I have commented before on how easy it is to discredit something by setting up your own criteria, and then announcing that it has failed to meet them.  Just off the top of my head, consider the study that found St. John's Wort failed to help major depression .  What a lot of publicity that got, with not one of the reporting entities thinking to mention that - wait for it - NO-ONE EVER CLAIMED IT DID.  That's right - St. John's Wort has only ever been recommended for minor depression, and as the National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine says:

An analysis of the results of 37 clinical trials concluded that St. John's wort may have only minimal beneficial effects on major depression. However, the analysis also found that St. John's wort may benefit people with minor depression; these benefits may be similar to those from standard antidepressants. Overall, St. John's wort appeared to produce fewer side effects than some standard antidepressants.  (my emphasis).

In much the same way, the words "evidence based medicine" are often used to discredit alternative treatments,  the implications being that since they cannot pass the same standard as allopathic medicine, they are not effective.

That is why I found this report in Dr. Moss's newsletter so interesting:  talk about payback! The British Medical Journal of Clinical Evidence has found that of around 2500 prescription treatments evaluated by a panel of experts, only 13% were definitely beneficial, while an amazing 46% showed no evidence of usefulness whatsoever.  Take that, big Pharma!

Are most current medical treatments backed by solid evidence of effectiveness?

In view of the truly astonishing number of people who are taking antacids, this research is of great importance: as we know, many elderly people are being diagnosed with mental deterioration, when a B12 deficiency should be suspected.
 

Keywords:	HEARTBURN, ACID REFLUX, STOMACH ULCER - Vitamin B12, B12 Deficiency, Proton-Pump Inhibitors, PPI, Histamine(2) Receptor Antagonists, H2 Blockers
Reference:	"Do Acid-lowering agents affect vitamin B12 status in older adults?" Dharmarajan TS, Norkus EP, et al, J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2008; 9(3): 162-7. (Address: Department of Medicine, Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA. E-mail: dharmarajants@yahoo.com ).
Summary:	In a cross-sectional study involving 659 elderly subjects, aged 60-102 years, results indicate that prolonged use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) may be associated with a significant decline in serum vitamin B12 levels. Patient demographics, serum B12 levels, use and duration of use of histamine(2) receptor antagonists (H2 blockers) and PPIs, and oral vitamin B12 supplementation were assessed. Acid-lowering agents (H2 blockers and PPIs) were used by 54% of the participants, where the average duration of use was 18.2 months. No association was observed between the use of H2 blockers and serum vitamin B12 levels. On the other hand, PPI use was associated with diminished vitamin B12 levels. Additionally, oral vitamin B12 supplementation (RDA) during PPI use was observed to slow the decline in B12 status, but not prevent it. Thus, the authors of this study conclude, "B12 status declines during prolonged PPI use in older adults, b ut not with prolonged H2 blocker use; supplementation with RDA amounts of B12 do not prevent this decline. This report reinforces that B12 deficiency is common in the elderly and suggests that it appears prudent to monitor periodically B12 status while on prolonged PPI use, to enable correction before complications ensue."

 B12 Status Declines during Prolonged Use of Proton-Pump Inhibitors (Acid-Lowering Agent)

The liquid B12 (Methylcobalamin) I personally use and recommend.

The Vitamin Lady writes about helping indigestion naturally

I usually cast a cursory glance over the Gott column, just to see how conflicted he might be that day.  This one takes the cake!

Some poor person writes to say that they have iatrogenic adrenal insufficiency - the word "iatrogenic" immediately raised the red flag, so I read on.

Dr. Gott calmly tells us that iatrogenic adrenal insufficiency is one of THE MOST COMMON forms of adrenal problems.  It obviously comes as absolutely no surprise to him.  What is the consequence?  This condition requires you to take synthetic Cortisol for the rest of your natural existence, or risk death. As he puts it, "without normal levels of Cortisol, your body cannot function properly."

I know you are panting to know - what causes this common condition?  "It is caused by excessive or chronic use of glucocorticoid medication (such as prednisone) which essentially .... shuts down the adrenal glands".

What is one of the most common uses of this type of medication?  INHALERS FOR OUR CHILDREN.

Here is a selection of immediately available links found through Google about the dangers:

Monitor growth when using glucocorticoids in children

Glucocorticoid induced osteopenia and osteoporosis

Glucocorticoids and the risk for cardiovascular disease

Are there alternatives?  Yes, and please, for the sake of your future health and that of your kids, consider them.

The Vitamin lady writes about natural help for Asthma

The Vitamin lady writes about controlling Inflammation naturally

Picking on cholesterol as the villain in heart disease not only ignores the lack of evidence for such a  connection, but also ignores its importance in the functioning of the human body.  Certainly very high cholesterol is indicative of problems in body balance, but choosing lower and lower levels to vilify is, in my opinion, dangerous in the extreme.

A study in the Lancet (2001; 358:351-355) stated that their study confirms previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and shows that long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases risk of death. 

I was horrified when they considered making statins over-the-counter, but could not say it better than Dr. Malcolm Kendricks:

We are sleep-walking into what could be a major medical disaster. Most people, and most doctors, are unaware – or don’t seem to care – that statins should never ever be taken by a women of child-bearing age. The risk, it would seem, is greater than that posed by thalidomide, and no-one seems to be the least bit bothered. ‘Yeh, whatever.’

Yet, when statins go OTC it is absolutely certain that women of childbearing age will take them, knowing nothing of this risk. It is equally certain that a number of these women will become pregnant, and many of these pregnancies will result in horribly deformed children....

But these defects shouldn’t exactly come as a surprise. Cholesterol is essential for the development of neural tissue, so we should expect to find that if the mother is taking a drug that inhibits cholesterol synthesis at a time when the fetus is developing – horrible developmental abnormalities will occur. Such as failure of the brain to develop in the right way, or duplication of the spinal cord.

For more complete details of the birth defects caused by statins consider reading the New England Journal of Medicine, April 8, 2004: pages 1579 – 1582. It’s a letter by Robin J Edison and Maximilian Muenke.

Now, a discovered connection between statins and Parkinson's disease (more than 3 times the risk) should alert everyone to the dangers not only of the medication, but of trying to achieve unrealistically low levels of cholesterol.

New Study To Test Statin-Parkinson's Link

The Vitamin Lady wrtes about a Natural Aproach to Cholesterol Balance - you will find a link to Dr. Kendricks book, "The Great Cholesterol Con" there.

I will be the first to admit that the issue of flu shots is contentious:  on the one hand, my belief is that they are not effective at preventing the flu, on the other - they do seem to mitigate some of the concomitant health problems (bronchitis, penumonia) which can be killers. 

However, I do find it interesting that apparently the proponents of flu shots have to exaggerate their results to get people to comply.

Benefits Of Flu Vaccine Substantially Overestimated Says Study

The Vitamin Lady writes about natural ways to protect against the Flu

I was made aware of an alarming trend by Ivanhoe Insider, an interesting website from which I receive a great deal of useful information. It raised the hairs on the back of my neck, considering the weight that is given to prescription medicine study results by the media, and the influence they have on consumers - most likely the consumers who do not listen to the little quiet voice listing the side effects, which always seem to me to be 10 times worse than the actual disease.  Remember Victor Borge ?  "My Uncle invented a cure for which there was not disease" - pause for laughs, then "Unfortunately, he caught the cure and died." Talk about prescient!

Ivanhoe is commenting on the published results of antidepressants:  "Turner’s team found that whether and how the studies were published depended on how they turned out.  They found 94 percent of the studies had positive results, but the FDA data showed only half of the study were positive.  All but one of the positive studies was published.  Most of the studies that were not positive were not published or they were published with a positive spin.  "

Turning to the study itself, I have excerpted the relevant piece, because it is so far down in the text:

A Cochrane systematic review of antidepressants for generalized anxiety disorder lists only one double-blind placebo-controlled study of paroxetine,  a positive study. A PubMed search reveals no additional double-blind placebo-controlled studies. In accessing the review from Drugs@FDA (approval date April 2001), we learn that there were in fact three pivotal double-blind placebo-controlled studies. One of these studies corresponds to the published positive study noted above. Of the remaining two studies, both apparently unpublished, one was positive while the other was marginally positive.

Turning to the controlled-release formulation of paroxetine (Paxil CR) for panic disorder, a review article states in its abstract that the drug “demonstrated efficacy in three well designed studies in patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia”. In reading the corresponding FDA statistical review, we verify that there were indeed three studies. However, the FDA statistical reviewer found that only one of these studies was strongly positive. A second study, judged “supportive” of efficacy, had a marginally significant (p = 0.039) result on a secondary observed-cases analysis, but a nonsignificant (p = 0.38) result on the primary efficacy analysis defined a priori. The third study was clearly negative, with p-values of 0.33 and 0.57 on the primary and secondary analyses, respectively.

Bottom line?  Always try to find out who did the study, and who funded it. If it is the company that MAKES the drug - be very careful whom you believe!

We have looked before at the issue of pharmaceutical drugs in our water supply, but this report suggests matters are becoming critical. 

In addition, the problem apparently is now so well known, that scientists are proceeding along the lines not of WHETHER there are chemicals in our marine species, but WHICH drugs are represented and how dangerous they are.

Since sharks are perched (little pun) at the top of the food chain, the status of chemicals in their bodies is of particular interest.  This group of scientists looking for common precsirption drugs in Bull Shrak juveniles found that of ten sharks sampled ... nine tested positive for Zoloft.

On a lighter note, more contented relaxed sharks may mean fewer shark attacks ...

Shark Rx

Talk about spinning your wheels - or perhaps wings! Some scientists with nothing else to do have discovered that Viagra helps hamsters overcome jet lag.  Only mind you, if they are travelling west to east. 

No mention of whether it only helps male hamsters.

Plenty of mention of the possible side effects involved. No mention of the fact that melatonin, at a fraction of the cost and NONE of the side effects, is readily available and has no sense of direction or gender. I can imagine which one the flight attendants, at least, might prefer to be used!

Viagra and jet lag 

Facts about  Melatonin

Action Alert! - Don't Lose Your Access to Compounded Medicines 

Tell Congress: Don't Take Away Our Access to Compounded Medicines! If you or a loved one relies on compounded medicines - e.g., bioidentical hormones, pediatric medicines, hospice treatments, low dose naltrexone - or if you are a Doctor who prescribes compounded medicines to your patients, please read on.

A small but powerful group of senators is about to introduce legislation that would severely restrict and possibly deny your access to critical medications and create new onerous regulations for prescribers.  Act today to protect access to compounded medicines!

If this legislation passes, federal regulators, not your doctor, will decide what medicines you can take.  Do you really want to leave your customized medicine needs in the hands of bureaucrats in the government? 

The so-called Safe Drug Compounding Act of 2007 would, among other things:

• Broadly eliminate the availability of many critical, commonly compounded medications that many patients rely on, such as bioidentical hormones for women, hospice care treatments for the terminally ill and customized medicines for children.
• Allow the federal government to determine when compounded medicines are needed - a decision that has always been and should always be made by doctors.
• Restrict the compounded medications your doctor can prescribe even if he or she determines you need them.

If you or someone you know depends on compounded medications, act now to stop this dangerous legislation! 

You may remember last year I posted information about a direct attempt by Wyeth, the maker of synthetic hormone replacements, to make the compounding and formulating of bio-identical hormones illegal.

Not only would this have removed from health store shelves the standard menopausal comforts, it would also have meant that your Doctor could not send to your compounding pharmacy for your personal prescription.

That attempt was foiled, but in a turn-around from its historical stand the American Medical Association is now considering a request from certain member groups to petition the FDA to declare compounded medication illegal. Wyeth has contributed some thousands of dollars to the groups within the AMA which have put forward this resolution.

The AMA has in the past defended the right of Doctors to decide what treatment to administer, and many Americans support their health using  certain drugs “off-label” and compounded medications for their health that are lawful and medically appropriate, even though they are not “FDA-approved.”

If the FDA is permitted to regulate this physician discretion, while it may start with restrictions on compounding bio-identical hormones, it could lead to regulation of all  medicines for off-label uses.  My own use of Naltrexone for cancer would be affected.

Go here to send a letter to the President of the AMA to express your concern over this broadening of FDA power into areas which should be the sole purview of your Doctor.

If I were a drug company and I wished to patent a readily available and inexpensive natural substance which has been shown to prevent disease, what would I do?

I think that first of all, I would make it sound as though my version were not only different but superior.

And I would definitely try to show that the natural version is not only ineffective but dangerous, even in the teeth of evidence to the contrary. I might even try to manipulate a focus on those side effects ....

I would probably say something like "our improved version will have therapeutic results without the dangerous side effects of the natural substance".

Ta Da!  Watch for a pharmaceutical version of Vitamin D in the next few years.

Vitamin D analogue

Vitamin D5 Ready for Clinical Trials in Breast Cancer

So, does Echinacea help with colds or not?  The studies I like say it does:  it both protects against the onset of a cold, and shortens its duration.  It also protects against respiratory infections.  

What about the studies I DON'T like?  It helps to consider the source.  When a negative study can be traced back to a non-neutral source, it will almost always be found that the herb administered is either 1) the non-effective part medicinally or 2) given in incorrect amounts.

Bear this in mind whenever you see a negative study on a nutrient:  1) what is the source of the study? and 2) does it go against the majority of other study results? A discriminating intelligence will determine the truth.

Where there is no disagreement, however, is in the warnings which suggest that OTC cold medications are not safe for young children.  This quote from the report gives me extra amusement: "There are no studies demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of cold and cough medications in this under age 2 population,"  says Ian Paul, MD, a pediatrician and assistant professor of pediatrics at the Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pa.

I recall very well how frightening it is to be a Mother with a sick child, but with fevers,  remember that high temperatures have a purpose:  they are Nature's way of fighting a disturbance in the body.  Unless the child is very uncomfortable, it is best to let fever run its course.  Here is an explanation ( including when to worry) with valuable information, though I do not endorse the references to ibuprofen and acetaminophen.

Zinc Echinacea tablets for Children

Try Gaias's Quick defense for your self

It's always a revelation to see how the media  manipulate us!  I would be ashamed, for example, to use the kind of prose that seems to sell so many supplements.  I have more respect for my readers, and would rather let them decide for themselves based on the facts.

What has set me off this time?  A widely read woman's magazine has published a report guaranteed to cause everyone to assume that Kava Kava is toxic.

Here is the article in Good Housekeeping:
http://lifestyle.msn.com/MindBodyandSoul/PersonalGrowth/ArticleGH.aspx?cp-documentid=1203095

Pretty convincing, you will say.  I sent the piece off to Gaia Herbs for a comment, since their product featured prominently in the photo, and this is their reply:

"I have seen this article and am aware of the European reports about Kava Kava, however we do not have an official response at this time.  One of the reports about Kava toxicity addresses the issue of using the stem and leaves in products,  the stem and leaves are toxic and they may have (not proven) been used in the products in Europe and possibly in No Doz.  Substituting the leaves and stems, (which are cheaper) for the root, is called adulteration and is illegal. We only use the roots of the Kava plant and have never had an adverse event reported to us re: Kava.  No Doz apparently contains caffeine and is a product to keep you awake, so it makes me wonder why Kava is listed as an ingredient in the first place. I would say that a full analysis of the product is necessary. It may be easy to jump to conclusions from an article however, I would like a fuller history of OTC medications such as Tylenol which is a big cause for liver transplants in the US as well as alcohol intake (considering that the couple in the article are in the wine business). Alcohol and Tylenol are a toxic combination.

We do not recommend Kava for anyone under 18 years or for longer than 4 weeks of continuous use. "

Indeed, alcohol and Tylenol ARE a toxic combination!  I have posted about that in the past,  as you may see here:  This hang-over cure DE-livers.  However, Doctors are still in denial about this pretty much all over:  how much easier and more convenient to blame a herbal supplement.

What do we learn from this?  1) Be safe!   Don't buy the cheap stuff:  there are many ways to make things cheaper, and none of them have to do with making them better. 2) Before believing an attack on herbs and nutrients, get the whole story.

My article on Kava Kava is here

458 deaths annually from liver failure due to Tylenol

This gave me a laugh, partly because of the mildly self-congratulatory tone of the headline:  Antidepressants Increase Suicide Risk but Decrease Death Risk

It turns out that while more people on anti-depressants TRY to commit suicide fewer actually succeed.

The authors conclude, "Among suicidal subjects who had ever used antidepressants, the current use of any antidepressant was associated with a markedly increased risk of attempted suicide, and, at the same time, with a markedly decreased risk of completed suicide and death."

So now they are not only depressed, but a failure, too?  This is good? Well, it is after all the classical cry for attention and help.

Read about natural ways to fight Depression.

A list of medications implicated in causing depression.

Would you rather be a little unhappy while you are pregnant, or run the risk of worrying for a life-time about the health of your baby's heart?

Well, when you put it that way ...

Pregnancy means the body has a high requirement for the Omega 3 fatty acids, which help with the developing fetus's brain and vision.  Add to this that Omega 3s are also protective against mild depression, and that a recent survey by the Washington, DC-based Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR) reported that only 41 per cent of mothers and expectant mothers know they should be consuming omega-3 fatty acids during pregnancy - I would say it is a no-brainer   that the first avenue of approach for depression during pregnancy should be - OMEGA 3 FATTY ACIDS.

NOT - I repeat - NOT - pharmaceutical anti-depressants which have previously been linked to possible birth defects, but which are now positively linked to heart damage in  some babies.

Despite all this the report on heart damage in infants concludes:

However, reproductive-age women have the highest prevalence of major depressive disorders. The benefit to the mother of treatment with any of the drugs may outweigh the risk to the fetus.

Can they possibly be that short-sighted? Or do we hear the voice of the pharmaceutical industry super-imposed on common sense?

Paxil poses possible risk of birth defects, group of obstetricians says

The Vitamin Lady writes about natural help for Depression

A Prenatal with Omega 3: Pregnatal w. DHA

Source of Omega 3: Carlson Fish Oil Liquid   Carlson Fish Oil Capsules