Memory loss
There is a wide range of severity. Alzheimer's
disease (AD) is the big ticket item, so that slow recall of names, so common in
older folks, is either considered a part of normal ageing or a precursor to AD.
When AD was first defined, it was thought that a brain biopsy that revealed
"tangles" was needed to differentiate it from dementia due to
atherosclerotic cerebral or carotid arteries that supply the brain.
Most related studies simply define this group of
signs and symptoms with the buzz words "Alzheimer's disease."
Prescribed medications can provide no more than "may slow the progression
of," something that vitamin E, niacinamide and B-12 have been shown to do
with no side effects.
The B
vitamins, vitamins C, D and E, calcium, and magnesium are necessary for the
brain. In older people, these nutrients are often absorbed at a lower rate by
the gut, leading to AD, dementia and other symptoms such as depression,
numbness, low energy and memory problems. Intelligent supplementation with
these essential nutrients can slow, prevent, or reverse these problems of brain
function.
You can read more on how vitamins prevent and reverse Alzheimer's Disease at:
http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v09n30.shtmlhttp://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n25.shtml
Teething Drugs Can Be Dangerous For Babies
If your baby or grandbaby is crying out from the pain of teething, it's only natural to want to do something to relieve their discomfort.
But the last thing you should do is reach for one of those OTC gum-numbing products.
You'd never know it by the packages showing the adorable sleeping babies.. and the fact that they're so easily available... but an ingredient they contain, benzocaine, can trigger a life-threatening blood disorder.
The FDA even admits that the combination of benzocaine and babies is "not a good mix" -- as well as to knowing about 19 cases of this condition in kids, most of them under the age of two!
The agency has issued various warnings and safety announcements about benzocaine sprays, liquids and gels -- but, as of now, multiple products packaged specifically for teething babies are still available with no mention of their deadly potential.
So, before you pick up one of these "instant pain relievers," here's what you need to know.
You're (not) being warned
You would think where children are concerned, the FDA would bend over backward to err on the side of caution. But as far as benzocaine teething products go, it looks like nobody's home at the agency.
It's been known by the FDA for some time now that benzocaine can cause a potentially deadly blood disorder called "methemoglobinemia" that can literally cut off your blood's supply of oxygen.
Instead of hemoglobin traveling through your veins delivering oxygen to body tissues, this condition causes it to be replaced by methemoglobin, which can't release oxygen. The results can show up as blue-colored skin, shortness of breath, a rapid pulse, and -- in the most serious cases -- brain damage and death.
And those symptoms can appear in minutes to hours after these types of gels have been applied to the gums. And while brands that include "Baby Orajel nighttime formula" (which contains 10 percent benzocaine) say not to be used on children under two, most tots start teething at six months!
In fact, the handy information page at the Orajel website says teething can begin as early as three months, and by the time a child is two -- the age recommended to start using the product -- the company states that it's likely only two sets of second molars will still be breaking through.
But Orajel is just one of a number of benzocaine products that, while not called a "teething" preparation, are still said to be A-OK for kids two and older. These include Colgate Orabase, several Anbesol brands and one called Hurricaine, which unbelievably says it's fine to use on babies as young as four months old!
And while all those contain a whopping 20 percent benzocaine, only Anbesol warns on the label that "use of this product may cause methemoglobinemia."
So obviously, the FDA's weak-kneed approach to warning consumers so as not to inconvenience drugmakers is still leaving plenty of parents in the dark
But it's not just toddlers who are at risk. The agency is also sitting on information about hundreds of adults who have suffered a similar reaction -- including seven who've died.
That's why the group Public Citizen went ahead and filed a lawsuit against the FDA demanding that it stop allowing benzocaine products to be labeled for use in teething babies and that all the others intended for adults carry a warning label about the blood disorder.
So, if your child or grandchild is teething, instead of reaching for a pain-numbing med with a dangerous ingredient like benzocaine (or lidocaine, which also should not be used for children), try a cold teething ring... a chilled, damp washcloth... or gently massaging the gums with your finger.
And as for adults, using products containing benzocaine, whether they carry a warning or not, is still a very risky way to provide a short bit of relief from mouth pain, whether it's from a toothache, wisdom teeth coming in or sore gums often caused by dentures.
Plus that, if you suffer from any heart or lung diseases, you're at a greater risk of coming down with that blood disorder.
If your baby or grandbaby is crying out from the pain of teething, it's only natural to want to do something to relieve their discomfort.
But the last thing you should do is reach for one of those OTC gum-numbing products.
You'd never know it by the packages showing the adorable sleeping babies.. and the fact that they're so easily available... but an ingredient they contain, benzocaine, can trigger a life-threatening blood disorder.
The FDA even admits that the combination of benzocaine and babies is "not a good mix" -- as well as to knowing about 19 cases of this condition in kids, most of them under the age of two!
The agency has issued various warnings and safety announcements about benzocaine sprays, liquids and gels -- but, as of now, multiple products packaged specifically for teething babies are still available with no mention of their deadly potential.
So, before you pick up one of these "instant pain relievers," here's what you need to know.
You're (not) being warned
You would think where children are concerned, the FDA would bend over backward to err on the side of caution. But as far as benzocaine teething products go, it looks like nobody's home at the agency.
It's been known by the FDA for some time now that benzocaine can cause a potentially deadly blood disorder called "methemoglobinemia" that can literally cut off your blood's supply of oxygen.
Instead of hemoglobin traveling through your veins delivering oxygen to body tissues, this condition causes it to be replaced by methemoglobin, which can't release oxygen. The results can show up as blue-colored skin, shortness of breath, a rapid pulse, and -- in the most serious cases -- brain damage and death.
And those symptoms can appear in minutes to hours after these types of gels have been applied to the gums. And while brands that include "Baby Orajel nighttime formula" (which contains 10 percent benzocaine) say not to be used on children under two, most tots start teething at six months!
In fact, the handy information page at the Orajel website says teething can begin as early as three months, and by the time a child is two -- the age recommended to start using the product -- the company states that it's likely only two sets of second molars will still be breaking through.
But Orajel is just one of a number of benzocaine products that, while not called a "teething" preparation, are still said to be A-OK for kids two and older. These include Colgate Orabase, several Anbesol brands and one called Hurricaine, which unbelievably says it's fine to use on babies as young as four months old!
And while all those contain a whopping 20 percent benzocaine, only Anbesol warns on the label that "use of this product may cause methemoglobinemia."
So obviously, the FDA's weak-kneed approach to warning consumers so as not to inconvenience drugmakers is still leaving plenty of parents in the dark
But it's not just toddlers who are at risk. The agency is also sitting on information about hundreds of adults who have suffered a similar reaction -- including seven who've died.
That's why the group Public Citizen went ahead and filed a lawsuit against the FDA demanding that it stop allowing benzocaine products to be labeled for use in teething babies and that all the others intended for adults carry a warning label about the blood disorder.
So, if your child or grandchild is teething, instead of reaching for a pain-numbing med with a dangerous ingredient like benzocaine (or lidocaine, which also should not be used for children), try a cold teething ring... a chilled, damp washcloth... or gently massaging the gums with your finger.
And as for adults, using products containing benzocaine, whether they carry a warning or not, is still a very risky way to provide a short bit of relief from mouth pain, whether it's from a toothache, wisdom teeth coming in or sore gums often caused by dentures.
Plus that, if you suffer from any heart or lung diseases, you're at a greater risk of coming down with that blood disorder.
Good Fat – Bad Fat
Here's some news that should change the way you eat.
It’s coming out of a study that was designed to look at various oils and how they may contribute to obesity. But what this research uncovered may very well be the smoking gun as to why diseases like diabetes and other metabolic imbalances have reached epidemic proportions in the U.S.
And it may have also uncovered why animal fats such as lard -- once a kitchen staple -- have been given such a bad rap.
The entire biotech industry, including soybean growers across the land, can't be very happy right now.
A team of researchers from the University of California just published a report that dares to disclose the truth behind soy oil, the fat that groups such as the American Heart Association say we must use in order to prevent heart disease.
They also revealed how some (gasp!) saturated fats -- which those same groups have demonized for decades -- are actually safe and perfectly beneficial to our health.
But first, let me tell you about a little industry secret you probably wouldn’t know unless you're in the food business.
For years, DuPont and partner Perdue AgriBusiness (yep, that’s the same Perdue you'll see on those chicken packages) have been developing a special genetically modified soybean with the strange-sounding name of Plenish.
And how is Plenish different from other soybean oils? DuPont calls it an answer to the "trans fat challenge" -- which means it's intended to be the food industry’s replacement for those heart-attack causing partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), a.k.a. trans fats, that are being phased out next June.
Now, it seems that foods made with Plenish can gather dust on store shelves for years, just like ones made with PHOs, and still seem "fresh." And DuPont says it has a "healthier oil profile," but that's not exactly what these researchers found.
In fact, it was pretty much just the opposite.
Mice fed the Plenish oil suffered from enlarged livers and "liver dysfunction," including an increasingly common and potentially deadly condition called fatty liver disease.
The researchers also pointed out that the rise in obesity practically goes hand-in-hand with our increased use of soybean oil in general (nearly all of which is genetically modified).
But that’s not all.
They also observed that the "detrimental effects" seen in lab rodents when fed animal fats might not be coming from the fat itself, but instead be the result of soy!
Now how's that for a plot twist?!
You see, most obesity researchers feed their lab animals lard, which in turn comes from animals fed soybean meal. "It's possible," they proposed, that many of those "metabolic effects" we thought were the fault of saturated animal fats are instead due to huge amounts of soy fed cows, pigs, and chickens.
And if you're wondering what these researchers found to be the healthiest oil that they tested, that's an even bigger surprise.
It’s none other than coconut oil, which consists of about 90 percent of those forbidden saturated fats!
In this new study, coconut oil’s benefits outshined even those of olive oil: It caused the least amount of weight gain and the "fewest negative metabolic effects."
And if you're worried about cholesterol, the amount you're adding to your diet with coconut oil is no more than what you'd get with soybean oil, the darling of the AHA, or even that supposedly healthier version, Plenish.
So, the two main takeaways from this study are:
#1: Stay away from all soybean oil, and that includes most vegetable oils even if it's said to be healthier. And since it's something that's hard to dodge in processed foods, be sure to check your labels carefully.
#2: Get yourself a big jar of organic virgin coconut oil and use it in everything from sautés to stir-fries to homemade popcorn! Coconut oil is available in both flavored and unflavored versions. So it’s simple to use even if you don’t like the taste of coconut. And Costco sells it too.
Statins Prevent Breast Cancer? Better Read
Closer!
As reported by Health Science Institute
As we've told you over the years, it looks like Big Pharma and its minions will stop at nothing until every man, woman, and child is popping statin drugs such as Lipitor, Crestor, and Zocor.
This, however, could be the cheapest, most low-down trick of all.
A group of pharma-connected researchers are trying to tell us that taking a statin can help save your life, should you be diagnosed with breast cancer.
Not only that, but healthy women need to start up on a statin ASAP, they say, as those "regular users" will have even more benefits should they come down with cancer.
But anyone, doctors included, who take those findings at face value need to know this: Numerous previous studies have found the exact opposite effect, especially where seniors are concerned.
In fact, the evidence has been piling up that statin drugs are much more likely to cause cancer than to ever prevent it.
Smoke and mirrors
Cataracts, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, devastating muscle pain -- how much more bad news do we need to hear about statin drugs before saying "enough?!"
Well, how about the Big C?
It should be no secret to any doctor who has followed statin research that these drugs have long been linked to a variety of cancers.
Four years ago, for example, researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle discovered that women taking statins for a decade or more had a two-and-a-half times higher risk of developing breast cancer
And almost 10 years ago, physicians from the U.S. and Italy told how the data showed that "statins actually increase cancer in certain segments of the population" -- with seniors being particularly at risk.
That cancer link goes all the way back to a statin trial done during the 1990s called CARE (funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb), which found "an alarming increase" in breast cancers (some of which were recurrences) in the women who participated.
And you won't believe what happened after that! Did the researchers immediately notify doctors and patients... or start a new study to closely examine how breast cancer and statins might be connected?
Of Course Not!
Instead, from that time on, anyone who had any kind of cancer was automatically ineligible to participate in a statin drug trial.
How's that for solving the problem?
But, of course, that didn't make the statin/cancer link go away. Actually, statins have been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals in doses similar to those people are taking. So those CARE trial findings shouldn't have been a surprise.
Now, however, a group of researchers out of Denmark (with connections to drugmakers such as Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZenica) are attempting to make the case that women popping a daily statin drug can up their odds of surviving breast cancer.
The group pulled that rabbit out of a hat by using a statistical magic trick called "relative risk."
That works by taking a pool of people and estimating how many of them should get a particular condition. Say, for example, they expect two patients to develop a disease -- and only one does -- they'll claim that the risk was lowered by 50 percent!
It's a smoke-and-mirrors deception that Big Pharma uses all the time, but it still won't stop doctors from telling patients that breast cancer survival is another statin "benefit." This is why it's so important that you know the full story.
And statins aren't just dangerous for women. Last month, I told you about a cardiologist who bravely came forward to tell his peers that the knee-jerk policy in hospitals all across American to prescribe a high-dose statin immediately to any patient who has suffered a stroke has no data to back it up!
It's all risk... with no known gain.
So, if you're currently taking any cholesterol-lowering drugs, you need to sit down with your doctor and discuss quitting them as soon as possible.
Because the more we find out about statins, the clearer it becomes how horribly dangerous they really are.
Until next time, stay healthy and happy
As we've told you over the years, it looks like Big Pharma and its minions will stop at nothing until every man, woman, and child is popping statin drugs such as Lipitor, Crestor, and Zocor.
This, however, could be the cheapest, most low-down trick of all.
A group of pharma-connected researchers are trying to tell us that taking a statin can help save your life, should you be diagnosed with breast cancer.
Not only that, but healthy women need to start up on a statin ASAP, they say, as those "regular users" will have even more benefits should they come down with cancer.
But anyone, doctors included, who take those findings at face value need to know this: Numerous previous studies have found the exact opposite effect, especially where seniors are concerned.
In fact, the evidence has been piling up that statin drugs are much more likely to cause cancer than to ever prevent it.
Smoke and mirrors
Cataracts, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, devastating muscle pain -- how much more bad news do we need to hear about statin drugs before saying "enough?!"
Well, how about the Big C?
It should be no secret to any doctor who has followed statin research that these drugs have long been linked to a variety of cancers.
Four years ago, for example, researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle discovered that women taking statins for a decade or more had a two-and-a-half times higher risk of developing breast cancer
And almost 10 years ago, physicians from the U.S. and Italy told how the data showed that "statins actually increase cancer in certain segments of the population" -- with seniors being particularly at risk.
That cancer link goes all the way back to a statin trial done during the 1990s called CARE (funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb), which found "an alarming increase" in breast cancers (some of which were recurrences) in the women who participated.
And you won't believe what happened after that! Did the researchers immediately notify doctors and patients... or start a new study to closely examine how breast cancer and statins might be connected?
Of Course Not!
Instead, from that time on, anyone who had any kind of cancer was automatically ineligible to participate in a statin drug trial.
How's that for solving the problem?
But, of course, that didn't make the statin/cancer link go away. Actually, statins have been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals in doses similar to those people are taking. So those CARE trial findings shouldn't have been a surprise.
Now, however, a group of researchers out of Denmark (with connections to drugmakers such as Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZenica) are attempting to make the case that women popping a daily statin drug can up their odds of surviving breast cancer.
The group pulled that rabbit out of a hat by using a statistical magic trick called "relative risk."
That works by taking a pool of people and estimating how many of them should get a particular condition. Say, for example, they expect two patients to develop a disease -- and only one does -- they'll claim that the risk was lowered by 50 percent!
It's a smoke-and-mirrors deception that Big Pharma uses all the time, but it still won't stop doctors from telling patients that breast cancer survival is another statin "benefit." This is why it's so important that you know the full story.
And statins aren't just dangerous for women. Last month, I told you about a cardiologist who bravely came forward to tell his peers that the knee-jerk policy in hospitals all across American to prescribe a high-dose statin immediately to any patient who has suffered a stroke has no data to back it up!
It's all risk... with no known gain.
So, if you're currently taking any cholesterol-lowering drugs, you need to sit down with your doctor and discuss quitting them as soon as possible.
Because the more we find out about statins, the clearer it becomes how horribly dangerous they really are.
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).
No comments:
Post a Comment