Fall Reminders, Omega 3's, Statin Drug Update, Raw Milk Helps Children

Fall Reminder For Cold Season

The first thing I want to do is remind everyone that from October until next May (in the Northwest) it is important that you take a vitamin D-3 supplement to counteract the lack of intense sunshine, which prevents your body from making vitamin D. Vitamin D is so important for a strong immune system, strong bones and many more health benefits. Most natural doctors recommend taking 2,000 to 10,000 IU per day. Try to get at least 2,000 IU and split the dosage between morning and night if possible. You can double the dosage while trying to fight off a cold, then return to your normal dosage after a few days.

If you feel like you are coming down with a cold or the flu, immediately start taking Zinc (90 mg per day), vitamin D and vitamin C (4-5 times per day. You will get much better results if you use a whole food form of vitamin C). Cold-Ez brand lozenges contain zinc and are clinically proven to shorten a cold by up to 50%. If you are using Cold-Ez then you should reduce the amount of zinc supplements you are taking. It’s a good idea to take vitamin C every day as part of your core supplements.

Be sure to avoid all forms of sugar if you are trying not to get sick, or are already sick, as sugar suppresses your immune system significantly. Of course the old saying still holds true…..get more sleep, avoid stress, and drink more liquids like chicken broth, it really does help.

And one more quick reminder, don’t forget that some vitamins such as vitamins A, D, E and K ,are fat soluble and require fat to be present before your body can utilize them. So always take some fish, flax, krill or coconut oil with your supplements to make them more effective.

Are Omega 3’s Good or Bad For You?

Is our government using 30 minutes of research to take away one of the most important and proven supplements for your brain?

It's happening right under our noses -- and plenty of doctors and reporters are falling for it.

You may have seen the story splashed all over the news recently. A new study is claiming that decades of science is wrong and that the omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil won't do a thing to protect your brain or prevent Alzheimer's, dementia or cognitive decline.

And there's nothing that mainstream medicine -- or the press -- likes more than a study attacking supplements.

But after some digging around it turns out you wouldn't trust the scientists behind this study any farther than you could throw them.

They're basing their findings on research that lasted about as long as your favorite sitcom -- and the consequences will be no laughing matter for anyone who follows their advice.

30 minutes of nonsense

If you needed a triple bypass, I'm guessing you wouldn't go to a knee surgeon. And if you're looking for advice on how to prevent Alzheimer's, you probably wouldn't turn to an eye specialist.

But that's exactly what Dr. Emily Chew and every media outlet that reported on her research are asking you to do.

You see, Dr. Chew is the lead researcher on this study you're hearing so much about -- the one that claims it didn't find any evidence that omega-3s can improve your memory or stop cognitive decline.

That's almost as believable as a study claiming that water won't get you wet. Your brain actually depends on omega-3s to function -- and you can only get them through diet and supplements.

How did Dr. Chew and her colleagues come up with such an unbelievable finding -- one that contradicts years of science and could actually harm patients who cut back on omega-3s?

Well, what you might not have heard on the evening news is that Dr. Chew isn't a brain scientist or a memory expert. And she doesn't work for some Alzheimer's research foundation or a university studying cognitive decline.

She works for the government's National Eye Institute -- and she specializes in the retina.

So what exactly qualifies Dr. Chew -- or the NEI for that matter -- to conduct a study on Alzheimer's and brain health?

Absolutely nothing. And, for the most part, they didn't conduct a study at all.

You see, Dr. Chew and her colleagues were researching around 4,000 people to see whether omega-3s and other supplements like lutein could help slow age-related macular degeneration.

And the supplements worked, just as they had in previous NEI research.

But here's where things get crazy.

Since they already had thousands of volunteers enrolled -- and since these folks were taking omega-3s anyway -- Dr. Chew and her team of "retinal specialists" decided to test their memories, too.

Not with anything thorough like brain scans or personal examinations, mind you. But with three phone calls, spread out over five years -- using a test that usually runs for about 10 minutes.

Imagine talking to someone you don't even know -- a complete stranger -- for half an hour or so over 60 months. Do you think you'd be able to tell whether their memory was improving?

But mere minutes of research was all it took for Dr. Chew (and the media that covered her study) to set aside years of science on omega-3s and fish oil and claim you should stop taking them for your brain.

Well, before you toss those fish oil capsules in the trash, let me set the record straight on omega-3s -- using some real research by scientists who actually knew what they were doing:

• In 2011, a large study at Rhode Island Hospital's Alzheimer's Center found that people taking fish oil supplements had better recall, clearer thinking, and their brains were larger. That's important because the brain tends to shrink with Alzheimer's.
• Just last May, a study out of the University of Illinois found that those who consume more DHA and EPA -- two kinds of omega-3s found in fish oil -- had much better "cognitive flexibility." That's a fancy way to say you're better at multi-tasking and problem solving.
• A study from the Alzheimer's Association found that elderly people with memory problems improved their memory after just six months of taking DHA every day.

And I could keep going. But unfortunately, far too many people will just read those new headlines and miss out on the amazing benefits of getting enough omega-3s from their diets and supplements.

It's just a shame that so many reporters were too dimwitted to spot a worthless study when they saw one.

Maybe we should get THEM some fish oil.

 Statin Drug Update

If you've made it to 80 without heart disease, you deserve a pat on the back from your doctor. But there's a good chance he's about to give you something much more dangerous -- and potentially deadly -- instead.

A prescription for a cholesterol-lowering statin drug.

A frightening new study has found that more than a third of perfectly healthy people over 80 -- people with absolutely no history of heart disease -- have now been prescribed statins they never needed.

It's part of a dangerous trend that's making Big Pharma a fortune. But if we don't stop it, there are going to be thousands of seniors who are permanently "down with Crestor."

As in down for the count.

“It was "quite shocking." That's how Dr. Michael Johansen of Ohio State University described his research finding that 34 percent of healthy people in their 80s were still being given statins.

But if Dr. Johansen is surprised that Big Pharma is forcing these meds on millions of people who don't need them, well, he hasn't been paying attention.

Over the years I've told you about insane plans to force statins on teens and even drop them in our water supply!

But let's face it -- the drug companies know where the real money is. With the Baby Boomers aging, the number of Americans in their 80s is about to explode over the next decade.

If Big Pharma can make statins a fact of life for folks in their 80s -- even people who won't benefit and could end up dead as a result -- it stands to make billions.

And make no mistake about it -- once you give otherwise healthy people in their 80s a statin, some of them are going to die. Especially because research has proven that statins can give even healthy people life-threatening cases of diabetes.

In fact, you might remember that I told you recently about a massive study that followed 26,000 people who had no history of heart disease, diabetes and other chronic illnesses. But once they started taking statins, their chances of developing type 2 diabetes skyrocketed by 87 percent.

And these were extremely serious cases of diabetes, too. The poor statins' victims in this study were more than twice as likely to develop diabetes-related complications like nerve damage, vision loss, kidney failure, and heart disease.

"We're overdosing on cholesterol-lowering statins, and the consequence could be a sharp increase in the incidence of Type 2 diabetes," said Dr. Eric Topol, the former head of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

But even if statins don't give you diabetes, they can still wreck your life in at least three frightening ways:

#1: They steal your mind: Even the FDA admits that statins can cause memory loss, forgetfulness and confusion -- and it can start after you've only been taking them for a few days. If you're over 80, these symptoms could quickly lead to a dementia diagnosis.

#2: They steal your sight: A study last year out of Canada found that statins increase your risk of cataracts and other vision problems by 27 percent.

#3: They steal your independence: Statins can cause such severe muscle pain that one Crestor patient said he'd rather take his chances with heart disease than spend one more day on the pill.

As Dr. Johansen points out, staying active is critical to your health and your ability to live independently. But the pain you may experience on statins can leave you glued to the couch in agony.

It's criminal that so many patients are being exposed to these risks. Especially when there's not a shred of evidence that statins can do a darned thing for people over 80 with no history of heart disease (or for the rest of us, for that matter).

If you or someone you love is in your 80s and your ticker is in tip-top shape, remind your doctor that he should be coming to you for advice -- instead of handing you a prescription for a one-way ticket to side effect torture.

GMO Update

The organic food industry continues to grow, with 45 percent of Americans making organic food choices.  Over half of 18-29 year old Americans seek out organic food in comparison to one-third of Americans over the age of 65.

The most hated company in the world has no connection to Big Oil, the internet or banking. At the end of May, approximately 2 million protesters stood across 50 countries to protest Monsanto!  The company did not have to bankrupt the economy or rob taxpayers — all it took was GMOs.

A new study has been published that will probably add more protesters to the group.  The new study reports that long-term intake of Roundup herbicide, even in small amounts (lower than what is allowed in US water), may lead to kidney and liver damage.

Research was conducted out of the United States by a group of scientists from the UK, Italy and France.  They studied the impact of prolonged exposure to small amounts of glyphosate found in Roundup.

Researchers from UK, Italy, and France found that rats that were exposed to glyphosate in amounts that are similar to what is found in U.S. water experienced kidney and liver damage!

For over two years, the team added tiny amounts of Roundup to water that was given to rats.  The doses were much smaller than the amount of glyphosate that is allowed in US drinking water.

The rats experienced 25 percent body weight loss, presence of tumors that were over 25 percent of bodyweight, hemorrhagic bleeding, or prostration.

The study concluded that small amounts of Roundup are associated with wide-scale alterations in liver and kidney gene expression.

The results of the study have significant implications for both human and animal’s health

Given enough time, scientists in the study believe that roundup found in U.S. water is enough to result in organ damage. (3)

A study published in 2014 reports that use of Roundup led to an epidemic of widespread kidney disease in Sri Lanka.  Another study showed that soybean workers in Brazil who were exposed to Monsanto’s agrochemicals experienced cellular and genetic diseases.

Unfortunately for the U.S., the use of glyphosate has increased more than 250 times in the past 40 years.  Monsanto continues to sing their own praises despite the research and the growing amount of concern.

New study proves raw milk protects children from respiratory infections, fever, and inflammation of the middle ear!

A large European study led by Professor Erika von Mutius reports that fresh, non-pasteurized cow’s milk actually protects children from respiratory infections, fever and inflammation of the middle ear. The study does acknowledge that untreated cow’s milk could contain pathogenic microorganisms that could pose a health risk, but researchers argue for different processing methods to be used to preserve the protective agents in raw milk. 

Long-term study examines effects of raw milk on children’s health for their first year of life

This long-term study explored the role of dietary and environmental factors in developing allergic illness.  The study began with 1,000 pregnant women who were asked to document their children’s diet and health weekly for the first year of life.

“Among children who were fed fresh, unprocessed cow’s milk, the incidence of head colds and other respiratory infections, fever and middle-ear inflammation was found to be significantly lower than the group whose milk ration consisted of the commercially processed ultra-pasteurized product,” says Dr. Georg Loss of Dr. von Hauner’s Hospital, first author of the new paper.

Drinking farm milk reduced the risk of developing respiratory infections, fever, and middle-ear inflammation by 30 percent.  The effects of the milk diminished if milk was heated at home before drinking.  Conventional pasteurization retained the ability to reduce fever, but exposure to UHT processing eliminated this ability.  The positive impact of raw milk could easily be separated from the effects of other elements in the children’s diet.

“The effects of diverse milk treatments are presumably attributable to differentially heat-resistant components present in fresh milk. Compounds that are sensitive to heat seem to play a particularly important role in protection against respiratory-tract and ear infections,” says Loss.

Team suggests alternative processing to reduce risks and preserve health benefits of raw milk

At the end of the first year, researchers took blood samples from the children and tested for biochemical indicators of immune functioning.  Infants that were fed on unprocessed milk had lower levels of C-reactive protein. 

“Other studies have shown that higher levels of inflammation are related to the subsequent emergence of chronic conditions such as asthma and obesity. Consumption of unprocessed milk may therefore reduce the risk of developing asthma,” Loss explains.

Conventional pasteurization exposes milk to temperatures of 161-165 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 seconds.  Ultra-pasteurized milk is brought to 275 degrees Fahrenheit for a few seconds.  “Consumption of unprocessed milk itself is not entirely without risk,” says Loss.

Loss agrees that untreated milk could cause illness such as enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) that could result in diarrhea and kidney failure. The research team is suggesting that alternative processing be used to preserve the health benefits and reduce risk. “With novel, milder treatments one could produce milk that is free of pathogenic microorganisms but retains the protective agents found in fresh milk,” says Loss.

Milk not only contains fats and carbohydrates, but also proteins that modulate the immune system functioning.  “In many respects, the composition of cow’s milk is similar to that of human milk,” says Loss.  Breastfeeding has been known to protect infants from infections, and researchers believe that raw milk may promote healthy immune systems in the same way by altering the composition of gut microflora.

Among the children of the study, only two percent had an allergy to milk or other food items prior to their first birthday.  The women and children who participated in the study lived in rural areas of Bavaria, Finland, France, Switzerland and Austria.  The study will continue to monitor these children for the first 10 years of life.

Until next time, stay healthy and happy

JD Roma

The information on this blog is provided for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical care, and medical advice and services are not being offered. If you have, or suspect you have, a health problem you should consult your physician (preferably a Naturopath).