hammer Company.

Vitamin D Will Protect Against the Flu

One of the greatest triggers of influenza, the swine flu and deaths from pulmonary deficiency is vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D reduces the risk of dying from all causes including the flu. Researchers from Winthrop University Hospital in Mineola, New York found that giving supplements of vitamin D to a group of volunteers reduced episodes of infection with colds and flu by 70% over three years. The researchers said that the vitamin stimulated “innate immunity” to viruses and bacteria.

Iodine

“Extremely high doses of iodine can have serious side effects, but only a small fraction of such extreme doses are necessary to kill influenza viruses,” writes Dr. David Derry of Canada.[2] In 1945, a breakthrough occurred when J. D. Stone and Sir McFarland Burnet (who later went on to win a Nobel Prize for his Clonal Selection Theory) exposed mice to lethal effects of influenza viral mists. The lethal disease was prevented by putting iodine solution on mice snouts just prior to placing them in chambers containing influenza viruses. Dr. Derry reminds us that a long time ago students in classrooms were protected from influenza by iodine aerosol therapy. Aerosol iodine also is effective against freshly sprayed influenza virus.

Selenium

Selenium is a strong antioxidant anti-inflammatory that can also be used. Protection against reperfusion injury, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, vascular surgery, are all alleviated with selenium injections as would cytokine storms provoked from out of control infections.

The clinical investigations in sepsis studies indicate that higher doses of selenium are well tolerated as continuous infusions of selenium as sodium selenite (4,000 μg selenium as sodium selenite pentahydrat on the first day, 1,000 μg selenium/day on the nine following days) and had no reported toxicity issues. In view of this new information, Biosyn introduced the 1,000 µg dose vials for such high selenium clinical usage.

Selenium is important because selenium-deficient mice developed much more severe lung pathology after infection with influenza virus than did selenium-adequate mice. In another study, when selenium-deficient mice were infected with a mild strain of influenza virus, the virus mutated to become a more virulent strain, one that caused severe lung pathology even in selenium-adequate mice.

Selenium is also an antidote to mercury having the highest affinity with it than any other atom. So selenium does double duty lowering mercury toxicity and this is important because mercury toxicity is known to provoke influenza.

Magnesium Chloride

Magnesium chloride (magnesium oil) has always been and remains my favorite medicine that affects overall physiology in a very positive and direct way. Dr. Raul Vergini says,

“Magnesium chloride has a unique healing power on acute viral and bacterial diseases. It cured polio and diphtheria and that was the main subject of my magnesium book. A few grams of magnesium chloride every few hours will clear nearly all acute illnesses, which can be beaten in a few hours. I have seen a lot of flu cases healed in 24-48 hours with 3 grams of magnesium chloride taken every 6-8 hours.”

Vitamin C

Intravenous vitamin C is a wonderful treatment when people are on the edge between life and death with the power to bring people back from the brink. Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) contributes a wide range of benefits. It is known to perform many critical functions within the body involving detoxification, tissue building, immune enhancement, pain control, and controlling or killing pathogenic organisms. It is also known to be helpful for wound and bone healing, healthy skin and eyes, fighting infections, stress control, toxic exposure, and repairing damaged tissue of all types.

Cannabinoid Medicine

Dr. Ben Whalley, at the department of pharmacy at the University of Reading, said tests in animals had shown the marijuana compounds effective at preventing seizures and convulsions while also having fewer side effects than existing epilepsy drugs. At the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Md., rat nerve cells were exposed to a toxin that is typically released during strokes. Cannabidiol reduces the extent of damage reported the National Academy of Sciences. More effective than vitamins C or E, strong antioxidants such as cannabidiol (CBD) will neutralize free radicals without the accompanying high with regular marijuana used for recreational and other medical purposes. All forms or marijuana have anti-oxidative, neuroprotective, immunomodulation, analgesic and anti-inflammatory actions.

Beyond these core physiological protective mechanisms, something as simple as smoking marijuana is ideal for the pain and discomfort of influenza. With or without the “high,” cannabinoid medicine offers safe pain relief even as it heals and protects. It should be put into wide use in hospitals as well as in the home for routine treatment against the worst ravages of the flu.

Dr. Ester Fride strongly recommends the use of cannabinoids in pediatric medicine so what I am saying for adults above applies to children. She notes that “excellent clinical results” have been reported in pediatric oncology and in case studies of children with severe neurological diseases or brain trauma, and suggests that cannabis-derived medicines could also play a role in the treatment of other childhood syndromes, including the pain and gastrointestinal inflammation associated with cystic fibrosis.

Conclusion

There are nine things to do if you have the flu or are living in an epidemic area (all of the United States) that are put forth in this essay. Five of these things are emergency room ‘natural medicines’ that are injectable so there is no excuse for doctors and hospitals not to be using them. The rest of us can self-administer these medicines orally and apply them topically and even nebulize several of them for rapid, safe and even legally administered effect.

Of course there is always more but these nine should keep you and your nurse, if you are lucky enough to have one, extremely busy. It’s good to remember that pure water is the most basic medicine and it is not as easy as it seems to stay fully hydrated. Also for fifty dollars one can purchase a Russian designed breathing apparatus, which you should have in your house anyway, that will slow your breathing down. It really is extremely difficult to die when one is breathing slowly!

In the emergency room medicines have to be safe while delivering an instant lifesaving burst of healing power. The idea when used at home is to constantly be administering these medicinals during waking hours. The power and speed of these medicines and the flexibility of their administration methods make them ideal especially because of their extremely low-toxicity profiles. As usual the key to their use is in the dose given.

Few if any people need to die from the flu if they are treated correctly. In Treatment Essentials, dosages and concentrations and methods of application options are covered. When one learns about the above emergency room medicines, and how to use them, one gains a lot of medical power and wisdom to overcome diseases. (Treatment Essentials should be available in early February)

Resources

[1] Acute respiratory distress syndrome

[2] Thyroid Science Review [PDF]

About the author

Dr. Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM (P) (acupuncturist, doctor of oriental and pastoral medicine) is a prolific writer and author of some astounding medical and health-related books. His books are heavily referenced, and for many years Dr. Sircus has been researching into the human condition and into the causes of disease; he has distilled many of the divergent medical systems into a new form of medicine that he has coinedNatural Allopathic Medicine.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Cholesterol – The good, the bad, and the ugly

The Good, Bad and the Ugly

Barry Groves, PHD
BarryGroves Blogspot
Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:22 CST

 

© BarryGroves Blogspot

It all started with ‘high cholesterol’, then came the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ cholesterols. Now we have the last member of the notorious trio: the ‘ugly cholesterol’. The risk of ischemic heart disease — the leading cause of death worldwide — is three times higher in persons with high levels of the so-called ‘ugly’ cholesterol.

This is the finding of a new study of 73,000 Danes, which is shedding light on a long debate on this topic. The results have just been published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most individuals believe that high cholesterol is life-threatening (despite all the evidence to the contrary). And many ‘know’ which type of cholesterol is the most frequent killer — the ‘bad’ one, LDL — or is it just the small, dense LDL and not the fluffy stuff.

Up until now, cholesterol has been divided into ‘the good’ HDL cholesterol, ‘the bad’ LDL cholesterol, with all the other sub-fractions, IDL, VLDL, etc, not getting a look in.

But now another ‘cholesterol’ has turned up in the mix: ‘the ugly’ cholesterol AKA ‘remnant cholesterol’. And this one, it seems, is the really bad guy.

Professor Børge Nordestgaard, Chief Physician at Copenhagen University Hospital and Clinical Professor at the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at University of Copenhagen says:

“LDL cholesterol or ‘the bad’ cholesterol’ is of course bad, but our new study reveals that the ugly cholesterol likewise is the direct cause of atherosclerosis resulting in ischemic heart disease and early death. By examining 73,000 persons, we found that an increase in the ugly cholesterol triples the risk of ischemic heart disease, which is caused by lack of oxygen to the heart muscle due to narrowing or blocking of the coronary arteries”

“I hope that this new knowledge will lead to better preventive treatment including lifestyle changes, as more than one in five individuals in affluent countries suffers from high ugly cholesterol. We also hope that the pharmaceutical industry will develop new drugs targeted specifically at raised ugly cholesterol levels”

So, what is ugly cholesterol?

“Ugly cholesterol is the result of high blood levels of normal fat (triglycerides),” says Børge Nordestgaard. “The most important cause of high ugly cholesterol is overweight and obesity. Persons with high ugly cholesterol should therefore be advised to lose weight, but drugs such as statins and fibrates may also lower levels of ugly cholesterol in the blood.”

Samples from 73,000 Danes with mutations

Anette Varbo, physician and PhD student at Copenhagen University Hospital, Was part of the research team behind the new findings. She says that the findings shed light on a long-standing debate among researchers on the so-called triglycerides, atherosclerosis and cholesterol. She say:

“To be able to examine the relationship between ugly cholesterol and heart disease, we have used blood samples from persons having a mutation which means that they suffer from high ugly cholesterol their entire life. The research findings do therefore not depend on their lifestyle patterns in general. Unhealthy lifestyle factors such as smoking, fatty foods and overweight all increase the risk of heart disease, and the blood samples from persons having these mutations thus give the most accurate results”

So, another good reason to watch your weight, it seems. And the best way to do that is with a low-carb, high-fat diet.

Patents on statins are running out. What’s the betting that BigPharma will now search for new drugs, or revamp existing ones for this ‘new’ use. And when those patents run out, no doubt there will be another ‘cholesterol’ discovered, and then another, and so on . . . until we have The Magnificent Seven.

Journal Reference:

1. Anette Varbo, Marianne Benn, Anne Tybjærg-Hansen, Anders B. Jørgensen, Ruth Frikke-Schmidt, Børge G. Nordestgaard. Remnant Cholesterol as a Causal Risk Factor for Ischemic Heart Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2012; DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.08.1026

 

A can of soda a day can increase the risk of cancer for men by 40 percent?

Scott Thill
Alternet
Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:16 CST

A new medical study poses huge questions for the future of soft drinks.

According to a Swedish study from Lund University recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, it takes a single daily can of soda to increase a man’s risk of prostate cancer by 40 percent, compared to a man who never touches the stuff.

So where is the public outcry warning Americans, who are always in search of newer and better drugs anyway, off these lucrative yet carcinogenic vehicles for addictive substances like caffeine, sugar and perhaps worse? They are likely hiding, at least for now, from an industry loathe to let cold-hearted science and much-needed reason lead the way.

“When it comes to studies of soda consumption and chronic disease risk, the only superior alternative to a prospective cohort study would be to conduct a randomized, controlled trial, where you assign one group to drink high amounts soda over 20 years, and the other group to not consume soda,” senior researcher Isabel Drake, who led Lund University’s soda cancer study, told AlterNet. “This, of course, is unethical and never going to be feasible. There are situations like this one, to assess for causal associations between soda consumption and cancer or other chronic diseases, where observational studies are realistically the best study design to address causal associations.”

Causality is the central question when it comes to sodas, whose lineage leads to 18th and 19th century druggists, scientists and other whitecoats. Since then, sodas have metamorphosed from chemical experiments into ubiquitous commodities pounded out by powerhouse multinationals like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, who together lord over about 90 percent of the market. Clocking around $60 billion a year, soda competes for drug market share with cannabis and its godfather, cocaine.

You’ll notice that nowhere in that short history lesson did you hear anything about health and wellness. That’s because sodas have zero redeeming nutritional value.

But they have had lethal additives like 4-methylimidazole, the ammonia-sulfite caramel coloring that is also a known animal carcinogen. The flavorless die brought nothing to products like Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper and more that carried it, and was toxic enough to activate a new California law requiring disclosure of cancer risk — which, in turn, was enough to motivate Coke and Pepsi to quickly discard it while protesting the controversy as “scientifically unfounded.” An appeal to the FDA for ban from the Center for Science in the Public Interest likely helped. But 4-methylimidazole is just one soda headache among many.

“Caramel is one concern that the industry is in the process of largely solving,” CSPI co-founder and executive director Michael F. Jacobson toldAlterNet. “Also, we have concerns about aspartame, acesulfame-potassium and saccharin, which is rarely used in drinks.”

Lund’s study is the latest in a roll-call of soda cancer flags. Drake and colleagues followed 8,000 men aged 45-73 for an average of 15 years, and found that 40 percent of those who downed barely 12 ounces of soda a day were likely to contract a disease that kills a million of them a year. Previous research has warned of increased risk of esophageal cancer. University of Minnesota School of Public Health professor of epidemiology Mark Pereira recently led a study finding that 87 percent of his over 60,000 test subjects were likely to develop pancreatic cancer, whose median survival for 80 percent of afflicted individuals hovers between six to 10 months. The soda cancer warning signs continue to siren.

“The important take away from our study is that habitual consumption of soft drinks may be linked to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer,” Noel Mueller, University of Minnesota School of Public Health Ph.D. student and first author on Pereira’s study, told AlterNet. “In response to any criticisms, I’d like to point out that our results align with a recent Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health meta-analysis of studies on this topic, including ours, which found that soft drink consumption was indeed positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk.”

The soda cancer warning signs continue to siren.

It’s no wonder that fear of a California may-cause-cancer label was enough to motivate soda multinationals into comparatively lightspeed removal of their called-out carcinogens.

Exploiting causal opportunities like these to bring soda multinationals to heel for their obvious cancer threats is crucial. But good luck finding enlightenment on soda and cancer at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or its National Cancer Institute (NCI). A NCI spokesperson told AlterNetthat he’s “pretty sure” they have no conclusive research on the matter. “We have no fact sheet on soda on cancer,” he said.

The NCI does have a factsheet on Diet and Nutrition that sheds light on other areas like artificial sweeteners, fluoridated water and cruciferous vegetables. But most compelling is the NCI’s facstsheet on cancer and obesity, which it warns is associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, breast, endometrium, colon, rectum, kidney, pancreas, thyroid, gallbladder… “and possibly other[s].” The NCI also notes that obesity comes complete with a higher risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, diabetes, and a number of other chronic diseases, all for an “markedly” increased share of Americans consuming themselves to death.

But the indispensable link missing from that causal chain is the obvious link between soda and obesityIt’s not rocket science: If soda is a major obesity threat, and obesity is a major cancer threat, then soda is a major cancer threat.

Like soda and cancer, soda and obesity used to be a hot-button issue. That is, until enough time, science and activism passed. But as one can tell by high-profile blowback from Michael Bloomberg, who banned sales of large sodas while calling it the “single biggest step any city has ever taken” to “curb obesity,” or Michelle Obama, who called obesity America’s “number one greatest national security threat,” administering global policy these days on soda and obesity is no longer political suicide. It’s a shared reality received at last from power players who champion initiatives with motivational grabbers like “Let’s Move!

This is perhaps why a spokesperson for the American Medical Association responded to AlterNet’s questions about soda and cancer with a reminder of its positions on soda and obesity, which like autism and other medical spectrums shelter less processable truths.

“Causal inference is the holy grail of epidemiology,” Mueller said.

“You make a good argument that the causal link between soda and obesity, and obesity and cancer, could potentially be enough to establish causality,” Drake told AlterNet. “Because of the direct link between diet and obesity, obesity is of course an easier sell.”

Jacobson agreed. “Probably by far the biggest risk is due to the fact that drinking too much soda promotes obesity, and obesity promotes several types of cancer,” he told AlterNet. “Coffee, decaf, tea, seltzer, flavored waters and water are certainly safer than liquid candy.”

“Since cancer is affected by other environmental factors, and to a much greater extent genetic factors, there is probably not enough evidence to say there is a direct causal link, but potentially enough evidence to say that a poor diet increases risk of disease,” said Drake.

“It’s premature to say whether obesity may be on the causal pathway between soda and pancreatic cancer,” Mueller dissented. “However, in my mind, despite the theoretical shortcomings for causality, there is a strong enough case to be made that sugar-sweetened beverages offer no redeeming nutritional qualities and, as such, there is a policy case to be made that their consumption, in excess, should be limited.”

But these seem like semantic scientific arguments. The druggists and other whitecoats who created sodas, as well as the power suits who capitalize on their formidable market in industry and government, can mount infinitely regressive causality arguments until their nest eggs are well feathered by soda cancer’s complexities. But the hyperconsuming public they’ve encouraged will inevitably wake to a day when those same parties, who once told them it was just fine to drink Cokes to teach the world to sing, are instead saying they should worry about having only months to live, because they drank too many Cokes a day to teach the world to sing.

“With all usual scientific caution being said, since we do not have the possibility to perform randomized clinical trials investigating the long-term impact of soda consumption, we do have to rely on the evidence at hand,” Drake added. “And given that it can be stated with certainty that there are no health benefits with drinking soda — in fact, evidence suggest negative impact on health — public health measures should be taken, perhaps to a much greater extent than they are today, to limit consumption.”

In other words, until both its pushers and users acquiesce to new economic and political normals, soda is to be known as a side route to cancer.

Until then, the soda industry plans on cashing as many checks as it takes to keep its product on the tip of your tongue. Or issuing them, in the case of pop diva Beyonce, who scored $50 million large to hawk Pepsi to her image-conscious base. That industry chess move might not be worth the money: With increasingly lethal public health risk comes slipping soda sales and changing demographics and tastes. Youth addicts who once turned to tankers of sodas are turning to coffee for caffeine and sugar fixes, or even back to water to purify their bodies and consciences.

All of this makes soda a 20th century commodity on inevitable life support in our still-new millennium. Let’s drink to that.

About the author

Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm.com. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.

Antioxidants prevent cancer and some may even cure it

 

 

Steve Hickey, PhD
Orthomolecular News Service
Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:17 CST

It is widely accepted that antioxidants in the diet and supplements are one of the most effective ways of preventing cancer. Nevertheless, Dr. James Watson has recently suggested that antioxidants cause cancer and interfere with its treatment. James Watson is among the most renowned of living scientists. His work, together with that of others (Rosalind Franklin, Raymond Gosling, Frances Crick, and Maurice Wilkins) led to the discovery of the DNA double helix in 1953. Although his recent statement on antioxidants is misleading, the mainstream media has picked it up, which may cause some confusion.

Antioxidants: What’s Going On

Dr. Watson claims to have discovered that antioxidants promote the growth of late stage metastatic cancers. He says that this is “among my most important work since the double helix.” [1] We agree that the finding is fundamentally important, although it was not uniquely Watson’s discovery. Rather, it is standard orthomolecular medicine and has been known for years. [2,3] Within the body, antioxidant levels act as a signal, controlling cell division. In healthy cells and benign tumors, oxidants tend to increase cell proliferation, whereas antioxidants inhibit it. By contrast, the malignant tumor environment can be so strongly oxidizing that it is damaging and triggers cell death by apoptosis. In this case, antioxidants may help tumor cells proliferate and survive, by protecting the cells against oxidation and stimulating the malignancy to grow. For this reason, antioxidants may sometimes be contraindicated for use with malignant tumors, although there are particular exceptions to this.

And Oxidants?

The balance between oxidants and antioxidants is a key issue in the development of cancer, as has been known for decades. Watson appears to be behind the times in his appreciation of nutritional medicine and, surprisingly, to have misunderstood the processes of oxidation and reduction as applied to cancer. He correctly asserts that reactive oxygen species are a positive force for life; this is basic biology. They are also involved in aging, chronic illness, and cancer. Oxidants also cause free radical damage, thus the body generates large amounts of antioxidants to prevent harm and maintain health.

Back in the 1950s Dr. Reginald Holman treated the implanted tumors of experimental rats, by adding a dilute solution of hydrogen peroxide to their drinking water. [4] Hydrogen peroxide, an oxidant, delivers a primary redox (reduction/oxidation) signal in the body. The treatment cured more than half the rats (50-60%) within a period of two weeks to two months, with complete disappearance of the tumors. Holman also reported four human case studies, concerning people with advanced inoperable cancer. Two patients showed marked clinical improvement and tumor shrinkage. (Please note: we are not suggesting that people should consume hydrogen peroxide.) He published his findings in Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific periodicals of the day and, of course, the same journal that had presented Crick and Watson’s double helix papers, just four year earlier.

Orthomolecular medicine has advanced since those days; we now have safer and more effective techniques with which to attack cancer. Intravenous vitamin C is a good example. [5] Nevertheless, both modern orthomolecular and conventional treatments often rely indirectly on increasing hydrogen peroxide levels, and thus deliberately causing free radical damage within the tumor. Watson correctly identifies oxidation and free radical damage as primary mechanisms through which radiation and chemotherapeutic drugs slow cancer growth. He also states that cancer cell adaptation to oxidation is the method by which it becomes resistant to such treatment, although once again, this has been standard in cancer biology for decades. We agree with some of Watson’s assertions: that cancer research is overregulated; that a primary aim should be to cure late stage cancers; and that a cure for cancer could be achievable, given 5-10 years of properly targeted research. [6] However, we think he should become more familiar with progress in orthomolecular medicine, which is currently leading the way.

How Does Cancer Grow?

Cancer develops when cells multiply in the presence of oxidation and other damage. According to micro-evolutionary models, cells become damaged and change their behavior, growing uncontrollably, and act like the single-celled organisms from which they originally evolved. The cancer cells’ individualism overwhelms the cooperative control processes that are essential to a complex multicellular organism. Importantly, antioxidants limit oxidative damage and thus inhibit early benign cancer growth, preventing cancer from developing.

As cancers become malignant, they exhibit incredible genetic diversity. Whereas a benign tumor is like a colony of similar abnormal cells, a malignant tumor is a whole ecosystem. At this late stage, some (but not all) antioxidants can indeed promote cancer cell growth. Thousands of different cell types coexist: cooperating, competing, and struggling to survive. A consequence of the anaerobic conditions that prevail during the early development of a malignancy is that cancer cells differ from healthy cells, in that they have been selected for the way they generate energy (i.e. anaerobically, using glucose). This is the well-known Warburg effect [7], another finding from the 1950s. [8]

How Does Cancer Stop?

Certain “antioxidant” substances, such as vitamin C, are able to exploit the differences between cancer and healthy cells; they kill cancer cells while helping healthy cells. [9] Such substances have the ability to act either as antioxidants or as pro-oxidants, depending on their environment. In tumors, they act as pro-oxidants, producing hydrogen peroxide that attacks the cancer; whereas, in healthy cells they act as protective anti-oxidants.

The dual nature of these substances is crucial, because standard chemotherapy or radiation harms healthy cells almost as much as it does cancer cells. The idea of a drug with a limited selective activity against cancer cells has apparently impressed Watson, who suggests that “highly focused new drug development should be initiated towards finding compounds beyond metformin that selectively kill [cancer] stem cells.” [10] Metformin is an antidiabetic drug that acts against cancer by lowering blood glucose levels. Interestingly enough, carbohydrate reduction and other methods of “starving the cancer” are standard methods in orthomolecular cancer therapy. [2]

Selective anticancer agents of the kind Dr. Watson advocates are already known to exist: they include vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin K, alpha-lipoic acid, selenium, and others. A research agenda to investigate the synergistic operation of such substances in cancer treatment is required urgently. It is time for conventional medicine to come to terms with their failure in cancer research and embrace selective orthomolecular methods. The public should stick with nutritional therapies while we wait, perhaps for some time, for medicine to focus on patients rather than profits. Don’t be warned off the very substances that can most help you.

References:

1. Watson J. (2013) Nobel laureate James Watson claims antioxidants in late-stage cancers can promote cancer progression, The Royal Society, latest news, 09 January, http://royalsociety.org/news/2013/watson-antioxidants-cancer.

2. Hickey S. Roberts H. (2005) Cancer: Nutrition and Survival, Lulu Press.

3. Hickey S. Roberts H.J. (2007) Selfish cells: cancer as microevolution, 137-146.

4. Holman R.A. (1957) A method of destroying a malignant rat tumour in vivo, Nature, 4568, 1033.

5. http://www.doctoryourself.com/RiordanIVC.pdfhttp://www.riordanclinic.org/research/research-studies/vitaminc/protocol/ andhttp://www.doctoryourself.com/Radiation_VitC.pptx.pdf

6. Lettice E. (2010) James Watson: ‘cancer research is over regulated’ The Guardian, Friday 10 September,http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/10/james-watson-cancer-research.

7. Gonzalez M.J. Miranda Massari J.R. Duconge J. Riordan N.H. Ichim T. Quintero-Del-Rio A.I. Ortiz N. (2012) The bio-energetic theory of carcinogenesis, Med Hypotheses, 79(4), 433-439.

8. Warburg O. (1956) On the origin of cancer cells, Science, 123(3191), 309-314.

9. Casciari J.J. Riordan N.H. Schmidt T.L. Meng X.L. Jackson J.A. Riordan H.D. (2001) Cytotoxicity of ascorbate, lipoic acid, and other antioxidants in hollow fibre in vitro tumours, Br J Cancer, 84(11), 1544-1550. http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v84/n11/abs/6691814a.html

N.H. Riordan, H.D. Riordana, X. Menga, Y. Lia, J.A. Jackson. (1995) Intravenous ascorbate as a tumor cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agent, Med Hypotheses, 44(3), 207-213, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030698779590137X

10. Watson J. (2013) Oxidants, antioxidants and the current incurability of metastatic cancers, Open Biology, January 8, doi: 10.1098/rsob.120144.

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource. To Subscribe at no charge: http://www.orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html

JAMA study: Kids with fewer vaccines have fewer doctor and emergency room visits

Health Impact News Daily
Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:16 CST

JAMA Pediatrics published a new study today looking at vaccination rates. The results of that study are making headlines throughout the “mainstream” media outlets, but none of them have headlines like ours. Yet, ours is probably the most factual headline representing the true facts of what this study found.

The title of the study is: A Population-Based Cohort Study of Undervaccination in 8 Managed Care Organizations Across the United States – You can read the abstract here. Rather than rely upon the press releases of the study which for the most part were bemoaning the fact that children were not following the national vaccine schedule and therefore representing a threat to the existence of the human race, I decided to spend the $30.00 and download the article to read for myself.

First of all, let’s look at the objective to the study as stated in the abstract:

To examine patterns and trends of undervaccination in children aged 2 to 24 months and to compare health care utilization rates between undervaccinated and age-appropriately vaccinated children.

So why study “patterns and trends of undervaccination” in children? The introduction to the study gives us a clue:

Immunization is one of the most significant public health achievements of the past 100 years. However, an increasing number of parents have expressed concerns about immunizations, and survey data1-5 have shown that more than 10% of parents report delaying or refusing certain vaccinations for their children. These concerned parents often request alternative vaccination schedules that either increase the time between vaccinations or reduce the number of vaccinations in a single well-child visit. Despite their concerns, however, the safety of alternative vaccination schedules is not known.

Hmm… Any chance of bias in this study? Is “Immunization is one of the most significant public health achievements of the past 100 years” a scientific statement that can be proven by facts and figures? Is there a chance that this study was conducted because the medical institutions represented by the authors of this study do not like the fact that parents are not bringing in their children to be vaccinated enough according to the government vaccine schedule?

 The authors also included this disclaimer which may give us a further clue:

Disclaimer: Although the CDC played a role in the design and conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data, as well as preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript, the findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC.

And then here are the “author affiliations”:

Author Affiliations: Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver (Drs Glanz, Narwaney, Hambidge, Daley, McClure, and Xu and Mss Wagner and Newcomer); Department of Epidemiology,
Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora (Drs Glanz and Hambidge); Community Health Services, Denver Health, Denver (Dr Hambidge); Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado, Aurora (Drs Hambidge and Daley); Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, California (Dr Rowhani-Rahbar); Center for Child Health Care Studies, Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (Dr Lee); Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington (Dr Nelson); Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, Wisconsin (Dr Donahue); Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon (Dr Naleway); HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Dr Nordin); Department of Research and Evaluation, Southern California Kaiser Permanente, Pasadena (Dr Lugg); and Immunization Safety Office, Division of Healthcare Quality and Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (Mr Weintraub)

.
So I think it is safe to assume that this study was not conducted on behalf of concerned parents who think the vaccine schedule is too much, too fast. On the contrary, it appears that the study was hoping to prove that the children of parents who do not follow the vaccine schedule are less healthy than those who do follow the schedule.

But the study didn’t prove that, it proved the opposite:

Children who were undervaccinated because of parental choice had significantly lower utilization rates of the ED (emergency department visits) and outpatient settings – both overall and for specific acute illnesses – than children who were vaccinated on time.

So the author’s conclusions and those they hired to write the press release on the study reported this, right? Wrong. Here is what the abstract states as the conclusion of the study:

Conclusions Undervaccination appears to be an increasing trend. Undervaccinated children appear to have different health care utilization patterns compared with age-appropriately vaccinated children.

The main press release, which was picked up by Reuter’s and repeated in almost every major news outlet reads: “Close to half of kids late receiving vaccines: study”.

Here are some other gems from the official press release spin on this (that too many kids not vaccinating according to the vaccine schedule is a public epidemic):

Researchers said that trend is cause for concern because if enough kids skip their vaccines, whole schools or communities may be at higher risk for preventable infections such as whooping cough and measles.

I don’t know who these “researchers” are, but they are NOT the authors of the study and what was reported in the actual study. In fact, one of the biggest vaccine stories in 2012 was how whooping cough outbreaks were among those vaccinated for whooping cough, and how the vaccine was largely ineffective (See: Whooping Cough Spreads Among Pertussis Vaccinated and Vaccinated Population Contracting and Spreading Disease They were Vaccinated For).

So how did they handle the fact that those parents who chose to not vaccinate according to the vaccine schedule had fewer hospital and doctor visits? Here’s the spin on that:

Undervaccinated kids also tended to have fewer doctors’ appointments and emergency room visits than those who got their shots on time, according to findings published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics. That could be because their parents more often turn to alternative or complementary medicine when it’s an option, Omer said. Recent studies have shown many parents are asking to delay or skip certain vaccines, often citing safety concerns such as a link between vaccines and autism – a theory which scientists now agree holds no water.

So just by stating “scientists agree” that there are no safety concerns or links between vaccines and autism, they completely ignore all the scientists who DO believe there are safety concerns and links to autism, and they also ignore the fact that the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has already awarded millions of dollars to families of children with autism where the court has verified that they were harmed by vaccines. (Story here.)

One other important fact to note about this study: It was done among patients in “eight managed care organizations.” In other words, this study looked at parents and children who were insured, and:

For inclusion, each child had to be continuously enrolled in their MCO from at least ages 2 to 12 months. Children were followed up for a maximum of 36 months, and follow-up stopped if a child’s enrollment in his or her MCO was discontinued…To help ensure that children were receiving primary care services within their MCO, they also had to have at least 1 outpatient visit by age 12 months.

So these were parents and children who believed in using the medical system, participated in it, believed in vaccines to at least some degree, and made regular visits to approved medical professionals. Does that sound like parents who “more often turn to alternative or complementary medicine when it’s an option”?? Parents who do not believe in vaccines at all, do not participate in well-child pediatric visits, were refused healthcare by their pediatricians for not following the vaccine schedule, etc. – WERE NOT EVEN PART OF THE STUDY AT ALL!

Come on those of you in the media! Wake up and do some investigative journalism for once! Pay the $30.00 to get the actual study and see what it really says, instead of just regurgitating the spin from the press release! This is a serious issue!! Just preceding the release of this study today, the Institute of Medicine released a report last week that the vaccination schedule was “safe,” but they offered no new research what-so-ever. (See: Institute of Medicine Concludes Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Research Not Needed: The Vaccine Schedule is Safe As Is)

There’s a huge story to report here, but dogma and belief in vaccinations is trumping facts and science. The vaccine damaged epidemic affects so many people and so many families now, however, that this story is NOT going away anytime soon.

Grassfed fat, the real brain food

Stanley A. Fishman
Tender Grassfed Meat
Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:39 CST

 

Pastured butter—the best brain food.

We are seeing an epidemic of mental illness and poor mental functioning that may be without parallel in human history. The frequency of many mental illnesses is expanding an alarming rate. A huge and constantly increasing percentage of children are being diagnosed with learning disabilities. The psychiatric profession claims that the increase is due to “better diagnosis,” and that the problems were always there, but I disagree.

When I was a child, learning disabilities were pretty much unknown. So what is the cause of the vast increase in mental illness and learning disabilities?

In my opinion, it is malnutrition. To be more specific, it is the lack of enough good fat in most diets. Because the very saturated fats that our brains need to develop and function properly have been demonized and removed from the diets of so many people, especially children.

Our Brains Need Saturated Fat

We are constantly told that saturated fat, especially saturated animal fat, is deadly, and will clog our arteries and cause heart attacks and strokes. This theory has never been proven, but is generally accepted as fact, due to persistent marketing by the industries who make a fortune from this false belief.

Most people, throughout most of history, have cherished saturated animal fat as their most valued and sacred food. Heart attacks and strokes were very rare throughout most of human history, despite the widespread eating of saturated animal fat in large amounts.

The truth can be seen in the composition of mother’s milk. Nobody really denies anymore that mother’s milk is the very best and healthiest food for babies. Yet more than half the calories in mother’s milk is from saturated animal fat. Nature herself has thus proclaimed the need for saturated animal fat.

Our brains our made largely from fat, and need fat and cholesterol to maintain themselves and function properly. Our ancestors knew this, and many traditional remedies for grief and depression involved the eating of rich, fatty foods. People who had lost loved ones were constantly urged to eat fatty foods. It helped calm the mind.

Dr. Weston A. Price designed a special lunch program for some poor children in Ohio. He intended the diet to improve the health of their teeth. It was a diet very high in saturated animal fat, containing plenty of marrow, grassfed meat fat, butter, and whole milk. Not only did the teeth of the children improve substantially, but their performance in school went from horrible to superb, as reported by their teachers.

Grassfed Fats Are Better

Unfortunately, not all saturated fat is the same. Prior to the twentieth century, most saturated animal fat came from animals fed their natural diet. For grass eating animals such as cattle, sheep, and bison, this meant grass. The twentieth century saw the introduction of feedlots and grain feeding for these animals. The change in diet made their fat different. While the fat of a grassfed animal has a perfect balance of omega-3 fatty acids to omega-6 fatty acids, grain feeding causes a huge imbalance in the ratio, creating a great excess of omega-6 fatty acids. Excess omega-6 fatty acids have been associated with a number of illnesses. The chemicals used in the raising and feeding of factory cattle also changed the content of the fat, to something that had never been eaten by humans before. The change in the composition of the fatty acid ratio is shown in this chart and the accompanying article, Health Benefits of Grass-fed Products.

While the full effect of the change in the composition of animal fats from grain feeding is not fully known, I am much happier eating the same traditional fats that humanity has always eaten.

The best way we can get the good saturated animal fats our brains need, in the proper form, is to eat plenty of fat from healthy grassfed animals. I eat the fat on the meat, use the grassfed tallow in cooking, and eat plenty of grassfed butter, milk, cheese, and cream.

Since I have done so, my mental functioning, which was always good, has improved greatly, allowing me to learn new things much faster and to think quickly and effectively. In fact, with my traditional diet, I learn more as time passes.