HealthBeat News

Category: Drugs and Alternatives

  • Senile Dementia Linked to Common Nutrient Deficiency

    Senile Dementia Linked to Common Nutrient Deficiency

    Here’s something Big Pharma hopes you never learn: simple nutrient deficiencies are at the root of most diseases.

    Did you know that a single nutrient deficiency can cause everything from miscarriage and birth defects to cancer, heart disease, depression, hearing loss, osteoporosis and senile dementia?

    In the case of the above-mentioned maladies, the missing nutrient is folic acid, a B complex vitamin. You’ve probably read in the news about recently completed studies that link folic acid deficiency to senile dementia, but these are certainly not the first studies to make this connection.

    Folic acid, a water-soluble B vitamin, gets its name from the Latin “folium,” meaning foliage, because dark green leafy vegetables are a rich source of the nutrient. Folic acid is needed for nucleic acid (RNA and DNA) and red blood cell production. It is also required for energy production, especially in the brain and nervous system. Pregnant women have been advised to take folic acid because it is necessary for normal development of the spinal cord and central nervous system of the human embryo. This connection is so well-known that the U.S. government has mandated that foods be “fortified” with folic acid. In spite of this fortification, studies show that as many as 61% of the population may still be folic-acid deficient.

    It’s not just pregnant women and their developing babies that need folic acid.

    Folic acid, along with vitamin B6 and B12, keep homocysteine levels normal. homocysteine is an “intermediate” metabolic product that increases the risk of heart disease and premature brain aging when it occurs in high concentrations. Premature brain aging was the subject of this recent study, which continues to show a connection between folic acid deficiency and senile (age-related) dementia.

    In one more recent study, researchers in the Netherlands evaluated the speed of thinking and memory, two functions known to decline with age. Over 800 subjects, ages 50 to 70, took 800 micrograms of folic acid daily for three years. At the end of the study, re-testing showed that the subjects who took folic acid had “significantly improved domains of cognitive function that tend to decline with age.” In other words, mental function of the folic acid group didn’t just remain the same, it actually got better over the course of the three year study. This is not the first study to connect folic acid with preserved mental function, but it is one of the largest and longest studies.

    Folic acid deficiency is widespread in our culture due to the processing of grain and vegetables. Although it is found in green leafy veggies, cooking destroys folic acid. It is also present in organically-raised (grass-fed) beef liver, brewer’s yeast and asparagus. (And how much of these foods do YOU eat?) Many experts feel that it is nearly impossible to get a recommended daily dose of folic acid from food alone, and several population studies have confirmed this. Big Government obviously agrees with this assessment since they have required fortification of our food supply with folic acid.

    Supplementation is an easy an inexpensive “insurance policy” against the dangerous effects of folic acid deficiency, but most “one per day” vitamins contain too small a dose to do any good. The recommended optimal daily dose (NOT the “RDA” minimal daily dose), is 400-800mcg per day. Remember that folic acid is a B complex vitamin, and when one B vitamin is low, the rest of the B complex is also usually low and should be supplemented.

    Is it any wonder that Big Drug Companies support the “push” to outlaw vitamin supplements, given how many drug-treated diseases are actually caused by nutrient deficiencies? You’ve been warned while vitamin supplements are still legal: Don’t let a simple nutrient deficiency like low folic acid sneak up on you in the form of failing memory or heart disease. Supplement now, or face the prospects of declining years filled with prescriptions for (insert name of dementia Rx du jour / cardiac Rx du jour here) as answers to the effects of folic acid deficiency, brought to you by Big Pharma. Face it: there’s a real reason they hope you’ll never learn about this important nutrient…

    P.S. My Maxi Multi Optimal Dose daily multi vitamin/mineral/trace mineral/antioxidant formula has always contained 800mcg of folic acid, because the importance of higher levels of this vitamin is not “new news” in spite of yet another study. Learn more about Maxi Multi’s here >>>

    References

    1.) Effect of 3-year folic acid supplementation on cognitive function in older adults in the FACIT trial: a randomized, double blind, controlled trial. Lancet. 2007 Jan 20;369(9557):208-16. Su7mmary: Folic acid supplementation for 3 years significantly improved the types of cognitive function that typically decline with age.
    2.) Effects of folic acid supplementation on hearing in older adults: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Jan 2;146(1):1-9. Summary: Folic acid supplementation slowed the rate of hearing loss (speech frequencies) in aging population.
    3.) Low folate status is associated with impaired cognitive function and dementia in the Sacramento Area Latino Study on Aging. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Dec;82(6):1346-52. Summary: Low folic acid levels are associated with cognitive decline and food fortification with this vitamin is not sufficient to correct the problem.
    4.) High homocysteine and low B vitamins predict cognitive decline in aging men: the Veterans Affairs Normative Aging Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Sep;82(3):627-35. CONCLUSIONS: Low B vitamin and high homocysteine concentrations predict cognitive decline.
    5.) Homocysteine versus the vitamins folate, B6, and B12 as predictors of cognitive function and decline in older high-functioning adults: MacArthur Studies of Successful Aging. Am J Med. 2005 Feb;118(2):161-7. CONCLUSION: In high-functioning older adults, low folate levels appear to be a risk factor for cognitive decline. The risk of developing cognitive decline might be reduced through dietary folate intake.
    6.) Homocysteine, folate, and vitamin B-12 in mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer disease, and vascular dementia. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jul;80(1):114-22. CONCLUSIONS: Relative folate deficiency may precede Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia onset.
    7.) Homocysteine and B vitamins in mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2005;43(10):1096-100. Summary: Subclinical folate deficiency appears to precede dementia.

  • Another Chance For Stevia?

    Opinion by Nurse Mark

    Stevia, a naturally sweet herb used safely and effectively for thousands of years by South American indigenous peoples for thousands of years, has gotten a rough ride from the FDA. Jackbooted FDA "swat teams" have raided warehouses and health food stores, confiscated products, even confiscated books that contained recipes that included stevia as a sweetener.

    Since stevia is a naturally-occurring plant it cannot be patented, and it is widely felt that the FDA’s persecution of this innocuous, sweet herb has been carried out at the direction of the artificial sweetener industry in order to protect their toxic but patentable (and profitable) offerings.

    Yes, the future has looked grim for stevia, but there may be a ray of hope on the horizon…

    You may have noticed the headline recently:

    Coke to unveil natural diet drink in U.S.: report – Yahoo! News

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/us_nm/us_cocacola

    It seems that the American Industrial giants Coca Cola and Pepsico are listening to the demands of consumers for less toxic soft drinks (or perhaps heeding the advice of their corporate lawyers, who must be warning them about the possibility of class-action lawsuits – Vioxx-style), and they have begun investigating stevia as a natural alternative to toxic artificial sweeteners. But it appears that even these giants know what they are up against: they appear to realize that it will not be a simple matter of just adding a bit of herbal stevia to sweeten their offerings – oh, no!

    You see, it is highly unlikely that the FDA will ever admit that it has been wrong about stevia, or back down from their current position on the herb. Certainly not so long as it is a natural and therefore non-patentable substance!

    So, what’s a company to do? Do what the drug companies do – take a natural, harmless substance into the lab and figure out how to modify, concentrate, purify, synthesize or otherwise alter this poor harmless herb until it is un-natural, and therefore patentable!

    Once it has been transformed into a patented compound, Voila! It can be "submitted" to the FDA along with all the necessary bribes – er, fees – that will be required to obtain protection – er, approval – for this new high-tech patented sweetener.

    What will this mean for stevia? My guess is that this new sweetener, some synthesized form or modification of natural stevia, will give the FDA heartburn – because as natural Red Rice Yeast is to synthetic statin drugs, so will stevia be to Truvia or PureVia, or whatever other name some MegaCorporation decides to give their patented version of this natural substance.

    It will be obvious that the natural form of this substance is, as has been maintained all along by proponents of stevia, safe.

    If the FDA continues to declare stevia to be unsafe, then the new, modified sweetener must also be unsafe. If the new modified stevia-based substance is safe, then isn’t the natural stevia also safe? Could this be an uncomfortable "Catch-22" for the mighty FDA?

    It will be fun to watch this one unfold, and to watch the FDA wriggle and squirm as they try to satisfy Big Business’ demands for an ingredient that will satisfy their customers, while they simultaneously try to avoid admitting that they have been wrong about stevia…

  • Some Questions We Just Can’t Answer!

    Here’s a good one! See if you can guess our what our answer will be after reading this question that was sent anonymously to us – no name, no "Hi, How are you", no "Thanks for your time":

    Anonymous wrote:

    It has been a month and three weeks now since I have started taking Lucidal.  I started twice a day and then three a day . After two weeks I sufferred an acid reflux, so I took Prilosec for 14 days as instructed in the box and during the 14 days I was in Prilosec I was taking Lucidal once a day, a week after that I sufferred another acid reflux.  Should I continue   taking Lucidal ?

    Okee-Dokee… Let’s see now…

    First, this is not a product that we sell here at the Wellness Club. In fact, given the amounts shown in the supplement facts box that I found after some searching on the Lucidal sales website, we would not even consider offering such an incomplete, low potency vitamin mixture for sale.

    Here is a challenge: find the Supplements Facts Box on the Lucidal Sales website, and compare it with that of Dr. Myatt’s Maxi Multi. As a multiple vitamin, Lucidal is a lightweight – an expensive lightweight, but a lightweight all the same.

    Second, without knowing an awfully lot more about this person, how can we possibly say that the "acid reflux" has anything to do with Lucidal? Is this person old? Young? Healthy? Ill? Using other drugs?

    Third, who are we to say whether or not this person should continue to take this product? We know nothing about this person, we did not sell this person the product, and we are not the formulators of this product. While we have a general idea of the ingredients in the "proprietary" formulas listed on the Supplements Facts Box, we do not know amounts – that is the beauty of "proprietary" formulas – exact amounts need not be listed.

    Perhaps this person should pose these questions to the "certified neurosurgeon and expert in brain biochemistry" that formulated this product – Dr. Larry McCleary.

    Folks, this is a classic example of the sort of questions that we see all too often, and that we simply cannot answer.

    As for Lucidal, I would not want to say that this product is a waste of money for if the testimonials on the Lucidal sales website are to be believed at least some people are finding it helpful. But looking at the Supplement Facts Box reveals vitamin and mineral dosages that we here would refer to as "Pixie Dust". Lots of "stuff" to make the product sound impressive but not enough of any one thing to do much good. A lot of people like products with "lots of stuff" in them – it feels like they are getting a better "deal".

    It is certainly better than no vitamin at all…

    But, at the price that is being asked for this product (someone has to pay for those "free" bonuses and the expensive "as seen on TV" infomercials!) we still believe that as a multiple vitamin Lucidal is a very expensive lightweight.

     

    For a truly effective multiple vitamin, try Dr. Myatt’s Maxi Multi.

    For some straight, honest information about neurological disease, see our webpage: Neurological Disease.

    For help with "acid reflux" see Dr. Myatt’s article What’s Burning You and see our webpage on Indigestion.

  • The Double Standard of Medical Research

    The Double Standard of Medical Research

    Opinion By Nurse Mark

    It seems that there is no end to the double standards that are encountered in research – Pharmaceuticals are researched and conclusions are drawn to one standard and vitamins, herbs, and supplements are researched and conclusions drawn in another way. Sometimes it is done subtly, most times the whole exercise is painfully blatant.

    Consider the following:

    A Reuters news article reported on research findings presented to a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. This research details efforts to find a reason to use the Big Pharma Giant Glaxo’s new drug Tykerb for breast cancer treatment. Unfortunately, the drug appears to work not very well at all, with researchers admitting that "The addition of Tykerb to standard chemotherapy treatment failed to help most breast cancer patients." The report went on though to state that their goals had been modest to begin with, seeking a success defined by the shrinking of advanced tumors by 50% in just 10 to 20 percent of the patients in the study, they felt encouraged that they had seen the goal of tumor shrinkage in just 7 percent of the patients.

    The Reuters article goes on to say:

    "This is not a home run, but the effect was real and I think we can build on it," said Dr. Nancy Lin of Harvard Medical School, an investigator in the Glaxo-funded study.

    Wow! This new drug made tumors shrink by half (not go away, but shrink) in a whole, big, seven percent of patients. Talk about your wonder-drug breakthrough! (not!)

    Here is the paragraph in the Reuters article that really explains the whole article:

    "Tykerb, approved in recent months in the United States and Switzerland for breast cancer, is being tested for other types of cancer. It is central to Glaxo’s push into cancer medicine, the fastest-growing and most profitable area in the drug market."

    So, we see this headline: "Glaxo’s Tykerb helps some breast cancer patients"

    That was about the best that they could get away with in terms of "positive spin"…

    Contrast the above with the following:

    A Medscape Article, intended to "educate" doctors, discusses a study in which Hawthorne extract (which is called WS 1442 in the study) is scientifically examined in a quite large European study to determine it’s usefulness as part of the treatment of patients on conventional therapy for congestive heart failure. Let’s look at the conclusions of the study as reported by Medscape:

    "Conclusions:

    1. Treatment with WS 1442 in mild CHF patients on optimal medical therapy is safe.
    2. Patients treated with WS 1442 have a nonsignificantly lower incidence of adverse events compared with placebo.
    3. Cardiac mortality is significantly reduced in the WS 1442 group at 18 months.
    4. Sudden cardiac death is significantly reduced in the subgroup of patients with EF ≥ 25%."

    These conclusions sound pretty good, don’t they? Well, not to Medscape they don’t – the doctor who reviewed the study had this to say: "these results may be a great source for future research; however, until then, hawthorn extract remains only a homeopathic treatment with, as of yet, no proven beneficial effect in CHF patients."

    Whaaa? Am I confused, or missing something here?

    Here’s my opinion: If this study had reported these same results for some new patented drug offering we would have seen an entirely different headline – something along the lines of "Study Shows Cardiac Death Significantly Reduced By MegaPharma’s New Drug WS 1442."

    What do you think?

    Dr. Myatt and I see this sort of double standard every day – a patented prescription drug that provides minimal or even dismal results in a tiny number of patients is deemed to have a "real effect" and is "worthy of further study" – essentially, "let’s study it until we can report something good about it." while non-patented, natural substances with a history of successful use are studied as if they were single-molecule pharmaceuticals, in studies that are virtually guaranteed to demonstrate minimal results, and if they do show positive results those results are spun in a way to diminish them as much as possible. In effect, the researchers in these drug-company sponsored "research" exercises will study a natural substance in outrageous ways – giving uselessly low or dangerously high amounts or engaging in other shenanigans designed to ensure a negative outcome.

    If you watch the news headlines with a critical eye the way we do I think you’ll see the same…

    Meanwhile, we remain big fans of Hawthorn extracts as they have been well researched and are widely used in Europe to treat many types of heart conditions including:

    • atherosclerosis
    • cardiac arrhythmia
    • congestive heart failure
    • high blood pressure
    • angina
    • vascular disease.

    Hawthorn works by dilating (opening) coronary and peripheral blood vessels and improving oxygen utilization in the heart muscle. The proanthocyanidins (PCO’s) in Hawthorn have been shown to lower cholesterol levels and decrease the size of cholesterol-containing plaques in the arteries.

  • The Dollars and Sense of Good Health in Bad Times

    The Dollars and Sense of Good Health in Bad Times

    Opinion by Nurse Mark

    Times are tough.

    Maybe your luck in that legalized gambling that is Wall Street has run out.

    Maybe you don’t dabble in stocks and bonds, but you are affected none-the-less by the rising costs – your employer or your business is taking a hit.

    Winter is upon us in most parts of our country, and that means heating season: fuel oil, natural gas, electricity, they are all costing more this year.

    A trip to the grocery store is more expensive this year than it was last year.

    Clothing, school supplies, utilities, services – all more expensive than ever.

    What’s a person to do? Cut back. Economize.

    Everyone is having to cut back – businesses, services, families, working folk, retirees, – everyone is economizing, making do with less, tightening their belts.

    Where do we look when we want to cut back? The extras. The luxuries. The non-essentials.

    We don’t cut the essentials:

    We don’t stop heating our homes; that would be foolish – the pipes might freeze and then we’d really have an expense.

    We don’t stop maintaining our cars; that would be a false economy – if the engine seizes for want of oil or the brakes fail for want of service then we lose our means of getting to work to earn our livings.

    We don’t stop buying groceries; doing without food is not an option!

    So where do many folks cut back?

    When times get tough many people look to the things that they consider to be non-essential, and unfortunately vitamins and supplements fall into that category in the minds of a lot of folks.

    After all, they reason, they eat a good diet, their health is OK right now, and right now, those vitamins and supplements seem expensive – but if they need a doctor visit or prescription drugs they have their "health insurance" plan to tap, and if they should get sick they have their sick days and other benefits from their employer… so, the insurance "pays".

    But let’s look at this line of reasoning for a moment.

    Sure, your "health insurance" plan (if you are "fortunate" enough to have someone "making book" on your continued health) will pay for you to see a doctor – it might even pay for your prescription drugs if it’s a fancy enough plan. But that presumes that you are already sick. So, who "pays" for your misery of being sick?

    Of course, you may have "sick days" accrued with your employer – some employers are positively generous with sick time. But again, you are sick, miserable, and not up to doing much of anything. And probably making everyone around you sick and miserable too.

    Even if you do get some continuation of your pay, in the form of paid sick leave, when you are sick, does it really give you a full paycheck?

    What if you are a waitress, working at minimum wage, but doing well from tips? Yep, you’ll get your base (minimum wage) pay – but what about those lost tips? Your employer isn’t going to cover that!

    What if you are, say, a realtor? Or a car salesman? Or an insurance salesman? Your income depends on commissions. If you are not showing homes and closing deals, you are not earning commissions. Sure, someone else can take over a deal-in-progress, but you’ll probably give up the lion’s share of the commission…

    Maybe you are an auto mechanic, working for a large dealership. Like the waitress, maybe you’ll get your base pay – but most mechanics now work on "flat rate" – a set amount of money paid for each "job". Get assigned a "brake job" and get paid $XX – get assigned a tune-up and get paid $X. If you are not there to be assigned the jobs? You lose.

    Maybe you are a highly-paid, valuable executive – a CEO even. You will undoubtedly have a great "health insurance" plan. But while you are home, or out of the office for your medical appointments, who is covering your responsibilities? Who is looking after the reports and papers piling up on your desk? Who is meeting with the important people? Who is making the important decisions? What will the Board or the shareholders decide to do if you are "out" too long or if they become concerned about your long-term health?

    So maybe you are self-employed – a plumber, lawyer, electrician, farmer, independent trucker, accountant, a flower shop owner, even a doctor – you know only too well that if you are sick and away from your work, there is no income. Sure, maybe the "hired help" can keep things going, but it just isn’t the same – things aren’t done right without your management, and overheads don’t stop just because you are sick. And what about the jobs or business that is lost while you are not there?

    Then there is the thought, what if that "cold" or "flu" develops into something more serious? What about a bronchitis, or even a pneumonia? And that pneumonia leads to, say, congestive heart failure? And that keeps you off work for longer – maybe even even permanently?

    Doesn’t it begin to make sense to do everything possible to give your health a fighting chance?

    We lead busy, even hectic lives. We are stressed, our food is not has healthy as it should be, and we grab junky meals- on-the-go. We are surrounded by hacking, coughing, sneezing, sniffling sick people. We don’t get enough sleep, we don’t get enough exercise, we work in offices breathing stale, "canned" air or in factories breathing who-knows-what.

    We need all the help we can get.

    Your vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements are not a luxury. They help to protect you from the things that would make you have to use that "health insurance" plan (that is really a disease insurance plan) – with every illness really costing you money, and time, and misery.

    You say that times are tight, and you can’t afford those "expensive" vitamins and supplements.

    Can you really afford to not have them?