Dr. Harriott's Comment:
Great... how many years later and now we learn that we have been innoculating our infants with pig virus DNA.
Oops!
But don't worry, folks... we have no proof that the 32.5 MILLION infants dosed in the U.S. will have any long term negative effects from the pig virus DNA.
Wow, I feel so much better :(
========================
Original Publication:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHealth/19986?utm_content=GroupCL&utm_medium=email&impressionId=1273307416380&utm_campaign=DailyHeadlines&utm_source=mSpoke&userid=241758
=================================================
Visit us online at www.MedPageToday.com
FDA Says Viral Contamination Found in Second Rotavirus Vaccine
By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Reviewed by
May 07, 2010
Review
GAITHERSBURG, Md. -- DNA from a pig virus has been detected in Merck's RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine, an FDA official announced during the opening session of a hearing on rotavirus vaccines.
The announcement means that both rotavirus vaccines on the market have been found to harbor the contaminant, although officials said there was no immediate health hazard.
Merck researchers detected "very low levels" of porcine circovirus 1 and 2 (PCV1 and PCV2) DNA in RotaTeq and immediately shared the results with the FDA, according to Merck and the FDA.
"There is no evidence at this time that DNA from PCV causes any disease in humans," said a statement posted on Merck's website. "We remain confident in the safety profile and quality of RotaTeq."
In March, the FDA reported that PCV1 had been detected in Rotarix, a rotavirus vaccine manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. Although the FDA said the virus didn't appear to be harmful to humans, with an alternative vaccine available, the agency recommended that clinicians discontinue use of Rotarix.
In the latest action, the FDA did not say whether RotaTeq should be avoided, but a top FDA official again stressed that the virus doesn't appear dangerous to humans.
"There is no evidence PCV1 poses a safety risk," said Norman Baylor, PhD, of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at a Friday meeting of the FDA's Vaccine and Related Biologics Advisory Committee (VRBAC).
Data on PCV2 is less robust, and the agency only became aware of the PCV2 contamination shortly before Friday's meeting.
Researchers with GlaxoSmithKline said Friday that their data prove the virus is benign, but that the company is committed to revamping its vaccine manufacturing process in order to produce Rotarix that is not contaminated with PCV1.
"This is a complex process and will take time," said Barbara Howe, MD, vice president of North American Vaccine Development.
Howe said the company is prepared to make the vaccine available again in the U.S.
Merck is the main provider of the rotavirus vaccine in the U.S. The company has distributed 30 million doses of RotaTeq here, and another seven million in other parts of the world.
GlaxoSmithKline's Rotarix meanwhile, is twice as widely-used as RotaTeq in foreign countries, but the company has provided just 2.5 million doses in the U.S., according to David Martin, MD, MPH, acting chief of CBER.
The VRBAC, which is a panel of outside experts, is meeting to discuss the contamination in Rotarix and the benefits and drawbacks of using new, more sensitive tests to check for viruses in the human vaccines. Those advanced detection methods were responsible for finding PCV1 in both rotavirus vaccines.
Both rotavirus vaccines are given orally to infants to prevent rotavirus disease, which can cause severe diarrhea and dehydration and is deemed responsible for the deaths of more than 500,000 infants around the world each year, primarily in low- and middle-income countries.
Disclaimer
The information presented in this activity is that of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, MedPage Today, and the commercial supporter. Specific medicines discussed in this activity may not yet be approved by the FDA for the use as indicated by the writer or reviewer. Before prescribing any medication, we advise you to review the complete prescribing information, including indications, contraindications, warnings, precautions, and adverse effects. Specific patient care decisions are the responsibility of the healthcare professional caring for the patient. Please review our Terms of Use.
© 2004-2010 MedPage Today, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Infant Dies 12 Hrs After Seasonal Flu Vaccine
Sad Story Out of Queensland, Australia...
National Flu shot fatality - toddler dies 12 hours after having vaccination
By Suellen Hinde
From: The Sunday Mail (Qld)
April 25, 2010 1:40AM
Twins given flu job; Ashley dies, Authorities caution jab for under-5s. Girl, 2, was fine 12 hours earlier
A FAMILY is in mourning after their toddler unexpectedly died less than 12 hours after receiving a seasonal flu vaccination.
Two-year-old twin Ashley Jade Epapara had been "perfectly fine" before dying at her Upper Mt Gravatt home, on Brisbane's southside, on April 9. Parents David and Nicole are shattered by the mysterious death of their baby girl. "It's dreadful, it's a very hard time," Mr Epapara said
yesterday.
National health authorities have ordered doctors to stop giving seasonal influenza vaccinations to children under five after dozens of serious reactions, including convulsions. Ashley's death is being investigated by police and the office of the coroner. A spokesman for Brisbane coroner John Lock confirmed yesterday that a report was being prepared.
Mrs Epapara told The Sunday Mail that "tests are being carried out" on her little girl. But the young mother didn't want to comment further as she began shaking and her eyes welled with tears. Ashley's twin sister, Jaime, also received the flu jab at the same time and is believed to have been vomiting the night before her sister died.
Asked whether he or his wife thought the influenza vaccine had anything to do with their child's death, Mr. Epapara said: "It's very coincidental."
More than 45 children experienced convulsions and fever, with some having to be taken to hospital in intensive care after receiving the vaccine in Western Australia. Queensland chief health officer Jeannette Young confirmed 15 children in Queensland had been recorded
as having an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Australia's chief medical officer Professor Jim Bishop said in a statement that the West Australian events were being "urgently investigated by health experts and the Therapeutic Goods Administration".
The World Health Organisation last year said a "small number of deaths" had occurred in people
vaccinated for influenza, with 65 million people vaccinated globally.
Copyright 2010 New s Limited. All times AEST (GMT +10).
National Flu shot fatality - toddler dies 12 hours after having vaccination
By Suellen Hinde
From: The Sunday Mail (Qld)
April 25, 2010 1:40AM
Twins given flu job; Ashley dies, Authorities caution jab for under-5s. Girl, 2, was fine 12 hours earlier
A FAMILY is in mourning after their toddler unexpectedly died less than 12 hours after receiving a seasonal flu vaccination.
Two-year-old twin Ashley Jade Epapara had been "perfectly fine" before dying at her Upper Mt Gravatt home, on Brisbane's southside, on April 9. Parents David and Nicole are shattered by the mysterious death of their baby girl. "It's dreadful, it's a very hard time," Mr Epapara said
yesterday.
National health authorities have ordered doctors to stop giving seasonal influenza vaccinations to children under five after dozens of serious reactions, including convulsions. Ashley's death is being investigated by police and the office of the coroner. A spokesman for Brisbane coroner John Lock confirmed yesterday that a report was being prepared.
Mrs Epapara told The Sunday Mail that "tests are being carried out" on her little girl. But the young mother didn't want to comment further as she began shaking and her eyes welled with tears. Ashley's twin sister, Jaime, also received the flu jab at the same time and is believed to have been vomiting the night before her sister died.
Asked whether he or his wife thought the influenza vaccine had anything to do with their child's death, Mr. Epapara said: "It's very coincidental."
More than 45 children experienced convulsions and fever, with some having to be taken to hospital in intensive care after receiving the vaccine in Western Australia. Queensland chief health officer Jeannette Young confirmed 15 children in Queensland had been recorded
as having an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Australia's chief medical officer Professor Jim Bishop said in a statement that the West Australian events were being "urgently investigated by health experts and the Therapeutic Goods Administration".
The World Health Organisation last year said a "small number of deaths" had occurred in people
vaccinated for influenza, with 65 million people vaccinated globally.
Copyright 2010 New s Limited. All times AEST (GMT +10).
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Vitamin B-6 Cures Colorectal CA?
Dr. Harriott's Comments:
Below my comments is an interesting abstract of meta-analysis study showing the relationship between vitamin B-6 and colorectal cancer.
We hear from time to time some news blurb about how vitamins don't significantly affect lifespan. Typically this conflicting information comes from studies funded by the medical industry itself. Nonetheless, vitamin supplements exist in the marketplace because of other studies... just like this B-6 study. So who is right?
In the end, the truth of the matter is that the healthiest person gets proper nutrition, exercise, sleep, and takes care of his/her body, mind and soul. When a problem does become apparent, the solution is not automatically sought in a pill bottle, but rather the root cause is pursued.
Proper nutrition is only one piece of the puzzle so simply taking B-6 will not prevent colon cancer. But if you are eating and living right, you will likely have plenty of vitamin B-6 naturally. And with greater levels of B-6 through your diet, or a combination of dietary sources and B-6 supplementation, it is clear that your chances for developing colon cancer is reduced by a significant amount. The same can be said of the results one can expect from taking any other "miracle vitamin" that has "research which shows" its benefits for this or that "disease".
The most important thing to understand, then, is that a disease is not a thing that you "zap" with a vitamin. It is a loss of proper function in your body. And such dysfunction typically does not cause just one disease, but rather increases your risk for many different problems. And the initiating dysfunction, or "cause", was what you do or don't do everyday.
Q. "What kind of a disease or dysfunction is your high blood pressure?"
A. "High blood pressure is not a disease, it is a symptom. The root cause or initiating dysfunction that caused this symptom is what I did every day for the last twenty years. The crappy food choices I made and when I chose to eat, not getting enough sleep, not properly dealing with stress, not making time to exercise, ... The dysfunction started out behavioral, and eventually worsened until it has now affected my organ systems. My solution will not be found in a pill, but rather in going back and correcting the root cause - the behavioral dysfunction that started it all."
Bottom line: Do the right thing and live well. It's just that easy...
And I can help. Your body's ability to adapt and right itself is dependent on neurological perception of your environment and coordination/control of your organ systems. I can help guide you and with chiropractic, I can help you to maintain full clear communication within your nervous system through chiropractic adjustments so that you can heal closer to 100% and more quickly recover your optimal health.
If you haven't been to my office, print out a coupon from my website http://www.mvchiro.com. If you are a patient already, print out a coupon for someone you love. I look forward to seeing you soon.
Dr. Harriott
=======================
Vitamin B6 and Risk of Colorectal Cancer
A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies
Susanna C. Larsson, PhD; Nicola Orsini, PhD; Alicja Wolk, DMSc
JAMA. 2010;303(11):1077-1083.
Context Mounting evidence indicates that vitamin B6, a coenzyme involved in nearly 100 enzymatic reactions, may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.
Objective To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis of prospective studies assessing the association of vitamin B6 intake or blood levels of pyridoxal 5'-phosphate (PLP; the active form of vitamin B6) with risk of colorectal cancer.
Data Sources Relevant studies were identified by a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to February 2010, with no restrictions. We also reviewed reference lists from retrieved articles.
Study Selection We included prospective studies that reported relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between vitamin B6 intake or blood PLP levels and the risk of colorectal, colon, or rectal cancer.
Data Extraction Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Study-specific RRs were pooled using a random-effects model.
Data Synthesis Nine studies on vitamin B6 intake and 4 studies on blood PLP levels were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled RRs of colorectal cancer for the highest vs lowest category of vitamin B6 intake and blood PLP levels were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.75-1.07) and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.38-0.71), respectively. There was heterogeneity among studies of vitamin B6 intake (P = .01) but not among studies of blood PLP levels (P = .95). Omitting 1 study that contributed substantially to the heterogeneity among studies of vitamin B6 intake yielded a pooled RR of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69-0.92). The risk of colorectal cancer decreased by 49% for every 100-pmol/mL increase (approximately 2 SDs) in blood PLP levels (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.69).
Conclusion Vitamin B6 intake and blood PLP levels were inversely associated with the risk of colorectal cancer in this meta-analysis.
Author Affiliations: Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, National Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Below my comments is an interesting abstract of meta-analysis study showing the relationship between vitamin B-6 and colorectal cancer.
We hear from time to time some news blurb about how vitamins don't significantly affect lifespan. Typically this conflicting information comes from studies funded by the medical industry itself. Nonetheless, vitamin supplements exist in the marketplace because of other studies... just like this B-6 study. So who is right?
In the end, the truth of the matter is that the healthiest person gets proper nutrition, exercise, sleep, and takes care of his/her body, mind and soul. When a problem does become apparent, the solution is not automatically sought in a pill bottle, but rather the root cause is pursued.
Proper nutrition is only one piece of the puzzle so simply taking B-6 will not prevent colon cancer. But if you are eating and living right, you will likely have plenty of vitamin B-6 naturally. And with greater levels of B-6 through your diet, or a combination of dietary sources and B-6 supplementation, it is clear that your chances for developing colon cancer is reduced by a significant amount. The same can be said of the results one can expect from taking any other "miracle vitamin" that has "research which shows" its benefits for this or that "disease".
The most important thing to understand, then, is that a disease is not a thing that you "zap" with a vitamin. It is a loss of proper function in your body. And such dysfunction typically does not cause just one disease, but rather increases your risk for many different problems. And the initiating dysfunction, or "cause", was what you do or don't do everyday.
Q. "What kind of a disease or dysfunction is your high blood pressure?"
A. "High blood pressure is not a disease, it is a symptom. The root cause or initiating dysfunction that caused this symptom is what I did every day for the last twenty years. The crappy food choices I made and when I chose to eat, not getting enough sleep, not properly dealing with stress, not making time to exercise, ... The dysfunction started out behavioral, and eventually worsened until it has now affected my organ systems. My solution will not be found in a pill, but rather in going back and correcting the root cause - the behavioral dysfunction that started it all."
Bottom line: Do the right thing and live well. It's just that easy...
And I can help. Your body's ability to adapt and right itself is dependent on neurological perception of your environment and coordination/control of your organ systems. I can help guide you and with chiropractic, I can help you to maintain full clear communication within your nervous system through chiropractic adjustments so that you can heal closer to 100% and more quickly recover your optimal health.
If you haven't been to my office, print out a coupon from my website http://www.mvchiro.com. If you are a patient already, print out a coupon for someone you love. I look forward to seeing you soon.
Dr. Harriott
=======================
Vitamin B6 and Risk of Colorectal Cancer
A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies
Susanna C. Larsson, PhD; Nicola Orsini, PhD; Alicja Wolk, DMSc
JAMA. 2010;303(11):1077-1083.
Context Mounting evidence indicates that vitamin B6, a coenzyme involved in nearly 100 enzymatic reactions, may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.
Objective To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis of prospective studies assessing the association of vitamin B6 intake or blood levels of pyridoxal 5'-phosphate (PLP; the active form of vitamin B6) with risk of colorectal cancer.
Data Sources Relevant studies were identified by a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to February 2010, with no restrictions. We also reviewed reference lists from retrieved articles.
Study Selection We included prospective studies that reported relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between vitamin B6 intake or blood PLP levels and the risk of colorectal, colon, or rectal cancer.
Data Extraction Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Study-specific RRs were pooled using a random-effects model.
Data Synthesis Nine studies on vitamin B6 intake and 4 studies on blood PLP levels were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled RRs of colorectal cancer for the highest vs lowest category of vitamin B6 intake and blood PLP levels were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.75-1.07) and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.38-0.71), respectively. There was heterogeneity among studies of vitamin B6 intake (P = .01) but not among studies of blood PLP levels (P = .95). Omitting 1 study that contributed substantially to the heterogeneity among studies of vitamin B6 intake yielded a pooled RR of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69-0.92). The risk of colorectal cancer decreased by 49% for every 100-pmol/mL increase (approximately 2 SDs) in blood PLP levels (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.69).
Conclusion Vitamin B6 intake and blood PLP levels were inversely associated with the risk of colorectal cancer in this meta-analysis.
Author Affiliations: Division of Nutritional Epidemiology, National Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Tips to Lower LDL Cholesterol
We know that in cases of arterial blockage, cholesterol is a significant constituent of the material that builds up. The conventional medical wisdom recognizes that the severity and frequency of such blockages are statistically greater with higher serum levels of LDL cholesterol. Many health professionals believe that that the culprit is actually damage that occurs to the lining of the blood vessels to which the cholesterol adheres. They believe that the vessel damage is but one manifestation of a more systemic pro-inflammatory condition and that the maintenance of high serum cholesterol levels is the body's reaction to that systemic inflammation. In other words, if your entire body is at in elevated inflammatory state, then the inflammation in the lining of the blood vessels actually attracts cholesterol as a sort of self defense mechanism and ultimately results in clogging of the affected vessels. But we should understand that this happens along with a host of other problems occurring simultaneously in other organ systems elsewhere in the body. Clearly, we all know by now that clogging arteries is not the only bad thing going on in this scenario. So my picking this apart is intened to provide you with a clearer picture of what is happening than to simply attribute this to some faceless pesky cholesterol generator gone awry.
This, by the way, reminds me of a story that was attributed to the developer of Chiropractic, Dr. BJ Palmer. In this story, he told of a time when he had occasion to see the carcass of a dead cow in a field. Upon inspection, he observed that the body cavity was full of fly larvae and reached the only logical conclusion... That the cow had died of a maggot attack. - LOL
Yes, I do believe that the cholesterol issue is more of a chicken or egg question than the medical establishment purports it to be (pardon the pun :). Conveniently, though, the non-pharmaceutical action steps you should take to correct the situation are identical whether your intent is to reduce your systemic inflammatory state or to lower your serum cholesterol levels. In fact, were it not for the medical industry's "solution" of prescribing statin drugs to force the cholesterol numbers down, I would say that the question is moot. But since cholesterol is a primary component of the the cell membrane, the "brains" of every single living cell of your body, blindly forcing cholesterol numbers down will eventually be shown to be another well-intentioned but not entirely correct approach to improving overall health.
It is with this background, that I present you with an edited version of "11 Tips to Cut Your Cholesterol Fast", which was originally written by David Freeman and published on MedPage Today. You can get the unedited version on MedPage where you will find that I removed their suggestion for statin drug prescription, "Tip #2", and a statement that "if your cardiovascular risk is high, you may need to take a cholesterol lowering drug." I'm not saying that there is no place for drug therapy, only that every single individual should only consult an MD about drug therapy for high cholesterol after attempting to address the other risk factors such as obesity, smoking, high blood pressure and poor dietary habits.
10 Tips to Cut Your Cholesterol Fast
Got high cholesterol? Learn what you can do to lower it quickly -- starting today.
If you think that the normal reading you got back in 2004 (or earlier) means you're in the clear, think again: Cholesterol levels often rise with age, and cardiologists say everyone 20 or older should be screened for high cholesterol at least once every five years, with more frequent screenings for anyone deemed to be at high risk for heart disease. If it's been awhile since your last cholesterol screening, now's a good time to ask your doctor if you're due for one.
The good news? If your fasting total cholesterol level exceeds the desirable level of 200, or if your low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or "bad”) cholesterol is above 100, getting it down to a safer level could be easier than you think. In fact, with simple lifestyle modifications people often see significant reductions in cholesterol within six weeks.
Here are 10 tips from WebMD health experts on how to cut high cholesterol fast:
Get Your Personalized Cholesterol Health Assessment
1. Set a target.
You know you've got to get your cholesterol number down, but how low do you need to go? That depends on several factors, including your personal and family history of heart disease, as well as whether you have cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, and smoking.
If your risk is deemed high, "most doctors will treat for a target LDL of less than 70," says James Beckerman, MD, a cardiologist in private practice in Portland, Ore. If your risk is moderate, a target LDL of under 130 is generally OK, Beckerman says. If your risk is low, less than 160 is a reasonable target. "The trend now is to treat people earlier, especially if they have two or more risk factors," he says.
2. Get moving.
In addition to lowering LDL "bad" cholesterol, regular physical activity can raise HDL "good" cholesterol by up to 10%. The benefits come even with moderate exercise, such as brisk walking.
Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, N.C., urges his patients to go for a 45-minute walk after supper.
Peeke tells WebMD, "I ask people to get a pedometer and aim for 10,000 steps a day. If you work at a desk, get up and walk around for five minutes every hour."
Whatever form your exercise takes, the key is to do it with regularity. "Some experts recommend seven days a week, although I think five days is more realistic," Richman says.
3. Reduce your consumption of saturated fat.
Doctors used to think that the key to lowering high cholesterol was to cut back on eggs and other cholesterol-rich foods. But now it's clear that dietary cholesterol isn't the main culprit. "Eggs don't do all that much to raise cholesterol," Beckerman says. Recent data suggests that excessive consumption of saturated fat correlates with higher cholesterol levels.
"One of the first things to do when you're trying to lower your cholesterol level is to take saturated fat down a few notches," says Elaine Magee, MPH, RD, the author of several nutrition books, including the forthcoming Tell Me What to Eat If I Have Heart Disease. "The second thing to do is to start eating more 'smart' fats," Magee says. She recommends substituting canola oil or olive oil for vegetable oil, butter, stick margarine, lard, or shortening while cutting back on fatty meats while eating more fish.
4. Eat more fiber.
Fruits and vegetables, including whole grains, are good sources not only of heart-healthy antioxidants but also cholesterol-lowering dietary fiber. Soluble fiber, in particular, can help lower cholesterol. Beckerman says it "acts like a sponge to absorb cholesterol "in the digestive tract. Good sources of soluble fiber include dried beans, oats, and barley, as well as fiber products containing psyllium. [This seems to contradict the finding that "dietary cholesterol is not the main culprit". But if you look at the reduction of saturated animal fats which are known to be raw materials that lead to the overproduction of the primary inflammatory agent, arachidonic acid, you can see that shifting the diet towards more anti-oxidant-rich fruits and vegetables will certainly help counteract that inflammation, and, thus, lower blood cholesterol as well - Dr. H].
5. Go fish.
Fish and fish oil are a great source of cholesterol-lowering omega-3 fatty acids. "Fish oil supplements can have a profound effect on cholesterol and triglycerides," Beckerman says. "There's a lot of scientific evidence to support their use." Fish oil is considered to be quite safe, but check with your doctor first if you are taking an anti-clotting medication. [Their beneficial effect is understood to shift the balance of fat metabolism away from the production of arachidonic acid, thus lowering system inflammation, and subsequently, reducing the maintenance of high serum cholesterol levels. - Dr. H]
Magee recommends eating fish two or three times a week. "Salmon is great, as it has lots of omega-3s,"she says. But even canned tuna has omega-3s, and it's more consumer-friendly. The American Heart Association also recommends fish as the preferable source of omega-3s, but fish oil capsule supplements can be considered after consultation with your physician. Plant sources of omega-3s include soybeans, canola, flaxseeds, walnuts, and their oils, but they don't provide the same omega-3s as fish. The biggest heart benefits have been linked to omega-3s found in fish. [ Beware of the fact that eating too much fish can expose you to additional mercury, which is a bad thing, so do this in moderation. - Dr. H ]
6. Drink up.
Moderate consumption of alcohol can raise levels of HDL "good" cholesterol by as much as 10%. Doctors say up to one drink a day makes sense for women, up to two a day for men. But given the risks of excessive drinking, the American Heart Association cautions against increasing your alcohol intake or starting to drink if you don't already.
7. Drink green.
Magee suggests green tea as a healthier alternative to sodas and sugary beverages. Indeed, research in both animals and humans has shown that green tea contains compounds that can help lower LDL cholesterol. In a small-scale study conducted recently in Brazil, people who took capsules containing a green tea extract experienced a 4.5% reduction in LDL cholesterol.
8. Eat nuts.
Extensive research has demonstrated that regular consumption of nuts can bring modest reductions in cholesterol. Walnuts and almonds seem particularly beneficial. But nuts are high in calories, so limit yourself to a handful a day, experts say.
9. Switch spreads.
Recent years have seen the introduction of margarine-like spreads and other foods fortified with cholesterol-lowering plant compounds known as stanols. [I haven't removed this item, but I will say that you're better off just eating less butter than adding hydrogenated fats, stanols or no stanols. Bottom line is that if it is a vegetable oil product that is solid at room temperature, you're better off sticking with the butter. Just try to eat less of it. - Dr. H]
10. Don't smoke.
Smoking lowers levels of HDL "good" cholesterol and is a major risk factor for heart disease.
This, by the way, reminds me of a story that was attributed to the developer of Chiropractic, Dr. BJ Palmer. In this story, he told of a time when he had occasion to see the carcass of a dead cow in a field. Upon inspection, he observed that the body cavity was full of fly larvae and reached the only logical conclusion... That the cow had died of a maggot attack. - LOL
Yes, I do believe that the cholesterol issue is more of a chicken or egg question than the medical establishment purports it to be (pardon the pun :). Conveniently, though, the non-pharmaceutical action steps you should take to correct the situation are identical whether your intent is to reduce your systemic inflammatory state or to lower your serum cholesterol levels. In fact, were it not for the medical industry's "solution" of prescribing statin drugs to force the cholesterol numbers down, I would say that the question is moot. But since cholesterol is a primary component of the the cell membrane, the "brains" of every single living cell of your body, blindly forcing cholesterol numbers down will eventually be shown to be another well-intentioned but not entirely correct approach to improving overall health.
It is with this background, that I present you with an edited version of "11 Tips to Cut Your Cholesterol Fast", which was originally written by David Freeman and published on MedPage Today. You can get the unedited version on MedPage where you will find that I removed their suggestion for statin drug prescription, "Tip #2", and a statement that "if your cardiovascular risk is high, you may need to take a cholesterol lowering drug." I'm not saying that there is no place for drug therapy, only that every single individual should only consult an MD about drug therapy for high cholesterol after attempting to address the other risk factors such as obesity, smoking, high blood pressure and poor dietary habits.
10 Tips to Cut Your Cholesterol Fast
Got high cholesterol? Learn what you can do to lower it quickly -- starting today.
If you think that the normal reading you got back in 2004 (or earlier) means you're in the clear, think again: Cholesterol levels often rise with age, and cardiologists say everyone 20 or older should be screened for high cholesterol at least once every five years, with more frequent screenings for anyone deemed to be at high risk for heart disease. If it's been awhile since your last cholesterol screening, now's a good time to ask your doctor if you're due for one.
The good news? If your fasting total cholesterol level exceeds the desirable level of 200, or if your low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or "bad”) cholesterol is above 100, getting it down to a safer level could be easier than you think. In fact, with simple lifestyle modifications people often see significant reductions in cholesterol within six weeks.
Here are 10 tips from WebMD health experts on how to cut high cholesterol fast:
Get Your Personalized Cholesterol Health Assessment
1. Set a target.
You know you've got to get your cholesterol number down, but how low do you need to go? That depends on several factors, including your personal and family history of heart disease, as well as whether you have cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, and smoking.
If your risk is deemed high, "most doctors will treat for a target LDL of less than 70," says James Beckerman, MD, a cardiologist in private practice in Portland, Ore. If your risk is moderate, a target LDL of under 130 is generally OK, Beckerman says. If your risk is low, less than 160 is a reasonable target. "The trend now is to treat people earlier, especially if they have two or more risk factors," he says.
2. Get moving.
In addition to lowering LDL "bad" cholesterol, regular physical activity can raise HDL "good" cholesterol by up to 10%. The benefits come even with moderate exercise, such as brisk walking.
Robert Harrington, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, N.C., urges his patients to go for a 45-minute walk after supper.
Peeke tells WebMD, "I ask people to get a pedometer and aim for 10,000 steps a day. If you work at a desk, get up and walk around for five minutes every hour."
Whatever form your exercise takes, the key is to do it with regularity. "Some experts recommend seven days a week, although I think five days is more realistic," Richman says.
3. Reduce your consumption of saturated fat.
Doctors used to think that the key to lowering high cholesterol was to cut back on eggs and other cholesterol-rich foods. But now it's clear that dietary cholesterol isn't the main culprit. "Eggs don't do all that much to raise cholesterol," Beckerman says. Recent data suggests that excessive consumption of saturated fat correlates with higher cholesterol levels.
"One of the first things to do when you're trying to lower your cholesterol level is to take saturated fat down a few notches," says Elaine Magee, MPH, RD, the author of several nutrition books, including the forthcoming Tell Me What to Eat If I Have Heart Disease. "The second thing to do is to start eating more 'smart' fats," Magee says. She recommends substituting canola oil or olive oil for vegetable oil, butter, stick margarine, lard, or shortening while cutting back on fatty meats while eating more fish.
4. Eat more fiber.
Fruits and vegetables, including whole grains, are good sources not only of heart-healthy antioxidants but also cholesterol-lowering dietary fiber. Soluble fiber, in particular, can help lower cholesterol. Beckerman says it "acts like a sponge to absorb cholesterol "in the digestive tract. Good sources of soluble fiber include dried beans, oats, and barley, as well as fiber products containing psyllium. [This seems to contradict the finding that "dietary cholesterol is not the main culprit". But if you look at the reduction of saturated animal fats which are known to be raw materials that lead to the overproduction of the primary inflammatory agent, arachidonic acid, you can see that shifting the diet towards more anti-oxidant-rich fruits and vegetables will certainly help counteract that inflammation, and, thus, lower blood cholesterol as well - Dr. H].
5. Go fish.
Fish and fish oil are a great source of cholesterol-lowering omega-3 fatty acids. "Fish oil supplements can have a profound effect on cholesterol and triglycerides," Beckerman says. "There's a lot of scientific evidence to support their use." Fish oil is considered to be quite safe, but check with your doctor first if you are taking an anti-clotting medication. [Their beneficial effect is understood to shift the balance of fat metabolism away from the production of arachidonic acid, thus lowering system inflammation, and subsequently, reducing the maintenance of high serum cholesterol levels. - Dr. H]
Magee recommends eating fish two or three times a week. "Salmon is great, as it has lots of omega-3s,"she says. But even canned tuna has omega-3s, and it's more consumer-friendly. The American Heart Association also recommends fish as the preferable source of omega-3s, but fish oil capsule supplements can be considered after consultation with your physician. Plant sources of omega-3s include soybeans, canola, flaxseeds, walnuts, and their oils, but they don't provide the same omega-3s as fish. The biggest heart benefits have been linked to omega-3s found in fish. [ Beware of the fact that eating too much fish can expose you to additional mercury, which is a bad thing, so do this in moderation. - Dr. H ]
6. Drink up.
Moderate consumption of alcohol can raise levels of HDL "good" cholesterol by as much as 10%. Doctors say up to one drink a day makes sense for women, up to two a day for men. But given the risks of excessive drinking, the American Heart Association cautions against increasing your alcohol intake or starting to drink if you don't already.
7. Drink green.
Magee suggests green tea as a healthier alternative to sodas and sugary beverages. Indeed, research in both animals and humans has shown that green tea contains compounds that can help lower LDL cholesterol. In a small-scale study conducted recently in Brazil, people who took capsules containing a green tea extract experienced a 4.5% reduction in LDL cholesterol.
8. Eat nuts.
Extensive research has demonstrated that regular consumption of nuts can bring modest reductions in cholesterol. Walnuts and almonds seem particularly beneficial. But nuts are high in calories, so limit yourself to a handful a day, experts say.
9. Switch spreads.
Recent years have seen the introduction of margarine-like spreads and other foods fortified with cholesterol-lowering plant compounds known as stanols. [I haven't removed this item, but I will say that you're better off just eating less butter than adding hydrogenated fats, stanols or no stanols. Bottom line is that if it is a vegetable oil product that is solid at room temperature, you're better off sticking with the butter. Just try to eat less of it. - Dr. H]
10. Don't smoke.
Smoking lowers levels of HDL "good" cholesterol and is a major risk factor for heart disease.
Maternal Folate Supplementation Culprit in Childhood Asthma?
Dr. Harriott's Comment:
If you know someone who is pregnant, please share this information with them. Typically, folate supplementation has been recommended as part of prenatal vitamins for years to prevent congenital developmental spinal disorders, such as spina bifida. OB's will likely continue to recommend supplementation. However, with a 66% increase in asthma risk, this is a conversation an expectant mother wants to have with her OB regarding supplementation levels and timing. Apparently, the recommendations are still a work in progress.
=======================================
AAAAI: Folate-Asthma Link Depends on Timing
By Crystal Phend, Senior Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: March 03, 2010
Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco and
Dorothy Caputo, MA, RN, BC-ADM, CDE, Nurse Planner
NEW ORLEANS -- High folate levels in utero may increase a child's future asthma risk, while those in the child's early years make little difference, according to two studies reported here.
In a Norwegian cohort, second trimester maternal folate levels over 17.84 nmol/L -- a level that might be expected with supplementation -- were associated with 66% elevated risk of the child having asthma at age 3 years (95% CI 16% to 237%).
This appeared to be a dose-dependent relationship (P<0.01), said Siri E. Haberg, MD, PhD, of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo, who presented the results at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology meeting.Action Points
Explain to interested patients that high folate levels in utero may increase a child's future asthma risk, while those in the child's early years make little difference, according to two studies reported here.
Note that these studies were published as abstracts and presented at a conference. These data and conclusions should be considered to be preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.
In an American cohort, children's own folate levels at age 4 held little correlation with development of asthma by age 6, according to a second group led by Adesua Y. Okupa, MD, of the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Timing may be important, Haberg noted.
Any mild deleterious effects on asthma risk from folate use wouldn't outweigh the benefit of preventing life-threatening congenital defects, said Haberg's co-author Stephanie J. London, MD, DrPH, of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Sciences in Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Women of childbearing age should not stop taking folic acid supplements -- recommended to prevent neural tube defects -- based on these observational results, agreed Stanley J. Szefler, MD, of National Jewish Health in Denver, who was not involved in either study.
But the findings seem to fit with emerging evidence in animal studies that more is not always better, he said.
"Giving too much folate can also have effects on DNA methylation, which may trigger off genes to work maybe the way you don't want them to," Szefler told MedPage Today.
There may be an optimal level of folate to maximize neurological and congenital development of an infant, but minimize harmful epigenetic effects, he said.
Until studies determine what that is, women should take the amount deemed necessary but avoid taking excessive amounts, Szefler recommended.
Haberg's group analyzed outcomes for 507 children with athsma and 1,455 without it at age 3, all of whose mothers had provided blood samples at around 18 weeks' gestation as part of the larger, population-based Norwegian Mother and Child Study.
Norway is a good place to look for folate effects because it does not fortify the food supply with folic acid and thus has a greater range of levels among the population, London noted.
Overall, women in the highest folate quintile had the significant 66% elevated risk of their child having asthma as a toddler, after adjustment for maternal atopy, smoking, and other confounders.
Those in the intermediate quintiles conferred 16% to 48% higher adjusted risk to their child as well compared with the lowest 5.54-nmol/L and under group, although only significant for the third quintile with folate levels of 7.68 to 10.60 nmol/L.
In a sensitivity analysis of 422 women not on folic acid supplements at the time of their second trimester blood test, the adjusted risk of asthma in the child rose again with folate exposure in utero (P=0.011). The adjusted odds were significant for women over the 70th percentile (odds ratio 1.34 at 7.297 to 15.835 nmol/L) and those over the 95th percentile (OR 1.44 for above 15.835 nmol/L).
Okupa's study was an analysis of the prospective Childhood Origins of Asthma study of a high-risk birth cohort.
Among 220 kids with folate measured at age 4, 30% developed asthma and 49% were positive for allergic sensitization by age 6 years.
Allergies appeared to be more common in children with higher folate levels (P=0.01), whereas asthma showed no such association (P=0.81). Adjustment for socioeconomic status and other confounders didn't impact these results.
"It is possible that there is a critical period where folic acid supplement dosages may be manipulated to maximize neuroprotective effects yet minimize the adverse respiratory effects," Okupa said at the session where she presented the results.
Haberg's group cautioned that, despite adjustment for important variables, confounding remained a possible explanation for the modest effects seen in their study. The study was also limited by follow-up only to 3 years at this point, which may not be old enough to establish a diagnosis of asthma, Haberg said in an interview.
Szefler noted that folate levels fluctuate from day to day based on diet, so a single blood measurement may not have accurately conveyed exposure.
"It's very hard to make those comparisons," he said in an interview. "Right now there's not a standard level that you should have."
Okupa's study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Okupa reported no conflicts of interest.
London's study was supported by the Norwegian Research Council. The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study is supported by the Norwegian Ministry of Health Division of Intramural Research, NEIHS/NIH, NIH/NINDS, and the Norwegian Research Council/FUGE.
Szefler reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Primary source: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology
Source reference:
Haberg SE, et al "Maternal folate levels in pregnancy and asthma at 3 years of age" AAAAI 2010; Abstract 505.
Additional source: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology
Source reference:
Okupa AY, et al "Relationships among folate, allergic sensitization, wheezing, and asthma" AAAAI 2010; Abstract 217.
If you know someone who is pregnant, please share this information with them. Typically, folate supplementation has been recommended as part of prenatal vitamins for years to prevent congenital developmental spinal disorders, such as spina bifida. OB's will likely continue to recommend supplementation. However, with a 66% increase in asthma risk, this is a conversation an expectant mother wants to have with her OB regarding supplementation levels and timing. Apparently, the recommendations are still a work in progress.
=======================================
AAAAI: Folate-Asthma Link Depends on Timing
By Crystal Phend, Senior Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: March 03, 2010
Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco and
Dorothy Caputo, MA, RN, BC-ADM, CDE, Nurse Planner
NEW ORLEANS -- High folate levels in utero may increase a child's future asthma risk, while those in the child's early years make little difference, according to two studies reported here.
In a Norwegian cohort, second trimester maternal folate levels over 17.84 nmol/L -- a level that might be expected with supplementation -- were associated with 66% elevated risk of the child having asthma at age 3 years (95% CI 16% to 237%).
This appeared to be a dose-dependent relationship (P<0.01), said Siri E. Haberg, MD, PhD, of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo, who presented the results at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology meeting.Action Points
Explain to interested patients that high folate levels in utero may increase a child's future asthma risk, while those in the child's early years make little difference, according to two studies reported here.
Note that these studies were published as abstracts and presented at a conference. These data and conclusions should be considered to be preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.
In an American cohort, children's own folate levels at age 4 held little correlation with development of asthma by age 6, according to a second group led by Adesua Y. Okupa, MD, of the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Timing may be important, Haberg noted.
Any mild deleterious effects on asthma risk from folate use wouldn't outweigh the benefit of preventing life-threatening congenital defects, said Haberg's co-author Stephanie J. London, MD, DrPH, of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Sciences in Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Women of childbearing age should not stop taking folic acid supplements -- recommended to prevent neural tube defects -- based on these observational results, agreed Stanley J. Szefler, MD, of National Jewish Health in Denver, who was not involved in either study.
But the findings seem to fit with emerging evidence in animal studies that more is not always better, he said.
"Giving too much folate can also have effects on DNA methylation, which may trigger off genes to work maybe the way you don't want them to," Szefler told MedPage Today.
There may be an optimal level of folate to maximize neurological and congenital development of an infant, but minimize harmful epigenetic effects, he said.
Until studies determine what that is, women should take the amount deemed necessary but avoid taking excessive amounts, Szefler recommended.
Haberg's group analyzed outcomes for 507 children with athsma and 1,455 without it at age 3, all of whose mothers had provided blood samples at around 18 weeks' gestation as part of the larger, population-based Norwegian Mother and Child Study.
Norway is a good place to look for folate effects because it does not fortify the food supply with folic acid and thus has a greater range of levels among the population, London noted.
Overall, women in the highest folate quintile had the significant 66% elevated risk of their child having asthma as a toddler, after adjustment for maternal atopy, smoking, and other confounders.
Those in the intermediate quintiles conferred 16% to 48% higher adjusted risk to their child as well compared with the lowest 5.54-nmol/L and under group, although only significant for the third quintile with folate levels of 7.68 to 10.60 nmol/L.
In a sensitivity analysis of 422 women not on folic acid supplements at the time of their second trimester blood test, the adjusted risk of asthma in the child rose again with folate exposure in utero (P=0.011). The adjusted odds were significant for women over the 70th percentile (odds ratio 1.34 at 7.297 to 15.835 nmol/L) and those over the 95th percentile (OR 1.44 for above 15.835 nmol/L).
Okupa's study was an analysis of the prospective Childhood Origins of Asthma study of a high-risk birth cohort.
Among 220 kids with folate measured at age 4, 30% developed asthma and 49% were positive for allergic sensitization by age 6 years.
Allergies appeared to be more common in children with higher folate levels (P=0.01), whereas asthma showed no such association (P=0.81). Adjustment for socioeconomic status and other confounders didn't impact these results.
"It is possible that there is a critical period where folic acid supplement dosages may be manipulated to maximize neuroprotective effects yet minimize the adverse respiratory effects," Okupa said at the session where she presented the results.
Haberg's group cautioned that, despite adjustment for important variables, confounding remained a possible explanation for the modest effects seen in their study. The study was also limited by follow-up only to 3 years at this point, which may not be old enough to establish a diagnosis of asthma, Haberg said in an interview.
Szefler noted that folate levels fluctuate from day to day based on diet, so a single blood measurement may not have accurately conveyed exposure.
"It's very hard to make those comparisons," he said in an interview. "Right now there's not a standard level that you should have."
Okupa's study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Okupa reported no conflicts of interest.
London's study was supported by the Norwegian Research Council. The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study is supported by the Norwegian Ministry of Health Division of Intramural Research, NEIHS/NIH, NIH/NINDS, and the Norwegian Research Council/FUGE.
Szefler reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Primary source: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology
Source reference:
Haberg SE, et al "Maternal folate levels in pregnancy and asthma at 3 years of age" AAAAI 2010; Abstract 505.
Additional source: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology
Source reference:
Okupa AY, et al "Relationships among folate, allergic sensitization, wheezing, and asthma" AAAAI 2010; Abstract 217.
Is Dad Going Deaf From Aspirin & Tylenol?
Doctor Harriott's Comment: This is a case in point about the use of drugs for relief only. We need to know the cost of "pharmaceutical comfort" and the healthy alternatives.
If you have an acute injury, and take acetominophen or aspirin to reduce inflammation, well, that is a simple protocol to be discussed between you and your medical doctor.
But if you regularly take a baby aspirin because you think it is "good for you", do a little more research. Or you take a daily dose of aspirin or tylenol because you regularly come home sore after a long day at work or have your "regular" daily headache... that is a whole different story. You need to come see me or your own chiropractor or functional medicine doctor to try to figure out what is really going on. (See my previous post re: chiropractors and drugs: http://drharriott.blogspot.com/2010/03/chiropractic-position-on-drugs.html#links)
=========================================
Reprint from
The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 123, Issue 3, Pages 231-237 (March 2010)
Analgesic Use and the Risk of Hearing Loss in Men
Sharon G. Curhan, MD, ScMaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Roland Eavey, MDb, Josef Shargorodsky, MDac, Gary C. Curhan, MD, ScDad
Abstract
Background
Hearing loss is a common sensory disorder, yet prospective data on potentially modifiable risk factors are limited. Regularly used analgesics, the most commonly used drugs in the US, may be ototoxic and contribute to hearing loss.
Methods
We examined the independent association between self-reported professionally diagnosed hearing loss and regular use of aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and acetaminophen in 26,917 men aged 40-74 years at baseline in 1986. Study participants completed detailed questionnaires at baseline and every 2 years thereafter. Incident cases of new-onset hearing loss were defined as those diagnosed after 1986. Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression was used to adjust for potential confounding factors.
Results
During 369,079 person-years of follow-up, 3488 incident cases of hearing loss were reported. Regular use of each analgesic was independently associated with an increased risk of hearing loss. Multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios of hearing loss in regular users (2+ times/week) compared with men who used the specified analgesic <2 times/week were 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.20) for aspirin, 1.21 (95% CI, 1.11-1.33) for NSAIDs, and 1.22 (95% CI, 1.07-1.39) for acetaminophen. For NSAIDs and acetaminophen, the risk increased with longer duration of regular use. The magnitude of the association was substantially higher in younger men. For men younger than age 50 years, the hazard ratio for hearing loss was 1.33 for regular aspirin use, 1.61 for NSAIDs, and 1.99 for acetaminophen.
Conclusions
Regular use of aspirin, NSAIDs, or acetaminophen increases the risk of hearing loss in men, and the impact is larger on younger individuals.
If you have an acute injury, and take acetominophen or aspirin to reduce inflammation, well, that is a simple protocol to be discussed between you and your medical doctor.
But if you regularly take a baby aspirin because you think it is "good for you", do a little more research. Or you take a daily dose of aspirin or tylenol because you regularly come home sore after a long day at work or have your "regular" daily headache... that is a whole different story. You need to come see me or your own chiropractor or functional medicine doctor to try to figure out what is really going on. (See my previous post re: chiropractors and drugs: http://drharriott.blogspot.com/2010/03/chiropractic-position-on-drugs.html#links)
=========================================
Reprint from
The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 123, Issue 3, Pages 231-237 (March 2010)
Analgesic Use and the Risk of Hearing Loss in Men
Sharon G. Curhan, MD, ScMaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Roland Eavey, MDb, Josef Shargorodsky, MDac, Gary C. Curhan, MD, ScDad
Abstract
Background
Hearing loss is a common sensory disorder, yet prospective data on potentially modifiable risk factors are limited. Regularly used analgesics, the most commonly used drugs in the US, may be ototoxic and contribute to hearing loss.
Methods
We examined the independent association between self-reported professionally diagnosed hearing loss and regular use of aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and acetaminophen in 26,917 men aged 40-74 years at baseline in 1986. Study participants completed detailed questionnaires at baseline and every 2 years thereafter. Incident cases of new-onset hearing loss were defined as those diagnosed after 1986. Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression was used to adjust for potential confounding factors.
Results
During 369,079 person-years of follow-up, 3488 incident cases of hearing loss were reported. Regular use of each analgesic was independently associated with an increased risk of hearing loss. Multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios of hearing loss in regular users (2+ times/week) compared with men who used the specified analgesic <2 times/week were 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.20) for aspirin, 1.21 (95% CI, 1.11-1.33) for NSAIDs, and 1.22 (95% CI, 1.07-1.39) for acetaminophen. For NSAIDs and acetaminophen, the risk increased with longer duration of regular use. The magnitude of the association was substantially higher in younger men. For men younger than age 50 years, the hazard ratio for hearing loss was 1.33 for regular aspirin use, 1.61 for NSAIDs, and 1.99 for acetaminophen.
Conclusions
Regular use of aspirin, NSAIDs, or acetaminophen increases the risk of hearing loss in men, and the impact is larger on younger individuals.
Chiropractic Position on Drugs...
Chiropractors say this all the time: "Medication is not part of a healthy lifestyle". What do they mean by this? This often causes defensive reactions from those who need medication and those who prescribe it. Well, I want my patients to understand my position on drug therapies because understanding this will greatly improve your life and ideally will clarify the different role that chiropractors play in the health care system as compared with medical doctors.
Drugs are a means to achieve short term symptomatic relief. The use of medication typically is in the following applications:
1) In the most ideal of circumstances, it is a matter of the patient knowing what to do to correct the cause of the dysfunction (and subsequently the symptoms), but needing short term relief and/or to reduce or avoid collateral organic damage as the necessary correction is undertaken.
2) Other times, in persistent chronic disease, when the patient and health professionals are unable to identify and/or address the root cause, this is all someone is left with as a last effort to improve quality of life.
3) And then there are those cases where the patient has been told and knows what to do but won't do it, for various reasons.
For clarification, chiropractors do not, or at least should not, make a blanket proclamation that drugs are bad. The problem, as I see it, is when people are misinformed about the drug use. Specifically, and again, according to the use applications as detailed above...
Case #1, above: The patient is misled to believe that the prescribed drug is "all good" and, like a laser, the drug(s) acts only on the "sick part". Patients need to be wary of taking a drug simply for relief. Patients need to remain vigilant and aware of the total effect that drugs have on their bodies. They need to acquaint themselves with side effects, interactions, complications (one good resource: http://www.rxlist.com). They should also fully recognize the toxic load placed on their bodies, even from the "good" drugs. And patients need to figure out why the disease process occurred in the first place. My ongoing concern is when, for example, a patient is "cured" of a bacterial infection through the proper use of an antibiotic, prescribed by an MD, but that MD fails to inform them, and it never occurs to them on their own that perhaps there is an underlying reason why that infection successfully invaded and took hold in their body in the first place. With the help of a "functional medicine" doctor, patients need to learn what they can do to fortify their bodies so as to reduce susceptibility to the same problem in the future. And they need to educate their friends and family to help them make similar functional and lifestyle corrections.
Case #2, above: The patient often gives up trying to find or working towards a solution. They resolve themselves to taking medications for the rest of their lives and lose motivation to continue to strive for better health. It may turn out to be necessary to continue drug therapies indefinitely - ultimately, that is a decision to be made on a continuous and ongoing basis between the patient and their medical doctor. But these persons must absolutely re-double their efforts to incorporate healthy lifestyle changes and maintain them forever, including exercise, stress & psychologic management, diet, chiropractic, massage, etc. "Spontaneous Remissions" occur all the time, for unknown reasons, but almost never result from neglect and ignorance. And in long term chronic disease, healthy lifestyle choices are known to SIGNIFICANTLY improve the quality and quantity of life and "fortifying the host" has been shown to delay progression of most disease processes.
Case #3, above: For these people, I believe it is much like a smoker. Deep down, it is self-destructive behavior to knowingly participate in an activity that is stealing your health away. And, if you are knowingly taking medications to allow you to engage in that behavior more comfortably... well, it is just more of the same thing. In this situation, the medical doctor is like a co-dependant facilitating another's addiction. Hardly of model of good health.
Drugs are a means to achieve short term symptomatic relief. The use of medication typically is in the following applications:
1) In the most ideal of circumstances, it is a matter of the patient knowing what to do to correct the cause of the dysfunction (and subsequently the symptoms), but needing short term relief and/or to reduce or avoid collateral organic damage as the necessary correction is undertaken.
2) Other times, in persistent chronic disease, when the patient and health professionals are unable to identify and/or address the root cause, this is all someone is left with as a last effort to improve quality of life.
3) And then there are those cases where the patient has been told and knows what to do but won't do it, for various reasons.
For clarification, chiropractors do not, or at least should not, make a blanket proclamation that drugs are bad. The problem, as I see it, is when people are misinformed about the drug use. Specifically, and again, according to the use applications as detailed above...
Case #1, above: The patient is misled to believe that the prescribed drug is "all good" and, like a laser, the drug(s) acts only on the "sick part". Patients need to be wary of taking a drug simply for relief. Patients need to remain vigilant and aware of the total effect that drugs have on their bodies. They need to acquaint themselves with side effects, interactions, complications (one good resource: http://www.rxlist.com). They should also fully recognize the toxic load placed on their bodies, even from the "good" drugs. And patients need to figure out why the disease process occurred in the first place. My ongoing concern is when, for example, a patient is "cured" of a bacterial infection through the proper use of an antibiotic, prescribed by an MD, but that MD fails to inform them, and it never occurs to them on their own that perhaps there is an underlying reason why that infection successfully invaded and took hold in their body in the first place. With the help of a "functional medicine" doctor, patients need to learn what they can do to fortify their bodies so as to reduce susceptibility to the same problem in the future. And they need to educate their friends and family to help them make similar functional and lifestyle corrections.
Case #2, above: The patient often gives up trying to find or working towards a solution. They resolve themselves to taking medications for the rest of their lives and lose motivation to continue to strive for better health. It may turn out to be necessary to continue drug therapies indefinitely - ultimately, that is a decision to be made on a continuous and ongoing basis between the patient and their medical doctor. But these persons must absolutely re-double their efforts to incorporate healthy lifestyle changes and maintain them forever, including exercise, stress & psychologic management, diet, chiropractic, massage, etc. "Spontaneous Remissions" occur all the time, for unknown reasons, but almost never result from neglect and ignorance. And in long term chronic disease, healthy lifestyle choices are known to SIGNIFICANTLY improve the quality and quantity of life and "fortifying the host" has been shown to delay progression of most disease processes.
Case #3, above: For these people, I believe it is much like a smoker. Deep down, it is self-destructive behavior to knowingly participate in an activity that is stealing your health away. And, if you are knowingly taking medications to allow you to engage in that behavior more comfortably... well, it is just more of the same thing. In this situation, the medical doctor is like a co-dependant facilitating another's addiction. Hardly of model of good health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
