Type 2 Diabetes Completely Reversed Using ONE Vitamin

A new study out of America’s Heartland has shown that by simply increasing the intake of ONE needed vitamin, type 2 diabetes can be reversed without having to resort to dangerous prescription drugs.

Researchers out of the University of Missouri were even more surprised at the findings when they discovered this vitamin worked just as well for participants who were overweight and obese and didn’t lose weight.

So what is this powerful vitamin?

The research team found encouraging evidence to suggest that even when body weight and Body Mass Index are unchanged, simply adding vitamin D supplement to the diet can not only prevent type 2 diabetes from developing, but it also can reverse it if it has already appeared.

Looking at blood levels of vitamin D in participants, the team found that people who are overweight and obese tend to have deficiencies in this very critical vitamin. Adding it as a simple supplement was shown in the study to be critical in reversing type 2 diabetes, even when weight was unchanged.

For many patients, conventional treatment has always pointed to weight loss as the key factor in reversing or preventing the disease, but that never took into account the people who are of normal weight or those who are underweight who still develop diabetes.

While cutting weight for those who are obese is a good idea for many other health reasons, the University of Missouri study highlights the need to focus on nutrient supplementation as a critical first step in treatment, instead of running straight to the prescription pad.

This is more proof that type 2 diabetes can be completely cured without medications and even without losing weight

Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease

Harvard Researcher Condemns Flu Vaccine
BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3037 (Published 16 May 2013)
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f3037
 

Peter Doshi, postdoctoral fellow

The CDC pledges “To base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived.” But Peter Doshi argues that in the case of influenza vaccinations and their marketing, this is not so

Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today. Twenty years ago, in 1990, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States. Today around 135 million doses of influenza vaccine annually enter the US market, with vaccinations administered in drug stores, supermarkets—even some drive-throughs. This enormous growth has not been fueled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward, who-in-their-right-mind-could-possibly-disagree message: influenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives. Through this lens, the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities,1 precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates.2 Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.

Now we are all “at risk” of serious complications

Influenza vaccine production has grown parallel to increases in the perceived need for the vaccine. In the US, the first recommendations for annual influenza vaccination were made in 1960 (table1). Through the 1990s, the key objective of this policy was to reduce excess mortality. Because most of influenza deaths occurred in the older population, vaccines were directed at this age group. But since 2000, the concept of who is “at risk” has rapidly expanded, incrementally encompassing greater swathes of the general population (box 1). As one US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) poster picturing a young couple warns: “Even healthy people can get the flu, and it can be serious.”3 Today, national guidelines call for everyone 6 months of age and older to get vaccinated. Now we are all “at risk.”

 
 
 
 

Table 1. Expansion of influenza vaccination recommendations, 1960 to present

 
Population 1960 1984 1987 2000 2004 2006 2008 2009 2010
Recommendations by age                  
Adults ≥ 65 years X X X X X X X X X
Adults ≥ 50 years       X X X X X X
Children 6 to 23 months         X X X X X
Children 6 to 59 months           X X X X
Children 6 months to 18 years, if feasible             X X X
Children 6 months to 18 years               X X
Everyone ≥ 6 months                 X
Recommendations by condition or occupation                  
Pregnant women (2nd and 3rd trimester)       X X X X X X
Pregnant women (all trimesters)         X X X X X
Healthcare workers   X X X X X X X X
Household contacts of high risk groups     X X X X X X X
Household contacts and out of home
caregivers of children 0-23 months
        X X X X X
Household contacts and out of home
caregivers of children 0-59 months
          X X X X

Sources: Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices,5, 44-48 Osterholm,49 and Layton et al.50

 
 

Box 1. A policy without an objective

Despite the enormous sums of money spent fighting the perceived threat of influenza, there are surprisingly few instances of unambiguous statements describing the objectives of influenza vaccination policy. Here is a sampling, drawn from more than five decades of influenza vaccination policies in the United States, that demonstrates the changing purpose of the campaign—from one with a clear objective of saving older people’s lives, to one without any stated objective.

In 1964, four years after annual influenza vaccination policies were first instituted, CDC influenza branch chief Alexander Langmuir and colleagues wrote that the recommendation “was based on three broad assumptions: 1. That excess mortality was the most important consequence of epidemic influenza. 2. That polyvalent virus vaccines had been at least partially effective in preventing clinical illness during most epidemics and therefore presumably would reduce the risk of death among the aged and chronically ill. 3. That epidemics cannot be predicted with sufficient accuracy to permit confident planning of control measures on a year to year basis.”4 In 1984, recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices stated: “Because of the increasing proportion of elderly persons in the United States and because age and its associated chronic diseases are risk factors for severe influenza illness, the future toll from influenza may increase, unless control measures are used more vigorously than in the past. . . . For about 20 years, efforts to reduce the impact of influenza in the United States have been aimed primarily at immunoprophylaxis [vaccination] of persons at greatest risk of serious illness or death.”5 Today, the recommendations do not even mention the effect the policy aims to achieve.6

Box 2: Deciphering the numbers

As concern surged this January over a worse than usual influenza season, members of the media seemed unsure whether the CDC’s announcement that “vaccine effectiveness (VE) was 62%”7 represented good versus disappointing news.8

NBC anchor Brian Williams: “I worry about this number. I woke up to reports of this number. It can disincentivize people to go get that flu shot which all of you are saying is still so important.”

Chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman: “And I had the same concern when you see 62%, because I’m afraid people will say ‘well, it’s half and half.’ But remember, if you have a 62% less chance of getting of getting the flu, it means less chance of being on antibiotics, less chance of ending up in an intensive care unit, and as we’ve seen from this uptick in numbers, 62% less chance of dying.”9

Although the study never tested more severe outcomes such as hospitalizations and death, the logic is nonetheless tempting: if 62% fewer people get influenza, then would not one expect 62% fewer of all of influenza’s complications? Not necessarily so. The reason is that the 62% reduction statistic almost certainly does not hold true for all subpopulations. In fact, there are good reasons to assume it does not. It is well known that influenza infections are more severe for certain groups of people, such as the frail older population, compared with others like healthy young adults. The CDC study did not present the statistics by age or health status, but an update of the study released one month later showed 90% of participants were younger than 65 years, and for older people, there was no significant benefit (vaccine effectiveness was 27%; 95% confidence interval, 31% to 59%).10

Not to worry: officials say influenza vaccines save lives

Risk of serious illness is a problem—but, according to the official narrative, a tractable problem, thanks to vaccines. As another CDC poster, this time aimed at seniors, explains: “Shots aren’t just for kids. Vaccines for adults can prevent serious diseases and even death.”11 And in its more technical guidance document, CDC musters the evidence to support its case. The agency points to two retrospective, observational studies. One, a 1995 peer-reviewed meta-analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine, concluded: “many studies confirm that influenza vaccine reduces the risks for pneumonia, hospitalization, and death in elderly persons during an influenza epidemic if the vaccine strain is identical or similar to the epidemic strain.”12 They calculated a reduction of “27% to 30% for preventing deaths from all causes”—that is, a 30% lower risk of dying from any cause, not just from influenza. CDC also cites a more recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, funded by the National Vaccine Program Office and the CDC, which found an even larger relative reduction in risk of death: 48%.13

If true, these statistics indicate that influenza vaccines can save more lives than any other single licensed medicine on the planet. Perhaps there is a reason CDC does not shout this from the rooftop: it’s too good to be true. Since at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out the seeming impossibility that influenza vaccines could be preventing 50% of all deaths from all causes when influenza is estimated to only cause around 5% of all wintertime deaths.14 15

So how could these studies—both published in high impact, peer reviewed journals and carried out by academic and government researchers with non-commercial funding—get it wrong? Consider one study the CDC does not cite, which found influenza vaccination associated with a 51% reduced odds of death in patients hospitalized with pneumonia (28 of 352 [8%] vaccinated subjects died versus 53 deaths among 352 [15%] unvaccinated control subjects).16 Although the results are similar to those of the studies CDC does cite, an unusual aspect of this study was that it focused on patients outside of the influenza season—when it is hard to imagine the vaccine could bring any benefit. And the authors, academics from Alberta, Canada, knew this: the purpose of the study was to demonstrate that the fantastic benefit they expected to and did find—and that others have found, such as the two studies that CDC cites—is simply implausible, and likely the product of the “healthy-user effect” (in this case, a propensity for healthier people to be more likely to get vaccinated than less healthy people). Others have gone on to demonstrate this bias to be present in other influenza vaccine studies.17 18 Healthy user bias threatens to render the observational studies, on which officials’ scientific case rests, not credible.

Yet for most people, and possibly most doctors, officials need only claim that vaccines save lives, and it is assumed there must be solid research behind it. But for those that bother to read the CDC’s national guidelines19—a 68 page document of 33 360 words and 552 references—one finds that the evidence cited is these observational studies that the agency itself acknowledges may be undermined by bias. The guidelines state:

“. . . studies demonstrating large reductions in hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated elderly have been conducted using medical record databases and have not measured reductions in laboratory-confirmed influenza illness. These studies have been challenged because of concerns that they have not controlled adequately for differences in the propensity for healthier persons to be more likely than less healthy persons to receive vaccination.”19

CDC does not rebut or in any other way respond to these criticisms. It simply acknowledges them, and leaves it at that.

If the observational studies cannot be trusted, what evidence is there that influenza vaccines reduce deaths of older people—the reason the policy was originally created? Virtually none. Theoretically, a randomized trial might shine some light—or even settle the matter. But there has only been one randomized trial of influenza vaccines in older people—conducted two decades ago—and it showed no mortality benefit (the trial was not powered to detect decreases in mortality or any complications of influenza). This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes. Approval is instead tied to a demonstrated ability of the vaccine to induce antibody production, without any evidence that those antibodies translate into reductions in illness.

Perhaps most perplexing is officials’ lack of interest in the absence of good quality evidence. Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the Atlantic that it “would be unethical” to do a placebo controlled study of influenza vaccine in older people.20 The reason? Placebo recipients would be deprived of influenza vaccines—that is, the standard of care, thanks to CDC guidelines.

This is not to say influenza vaccines have no proven benefit. Many randomized controlled trials of influenza vaccines have been conducted in the healthy adult population, and a systematic review found that, depending on vaccine-virus strain match, vaccinating between 33 and 100 people resulted in one less case of influenza.21 No evidence exists, however, to show that this reduction in risk of symptomatic influenza for a specific population—here, among healthy adults—extrapolates into any reduced risk of serious complications from influenza such as hospitalizations or death in another population (complications largely occur among the frail, older population). This fact seems hard for many health commentators to grasp, who seem all too ready to take the largest statistic and apply it to all outcomes for all populations. At a press briefing this winter, CDC director Thomas Frieden said a preliminary CDC study had found “the overall vaccine effectiveness to be 62%,” He explained that this estimate of relative risk reduction: “means that if you got vaccinated you’re about 60% less likely to get the flu that requires you to go to your doctor.” On the evening news, the CDC’s message was translated into a claim that influenza vaccines will cut the risk of death by 62%, despite the fact that the CDC study did not even measure mortality (box 2). Reflecting on the same CDC study, two authors editorialized in the Journal of the American Medical Association that there exists an irrational pessimism about influenza vaccine: “A prevention measure that reduced the risk of a serious outcome by 60% in most instances would be a noted achievement; yet for influenza vaccine, it is seen as a ‘failure.’” Here, too, the authors appear unaware that the CDC study they cite did not measure any “serious outcome” like pneumonia, only medically attended acute respiratory illness with influenza confirmed by the laboratory.

Officials say influenza vaccines are safe

The CDC’s universal influenza vaccination recommendation carries the implicit message that, beyond those for whom the vaccine is contraindicated, influenza vaccine can only do good; there is no need to weigh risks against benefits. In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health produced a promotional YouTube video featuring Fauci. Urging US citizens to get vaccinated against the H1N1 influenza, Fauci stressed the vaccine’s safety: “the track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event.”

Months later, Australia suspended its influenza vaccination program in under five year olds after many (one in every 110 vaccinated) children had febrile convulsions after vaccination. Another serious reaction to influenza vaccines—and also unexpected—occurred in Sweden and Finland, where H1N1 influenza vaccines were associated with a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents (about one in every 55 000 vaccinated). Subsequent investigations by governmental and non-governmental researchers confirmed the vaccine’s role in these serious events.22 23 24 25

Selling sickness: what’s in a name?

Drug companies have long known that to sell some products, you would have to first sell people on the disease. Early 20th century advertising for the mouthwash Listerine, for example, warned readers of the problem of “halitosis”—thereby turning bad breath into a widespread social concern.26 Similarly, in the 1950s and 1960s, Merck launched an extensive campaign to lower the diagnostic threshold for hypertension, and in doing so enlarging the market for its diuretic drug, Diuril (chlorothiazide).27 Today drug companies suggest that we have underdiagnosed epidemics of erectile dysfunction, social anxiety disorder, and female sexual dysfunction, each with their own convenient acronym and an approved medication at the ready. Could influenza—a disease known for centuries, well defined in terms of its etiology, diagnosis, and prognosis—be yet one more case of disease mongering? I think it is. But unlike most stories of selling sickness, here the salesmen are public health officials, worried little about which brand of vaccine you get so long as they can convince you to take influenza seriously.

Marketing influenza vaccines thus involves marketing influenza as a threat of great proportions. The CDC’s website explains that “Flu seasons are unpredictable and can be severe,” citing a death toll of “3000 to a high of about 49 000 people.” However, a far less volatile and more reassuring picture of influenza seems likely if one considers that recorded deaths from influenza declined sharply over the middle of the 20th century, at least in the United States, all before the great expansion of vaccination campaigns in the 2000s, and despite three so-called “pandemics” (1957, 1968, 2009) (fig 1).

Fig 1 Crude mortality per 100 000 population, by influenza season (July to June of the following year), for seasons 1930-31 to 2009-10, US. Data sources: Doshi P. Am J Pub Health 2008;98:939-45.

 

But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. (fig 2).

All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.

But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. (fig 2).

 

 
 
 

Fig 2 Proportion of specimens testing positive for influenza at World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Laboratories and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) laboratories through the United States. Data are compiled and published by CDC.28-43

 

Notes

Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f3037

Footnotes

  • Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Yuko Hara, Tom Jefferson, and Edward Davies, for their comments.

  • Competing interests: I have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: PD is a co-recipient of a UK National Institute for Health Research grant to carry out a Cochrane review of neuraminidase inhibitors (http://www.hta.ac.uk/2352). PD received €1500 from the European Respiratory Society in support of his travel to the society’s September 2012 annual congress where he gave an invited talk on oseltamivir. He is funded by an institutional training grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) #T32HS019488. AHRQ had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

  • Provenance and peer review: commissioned: not externally peer reviewed

References

  1. Immunization Action Coalition. Honor roll for patient safety: honorees with influenza vaccination mandates. 2013 www.immunize.org/honor-roll/influenza-mandates.asp.
     
  2. Gardam M, Lemieux C. Mandatory influenza vaccination? First we need a better vaccine. Canadian Med Assoc J2013. www.cmaj.ca/cgi/doi/10.1503/cmaj.122074.
     
  3. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Spread music, not flu. 2012. www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/freeresources/young/p_spreadmusic_print.pdf.
     
  4. Langmuir AD, Henderson DA, Serfling RE. The epidemiological basis for the control of influenza. Am J Public Health Nations Health1964;54:563-71.
  5. US Centers for Disease Control. Recommendation of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP) Prevention and Control of Influenza. MMWR. 1984;33:253-60,265-6.
     
  6. Grohskopf L, Uyeki T, Bresee J, Cox N. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—United States, 2012-13 influenza season. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2012;61:613-8.
  7. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Early estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness—United States, 2013. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2013;62:32-5.
  8. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Press Briefing Transcript: CDC Update: Flu Season and Vaccine Effectiveness. 2013. www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/t0111_flu_season.html.
     
  9. NBCNews.com video: From churches to hospitals, flu precautions resound. 2013. www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/50437898.
     
  10. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim adjusted estimates of seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness—United States, 2013. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2013;62:119-23.
  11. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shots aren’t just for kids. 2010. www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/freeresources/updated/f-adults-shots.pdf.
     
  12. Gross PA, Hermogenes AW, Sacks HS, Lau J, Levandowski RA. The efficacy of influenza vaccine in elderly persons: a meta-analysis and review of the literature. Ann Intern Med1995;123:518-27.
  13. Nichol KL, Nordin JD, Nelson DB, Mullooly JP, Hak E. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in the community-dwelling elderly. N Engl J Med2007;357:1373-81.
  14. Simonsen L, Reichert TA, Viboud C, Blackwelder WC, Taylor RJ, Miller MA. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population. Arch Intern Med2005;165:265-72.
  15. Simonsen L, Viboud C, Taylor RJ. Effectiveness of influenza vaccination. N Engl J Med2007;357:2729-30; author reply 2730-31.
  16. Eurich DT, Marrie TJ, Johnstone J, Majumdar SR. Mortality reduction with influenza vaccine in patients with pneumonia outside “flu” season: pleiotropic benefits or residual confounding? Am J Respir Crit Care Med2008;178:527-33.
  17. Jackson LA, Jackson ML, Nelson JC, Neuzil KM, Weiss NS. Evidence of bias in estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in seniors. Int J Epidemiol2006;35:337-44.
  18. Jackson LA, Nelson JC, Benson P, Neuzil KM, Reid RJ, Psaty BM, et al. Functional status is a confounder of the association of influenza vaccine and risk of all cause mortality in seniors. Int J Epidemiol2006;35:345-52.
  19. Fiore AE, Uyeki TM, Broder K, Finelli L, Euler GL, Singleton JA, et al. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010;59(RR-8):1-62.
     
  20. Brownlee S, Lenzer J. Does the vaccine matter? Atlantic. 2009. www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-matter/7723/.
     
  21. Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2010;(7):CD001269.
     
  22. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Therapeutic Goods Administration. Investigation into febrile reactions in young children following 2010 seasonal trivalent influenza vaccination. 2010. www.tga.gov.au/safety/alerts-medicine-seasonal-flu-100702.htm.
     
  23. European Medicines Agency. European Medicines Agency reviews hypothesis on Pandemrix and development of narcolepsy. 2012. www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2012/10/news_detail_001636.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1.
     
  24. European Medicines Agency. European Medicines Agency recommends restricting use of Pandemrix. 2011. www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2011/07/news_detail_001312.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1.
     
  25. Miller E, Andrews N, Stellitano L, Stowe J, Winstone AM, Shneerson J, et al. Risk of narcolepsy in children and young people receiving AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza vaccine: retrospective analysis. BMJ2013;346:f794.
  26. Reichert T. The erotic history of advertising. Prometheus Books; 2003.
     
  27. Greene JA. Releasing the flood waters: Diuril and the reshaping of hypertension. Bulletin Hist Med2005;79:749-94.
  28. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 1997-8 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions1997-1998/datafinal/wholaballregion97-98.htm.
     
  29. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 1998-9 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions1998-1999/datafinal/wholaballregion98-99.htm
     
  30. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1999-2000 Influenza season summary. 2002. www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/WeeklyArchives1999-2000/99-00summary2.htm.
     
  31. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2000-2001 Laboratory data summary for all regions. www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/regions2000-2001/wholaballregion00-01.htm.
     
  32. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2001-02 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions2001-2002/datafinal/wholaballregion01-02.htm.
     
  33. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2002-03 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions2002-2003/datafinal/wholaballregion02-03.htm.
     
  34. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2003-04 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions2003-2004/datafinal/wholaballregion03-04.htm.
     
  35. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2004-2005 Season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions2004-2005/datafinal/wholaballregion04-05.htm
     
  36. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2005-06 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/regions2005-2006/datafinal/wholaballregion05-06.htm.
     
  37. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006-07 US influenza season summary. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2006-2007/06-07summary.htm
     
  38. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007-8 US Influenza season summary. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2007-2008/07-08summary.htm.
     
  39. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2008-9sSeason. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2008-2009/data/whoAllregt39.htm.
     
  40. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2009-10 Season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2009-2010/data/whoAllregt20.htm.
     
  41. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2010-11 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/data/whoAllregt20.htm.
     
  42. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2011-12 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2011-2012/data/whoAllregt39.htm.
     
  43. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza viruses isolated by WHO/NREVSS Collaborating Laboratories 2012-13 season. www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2012-2013/data/whoAllregt15.htm.
     
  44. Harper SA, Fukuda K, Uyeki TM, Cox NJ, Bridges CB. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2004;53(RR-6):1-40.
     
  45. Harper SA, Fukuda K, Uyeki TM, Cox NJ, Bridges CB. Prevention and control of influenza. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2005;54(RR-8):1-40.
     
  46. Smith NM, Bresee JS, Shay DK, Uyeki TM, Cox NJ, Strikas RA. Prevention and Control of Influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006;55(RR-10):1-42.
     
  47. Fiore AE, Shay DK, Haber P, Iskander JK, Uyeki TM, Mootrey G, et al. Prevention and control of influenza. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2007. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2007;56(RR-6):1-54.
     
  48. Fiore AE, Shay DK, Broder K, Iskander JK, Uyeki TM, Mootrey G, et al. Prevention and control of influenza: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2008. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2008;57(RR-7):1-60.
     
  49. Osterholm MT. Influenza vaccine efficacy and effectiveness: a comprehensive review. 2011. www.preventinfluenza.org/NIVS_2011/2-osterholm_vaccine_efficacy.pdf.
     
  50. Layton C, Robinson T, Honeycutt A. Influenza vaccine demand: the chicken and the
 
 
 

Cholesterol research: The possible reason for statins side effects

Of 1,040 drugs tested, only four caused nodules to form inside the neurites, resembling beads on a string. All four drugs were statins.

Science Codex
Fri, 10 May 2013 03:42 CDT

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and physicians continue to document that some patients experience fuzzy thinking and memory loss while taking statins, a class of global top-selling cholesterol-lowering drugs. 

A University of Arizona research team has made a novel discovery in brain cells being treated with statin drugs: unusual swellings within neurons, which the team has termed the “beads-on-a-string” effect. 

The team is not entirely sure why the beads form, said UA neuroscientist Linda L. Restifo, who leads the investigation. However, the team believes that further investigation of the beads will help inform why some people experience cognitive declines while taking statins. 

“What we think we’ve found is a laboratory demonstration of a problem in the neuron that is a more severe version for what is happening in some peoples’ brains when they take statins,” said Restifo, a UA professor of neuroscience, neurology and cellular and molecular medicine, and principal investigator on the project. 

Restifo and her team’s co-authored study and findings recently were published in Disease Models & Mechanisms, a peer-reviewed journal. Robert Kraft, a former research associate in the department of neuroscience, is lead author on the article. 

Restifo and Kraft cite clinical reports noting that statin users often are told by physicians that cognitive disturbances experienced while taking statins were likely due to aging or other effects. However, the UA team’s research offers additional evidence that the cause for such declines in cognition is likely due to a negative response to statins. 

The team also has found that removing statins results in a disappearance of the beads-on-a-string, and also a restoration of normal growth. With research continuing, the UA team intends to investigate how genetics may be involved in the bead formation and, thus, could cause hypersensitivity to the drugs in people. Team members believe that genetic differences could involve neurons directly, or the statin interaction with the blood-brain barrier. 

“This is a great first step on the road toward more personalized medication and therapy,” said David M. Labiner, who heads the UA department of neurology. “If we can figure out a way to identify patients who will have certain side effects, we can improve therapeutic outcomes.” 

For now, the UA team has multiple external grants pending, and researchers carry the hope that future research will greatly inform the medical community and patients. 

“If we are able to do genetic studies, the goal will be to come up with a predictive test so that a patient with high cholesterol could be tested first to determine whether they have a sensitivity to statins,” Restifo said. 

Detecting, understanding a drugs’ side effects 

Restifo used the analogy of traffic to explain what she and her colleagues theorize. 

The beads indicate a sort of traffic jam, she described. In the presence of statins, neurons undergo a “dramatic change in their morphology,” said Restifo, also a BIO5 Institute member. 

Those very, very dramatic and obvious swellings are inside the neurons and act like a traffic pileup that is so bad that it disrupts the function of the neurons,” she said. 

It was Kraft’s observations that led to team’s novel discovery. Restifo, Kraft and their colleagues had long been investigating mutations in genes, largely for the benefit of advancing discoveries toward the improved treatment of autism and other cognitive disorders. 

At the time, and using a blind-screened library of 1,040 drug compounds, the team ran tests on fruit fly neurons, investigating the reduction of defects caused by a mutation when neurons were exposed to different drugs. The team had shown that one mutation caused the neuron branches to be curly instead of straight, but certain drugs corrected this. The research findings were published in 2006 in the Journal of Neuroscience

Then, something serendipitous occurred: Kraft observed that one compound, then another and then two more all created the same reaction – “these bulges, which we called beads-on-a-string,'” Kraft said. “And they were the only drugs causing this effect.” 

At the end of the earlier investigation, the team decoded the library and found that the four compounds that resulted in the beads-on-a-string were, in fact, statins. 

© Linda Restifo/University of Arizona
Neurons whose mitochondria are labeled with green fluorescent protein (GFP) reveal that statins cause mitochondria to pile up inside the branches that neurons use to connect with each other.

“The ‘beads’ effect of the statins was like a bonus prize from the earlier experiment,” Restifo said. “It was so striking, we couldn’t ignore it.” 

In addition to detecting the beads effect, the team came upon yet another major finding: when statins are removed, the beads-on-a-string effect disappears, offering great promise to those being treated with the drugs. 

“For some patients, just as much as statins work to save their lives, they can cause impairments,” said Monica Chaung, who has been part of the team and is a UA undergraduate researcher studying molecular and cellular biology and physiology. 

“It’s not a one drug fits all,” said Chaung, a UA junior who is also in the Honors College. “We suspect different gene mutations alter how people respond to statins.” 

Having been trained by Kraft in techniques to investigate cultured neurons, Chuang was testing gene mutations and found variation in sensitivity to statins. It was through the work of Chuang and Kraft that the team would later determine that, after removing the statins, the cells were able to repair themselves; the neurotoxicity was not permanent, Restifo said. 

“In the clinical literature, you can read reports on fuzzy thinking, which stops when a patient stops taking statins. So, that was a very important demonstration of a parallel between the clinical reports and the laboratory phenomena,” Restifo said. 

The finding led the team to further investigate the neurotoxicity of statins. 

“There is no question that these are very important and very useful drugs,” Restifo said. Statins have been shown to lower cholesterol and prevent heart attacks and strokes. 

But too much remains unknown about how the drugs’ effects may contribute to muscular, cognitive and behavioral changes. 

“We don’t know the implications of the beads, but we have a number of hypotheses to test,” Restifo said, adding that further studies should reveal exactly what happens when the transportation system within neurons is disrupted. 

Also, given the move toward prescribing statins to children, the need to have an expanded understanding of the effects of statins on cognitive development is critical, Kraft said. 

“If statins have an effect on how the nervous system matures, that could be devastating,” Kraft said. “Memory loss or any sort of disruption of your memory and cognition can have quite severe effects and negative consequences.” 

Restifo and her colleagues have multiple grants pending that would enable the team to continue investigating several facets related to the neurotoxicity of statins. Among the major questions is, to what extent does genetics contribute to a person’s sensitivity to statins? 

“We have no idea who is at risk. That makes us think that we can use this genetic laboratory assay to infer which of the genes make people susceptible,” Restifo said. 

“This dramatic change in the morphology of the neurons is something we can now use to ask questions and experiment in the laboratory,” she said. “Our contribution is to find a way to ask about genetics and what the genetic vulnerability factors are.” 

The possibility for future research, advice 

The team’s findings and future research could have important implications for the medical field and for patients with regard to treatment, communication and improved personalized medicine. 

“It’s important to look into this to see if people may have some sort of predisposition to the beads effect, and that’s where we want to go with this research,” Kraft said. “There must be more research into what effects these drugs have other than just controlling a person’s elevated cholesterol levels.” 

And even as additional research is ongoing, suggestions already exist for physicians, patients and families. 

“Most physicians assume that if a patient doesn’t report side effects, there are no side effects,” Labiner said. “The paternalistic days of medication are hopefully behind us. They should be.” 

“We can treat lots of things, but the problem is if there are side effects that worsen the treatment, the patient is more likely to shy away from the medication. That’s a bad outcome,” he said. “There’s got to be a give and take between the patient and physician.” 

Patients should feel empowered to ask questions, and deeper questions, about their health and treatment and physicians should be very attentive to any reports of cognitive decline for those patients on statins, she said. 

For some, it starts early after starting statins; for others, it takes time. And the signs vary. People may begin losing track of dates, the time or their keys. 

“These are not trivial things. This could have a significant impact on your daily life, your interpersonal relationships, your ability to hold a job,” Restifo said. 

“This is the part of the brain that allows us to think clearly, to plan, to hold onto memories,” she said. “If people are concerned that they are having this problem, patients should ask their physicians.” 

Restifo said open and direct patient-physician communication is even more important for those on statins who have a family history of side effects from statins. 

Also, physicians could work more closely with patients to investigate family history and determine a better dosage plan. Even placing additional questions on the family history questionnaire could be useful, she said. 

“There is good clinical data that every-other-day dosing give you most of the benefits, and maybe even prevents some of the accumulation of things that result in side effects,” Restifo said, suggesting that physicians should try and get a better longitudinal picture on how people react while on statins. 

“Statins have been around now for long enough and are widely prescribed to so many people,” she said. “But increased awareness could be very helpful.”

Comment: For more information on the devastation caused by lowering cholesterol drugs see Statin Nation by Justin Smith. 

 

Should women with gluten sensitivity breast feed?

Dr. Peter Osborne
Gluten Free Society
Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:00 CDT
 
 

Gluten and Breastfeeding 

The questions about breast feeding come up often in regards to gluten intolerance, sensitivity, and celiac disease. I have had patients tell me that their pediatrician would prefer they not breastfeed because of gluten issues in the baby. I have also had patients be told that their baby is allergic to breast milk and that formula is a better option. This is terrible advice, but unfortunately is is common advice. 

Breast Milk is the Ultimate Human Nutrition 

Breast feeding is the best source of nutrient dense food in babies regardless of disease status of the mother or the baby. The only exception to this rule is when the mother is taking medications that might harm the baby, or if the mother is eating a diet high in foods that the baby is allergic to. The diagram below illustrates some of the benefits of natural feeding VS. artificial formula use: 

Gluten Should Not Deter You From Breast Feeding 

Gluten can and does show up in mother’s milk. If your baby is gluten sensitive, gluten exposure through milk can cause multiple problems:

Colic 
FTT (failure to thrive) 
GERD (acid reflux) 
Hormone disruption 
Chronic diarrhea 
Eczema 
Chronic diaper rash 
Vomiting 
Seizure disorder

The presence of these issues should alert you to the need to have proper testing done to determine gluten sensitivity in you and your baby. The popularity of the gluten free diet has increased awareness, but many are going gluten free without a diagnosis. You don’t need a diagnosis to go gluten free. Despite what many so called experts say, there is no danger in avoiding grain. If you are concerned about the potential for gluten sensitivity in your baby, the easy solution is to consume a gluten free diet while you are breast feeding. You can access a list of foods to avoid here. If you would like to investigate the possibility of gluten sensitivity, the best determinant is genetic testing. If you cannot afford it, I have put together a quiz for you to take to help determine whether or not a gluten free diet is right for you. 

Additionally, you should investigate the possibility of other food allergies. The presence of food allergies can cause reactions in the baby that are just as detrimental as gluten. Remember that if you choose the route of formula feeding, you are voluntarily giving your baby genetically modified corn, sugar, soy, and or dairy. No child can thrive in a healthy manor eating those items as staple foods. 
If you want to investigate the horrible ways in which gluten can damage children, I would strongly encourage you to watch this video

As always, please share this information with your loved ones!

 

Study reveals GMO corn to be highly toxic

RT
Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:25 CDT

A leaked study examining genetically-modified corn reveals that the lab-made alternative to organic crops contains a startling level of toxic chemicals. 

An anti-GMO website has posted the results of an education-based consulting company’s comparison of corn types, and the results reveal that genetically modified foods may be more hazardous than once thought. 

The study, the 2012 Corn Comparison Report by Profit Pro, was published recently on the website for Moms Across America March to Label GMOs, a group that says they wish to “raise awareness and support Moms with solutions to eat GMO Free as we demand GMO labeling locally and nationally simultaneously.” They are plotting nationwide protests scheduled for later this year. 

The report, writes the website’s Zen Honeycutt, was provided by a representative for De Dell Seed Company, an Ontario-based farm that’s touted as being Canadian only non-GMO corn seed company. 

“The claims that ‘There is no difference between GMO corn and NON Gmo corn’ are false,” says Honeycutt, who adds she was “floored” after reading the study. 

According to the analysis, GMO corn tested by Profit Pro contains a number of elements absent from traditional corn, including chlorides, formaldehyde and glyphosate. While those elements don’t appear naturally in corn, they were present in GMO samples to the tune of 60 ppm, 200pm and 13 ppm, respectively. 

Honecutt says that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (FDA) mandates that the level of glyphosate in American drinking water not exceed 0.7 ppm and adds that organ damage in some animals has been linked to glyphosate exposure exceeding 0.1 ppm. 

“Glyphosate is a strong organic phosphate chelator that immobilizes positively charged minerals such as manganese, cobalt, iron, zinc [and] copper,” Dr. Don Huber attested during a separate GMO study recently released, adding that those elements “are essential for normal physiological functions in soils, plants and animals.” 

“Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it,” adds Honeycutt, who notes that the nutritional benefits rampant in natural corn are almost entirely removed from lab-made seeds: in the samples used during the study, non-GMO corn is alleged to have 437-times the amount of calcium in genetically modified versions, and 56- and 7-times the level of magnesium and manganese, respectively. 

These studies come on the heels of a recent decision on Capitol Hill to approve an annual agriculture appropriations bill, even though a provision within the act contained a rider that frees GMO corporations such as the multi-billion-dollar Monsanto Company from liability. The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” written by a lawmaker that has lobbied for the agra-giant, says biotech companies won’t need federal approval to test and plant GMO-crops, even if health risks are unknown. 

“The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards,” reads a letter to the House of Representatives that was delivered to Congress last month with the signatures of dozens of food businesses and retailers, as well as interest groups and agencies representing family farmers. “Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks.”

Roundup May Be Harmful

 
Which product is right for you?

DrMirkin May 12,2013

A study from MIT shows that the herbicide Roundup may be a cause of many diseases associated with our Western diet such as stomach and intestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease (Entropy 2013, 15(4), 1416-1463). Roundup contains the chemical Glyphosate. It is the most popular and probably the most effective herbicide used worldwide. Glyphosate from Roundup is found throughout our food supply, primarily in sugar, corn, soy and wheat.

This study shows that Glyphosate blocks cytochrome P450, an enzyme in the human liver that breaks down many of the toxic components in food to keep them from harming you. For example, blocking cytochrome P450 markedly increases damage to your body from other herbicides and insecticides that may remain on the foods that we eat.

The authors state that the damage “on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body”. Blocking the cytochrome P450 enzymes prevents intestinal bacteria from making the amino acid building blocks that form protein in our bodies, and prevents the body from making many sulfate-containing chemicals that control reactions that are necessary for your body to function normally.