HealthBeat News

Category: Health Freedom

  • Freedom – Ours to Keep or Lose

    Freedom – Ours to Keep or Lose

    As we prepare to welcome a new President here are some thoughts on freedom from Dr. Myatt

    The elections are over. The American People have spoken. In January a new President will solemnly swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." We extend to our new President every wish for success: may he represent America and Americans truthfully, compassionately, and well. May he always remember this pledge and execute his duties faithfully on behalf of We the People. May he remember that America is not a country of political parties, or ideologies, or of left or right, conservative or liberal, red or blue; it is a country of hard-working, well-meaning people whom deserve to have their voices heard, not dismissed – each and every one of them.

    For the record, I’m proud and grateful to be an American and glad I live in the USA. Although we’re not as free as we used to be, we’re still freer than the rest of the world. I truly give thanks for that.

    As the Founding Fathers knew, the way we remain free as individuals is because we each have a voice and a vote. If we fail to exercise our freedom to speak and to elect our officials, then we get the government we deserve. That is why I continually encourage you to be pro-active. It’s the only way we can continue to enjoy the freedoms that we do, health freedom included.

    When It Comes to Health, Are You Really Free?

    I’m not going to rant (at least not today), about how the FDA and other government organizations act in the best interests of Big Business and curtail our health choices in the process. No siree, I’ll save that for another day.

    The "freedom" I inquire about is that of your own making. Are you a self-imposed prisoner to the insurance companies and Organized Medicine? No one imposes that on you, you know. Such enslavement is entirely a personal choice, but one that many people have blindly been led to choose. It doesn’t have to be that way.

    What do I mean? For example, I know many people who stay at a job they hate because of the Medical insurance. They’ll buy a big-screen TV with "surround sound" for thousands of dollars and pay out of pocket, but if insurance doesn’t cover a $97 test, they’ll complain and moan and won’t have it done. And under that guise, they’ll remain a prisoner of their medical coverage, all by choice. Then there are the folks who have a shiny new "Bass Boat" or ATV or other expensive toys, all of which they are more than happy to find monthly payments for, but who complain that they cannot possibly afford medical insurance – so they and their families do without and then complain even more bitterly when one of them has an accident on that ATV and needs medical care…

    Perhaps for these reasons for at least some people the socialized medical care that Michael Moore is advocating in his movie "Sicko" really would be the best solution – not that it is "free" (as you know, "there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch!"), but that it would force them to have some sort of "sickness insurance" paid for with their tax dollars.

    But then, could that be yet another kind of enslavement? Bureaucrats deciding what medical care you may and may not have? Drugs are OK, but nutritional supplements are not?

    You, as an American citizen, will decide, either through your actions or your inaction. As a democracy, the future of The United States Of America rests with you. Remember that your elected representatives as well as your governmental bureaucrats are your employees – and not the other way around!

    Just some thoughts for you as we make ready to usher in the "change" so lavishly promised by our new President and so eagerly awaited by so many.

  • 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.

  • “Organic Fish” Rules Rejected by U.S. Consumers

    Most HealthBeat News readers know that we have a high regard for Vital Choice Wild Seafood. They send us information and articles from time to time and since the shenanigans of the USDA with their "Organic" labeling is of interest to our readers we have reprinted this article for you here:

    Most Americans surveyed opposed the lax requirements proposed for a USDA Organic label on farmed fish; We find deep nutritional and eco pitfalls in the proposals

    by Craig Weatherby

    A heated battle has raged for years over the rules that would govern issuance of a USDA Organic label for qualifying farmed fish.

    We find it inherently absurd that the USDA is poised to allow an organic label on ocean-farmed fish … but not on wild fish.

    After all, most wild fish would rival or surpass any “organic” ocean-farmed fish in terms of naturalness, purity, nutritional value, and health benefits … regardless of how the battle over the regulations proposed to govern organic fish farming turns out.

    Sadly, that battle may end in compromises that deliver the worst of all possible worlds, as we’ll explain.

    Panel set to allow unsustainable “organic” fish farming

    The bad news starts with the regrettable decisions made last month by a USDA panel, which have been decried by consumer and conservation groups.

    Key Points

    • The USDA would award the organic label to ocean-farmed salmon fed organic feed … but not to sustainable wild salmon with superior nutritional profiles.

    • Proposed provisions would permit “organic” fish farming using methods proven harmful to the ocean and wild fish.

    • Feed requirements based on organic livestock rule would make “organic” ocean-farmed fish less healthful than their wild counterparts.

    • More than 90% of consumers surveyed oppose USDA’s proposed rules for ocean-based “organic” fish farms.

    On November 21, 2008, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) voted to approve proposed regulations that would free industrial fish farms from key principles and rules that govern production of organic meat and poultry.

    The comment period closed after a November 17 hearing, after which the NOSB approved revised regulatory proposals for organic fish farming.

    But it is not too late to influence the final regulations by writing to your congressional representatives.

    To find your congressperson and senator, and submit comments, go to the House and Senate Web sites: www.house.gov and www.senate.gov.

    This article summarizes some key concerns raised by the USDA board’s ill-considered rules for certifying farmed fish as “organic”.

    The organic label implies a high standard of environmental sustainability and human healthfulness that farm-raised carnivorous fish – particularly farmed salmon – would remain very far from meeting under the proposed rules for labeling farmed fish “organic”.

    Here’s the full story.

    Proposed rules set organic principles and optimal nutrition in opposition

    Critical comments submitted to the NOSB by various environmental and consumer groups reveal a contradiction inherent in the idea of farming carnivorous fish like salmon.

    On one hand, existing U.S. organic food production law says that organically raised livestock can only be fed certified organic feed.

    The organic advocates’ stance on feed for organic farmed fish flows from the principle – written into the U.S. organic food act – that organic livestock must be raised on organic grains grown without petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.

    Organic livestock feed is presumed to be purer and more sustainably produced than conventionally grown corn and cereal grains.

    Judging by this standard, farmed fish should not be fed any wild fish, for two reasons:

    • As a practical matter, wild fish cannot be certified as “organic feed” as that term is defined in existing U.S. law.
    • Feeding wild fish to farmed fish is an inherently unsustainable practice that threatens wild fish stocks.

    Those who criticize the USDA panel’s decision to allow wild fish to make up a portion of feed given to organic farmed fish point to the contamination potential involved.

    As the USDA’s critics accurately state, conventional farmed salmon display levels of organic pollutants (e.g., dioxins and PCBs) much higher than wild salmon precisely because they are fed concentrated amounts of fatty wild fish of variable purity.

    Dioxins, PCBs, and similar organic pollutants accumulate in fish fat. However, even the relatively high levels in farmed salmon are vanishingly small, compared to those that can promote cancer in animals. The even more minuscule amounts found in wild salmon – a few parts per trillion – are considered completely safe.

    (Click here to see the relative PCB levels of various foods, including wild and farmed salmon.)

    And if, to harmonize their feed standards with those set for organic livestock, organic farmed fish were not fed wild fish or fish oil, this would compromise the animals’ own health and their nutritional value to humans.

    Let’s explore that conundrum further.

    New proposals make “organic” farmed fish less healthful than wild fish

    To mollify the critics with regard to use of wild fish in farmed fish feed, the USDA board took two steps in their revision of the recently approved regulatory draft.

    Compromise #1 – Limited proportion of wild fish in organic fish feed

    First, the recently approved draft rules would only allow the feed given to “organic” fish to contain 25 percent wild fish … and that proportion would gradually drop to a maximum of five percent wild fish 12 years after the proposed regulations become law.

    Consequently, the remaining 75 to 95 percent of feed given to organic farmed carnivorous fish like salmon would be certified-organic grains, seeds, and seed oils.

    These land-based plant foods are absent from the diets of wild fish, which evolved and thrive on marine-source diets of seaweed, aquatic plants, plan
    kton, and prey fish.

    By limiting the amount of wild fish allowed in their feed, the proposed rule would result in organic farmed fish that are as high in pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids as their non-organic counterparts.

    Why is this mandated dietary distinction – one inserted to meet the objections of people who don’t want wild fish fed to farmed fish – important?

    Clinical research shows that people who eat farmed salmon raised on standard, grain-heavy chow display high levels of pro-inflammatory immune system chemicals in their blood: levels associated with higher cardiovascular risk. (See “Farmed Fish Possess Unhealthful Fat Profiles”.)

    In other words, the restriction on use of wild fish meal would make organic fish similar to standard, grain-fed beef and pork in terms of their pro-inflammatory potential in the body: hence, substantially less healthful than their wild counterparts.

    Since most people perceive the “organic” label as signaling a healthier, more natural food, allowing the organic label on fish raised largely on grain would be highly misleading.

    Compromise #2 – No more than one pound of wild fish for every pound of farmed fish

    The second and more sensible compromise inserted in the newly approved proposals is that no more than one pound of wild fish could go into producing each pound of farmed fish … a so-called 1:1 feed-conversion ratio.

    Since conventional farmed fish are typically fed three pounds of wild fish for every pound they weigh at harvest, this step seems to increase the sustainability of farming carnivorous species like salmon.

    However, while the new proposed standards say that the wild fish fed to organic farmed fish must come from “sustainable” fisheries, they include no clear requirements for certifying these fisheries’ sustainability.

    The USDA also claims that a required contaminant-testing program for organic feed would cover wild fish fed to organic farmed fish.

    However, farms would only be subject to feed testing once every five years, which is clearly inadequate to catch polluted wild fish.

    And it would not prevent desperate fish farms from illegally adding prohibited pesticides and antibiotics to fish feed in order to control the parasites and infections that commonly plague salmon farms and other fish raised in offshore net pens.

    The NOSB says it would rely on conventional fishmeal production systems to self-regulate, and to separate sustainable and threatened species, but that will be very difficult to do and police.

    Can organic fish come from polluting systems?

    In a substantial shift from earlier drafts, the proposed rules would allow the use of open-water net pens and cages, whose mesh walls allow pollution, disease and parasites to flow freely into the ocean.

    Net pens are used at all salmon farms, and their inability to contain waste, drug residues, and parasites threatens wild fish and the overall health of the oceans.

    Consumers Union – the folks behind Consumer Reports magazine – criticized the permitted use of net pens for organic farmed fish as inherently incompatible with organic principles (key points underlined for emphasis):

    • “The recommendation for net pens and related management issues should be rejected altogether. The use of open net pens is not only controversial in the discussions around organic fish standards but for conventional aquaculture production.
    • “In fact, the use of open net pens is banned in California and Alaska precisely because of the widespread environmental damage from these systems.
    • “Consumers Union concurs with comments from the Coastal Aquaculture Alliance and Food and Water Watch regarding the use of open net pens as environmentally destructive.
    • “Again, our poll data shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans (more than 90%) do not want organic fish to come from polluting systems …” (CU 2008)

    We agree that raising fish in open ocean net pens violates organic and sustainability principles very seriously.

    The NOSB addresses this concern in its proposed rules, which say that open net pens would only be permitted “… in situations where water depth, current velocities and direction, stocking densities and other factors act to adequately disperse metabolic products in order to minimize any negative impacts on the environment in areas surrounding the pen locations.” 

    If enforced, this provision would mean that the only organic fish farms allowed to use net pens would be ones sited far from shore, in places where currents consistently disperse and dilute waste matter.

    But the major backers of the proposed organic fish label are multi-billion-dollar industrial salmon farm companies using net pens sited close to shore, which are relatively cheap for the producers, but emit waste and parasites that can damage the ocean environment and wild fish badly.

    The public record shows that open net salmon farms inevitably allow escapes that threaten the genetic integrity of their wild counterparts, and fuel the spread of sea lice and infectious diseases to wild fish.

    (For more on the problems linked scientifically to net pen salmon farms, search our newsletter archive for “farm”.)

    Industrial salmon farmers possess great economic and political power, and this leverage gravely undermines our confidence in the USDA’s ability to resist demands to permit problematic net pen systems at “organic” fish farms.

    Consumer survey finds American oppose organic fish rules

    A recent poll by Consumers Union > http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/foodpoll2008.pdf < revealed that most American consumers reject the lax rules proposed by the NOSB for organic fish (CFS 2008):

    • Nine in 10 respondents said that fish labeled “organic” should be produced by 100 percent certified-organic feed, like all other organic livestock.
    • Nine in 10 respondents also agreed that “organic” fish farms should be required to recover waste and not pollute the environment, and 57 percent are concerned about ocean pollution caused by “organic” fish farms.

    The NOSB proposals were criticized in comments submitted by Urvashi Rangan, PhD, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, “It’s a disservice to the organic program and to consumers that the NOSB is ready to undermine the organic marketplace which relies on a higher bar for environmental health practices being met.” (CFS/CU 2008)

    “These recommendations do not meet the same bar for other organic livestock production practice and in fact lower the bar, which if enacted will compromise organic quality, value, and undermine consumer confidence–not only in the organic fish that they buy but in organic foods on the whole.” (CU 2008)

    Collectively, Consumers Union, the Center for Food Safety, and Food & Water Watch gathered nearly 30,000 signatures in favor of maintaining strong standards for the organic label for fish.

    “Consumer trust in the integrity of the organic label is at stake,” said Patty Lovera of Food & Water Watch. “But unfortunately, the NOSB wants to allow the farmed salmon industry to cash in on the organic label without meeting the basic tenets of organic production.” (CFS/CU 2008)

    Conservation groups reject organic fish rules

    Last year, a broad coalition of concerned advocates from 44 organizations –collectively representing more than one million stakeholders and concerned citizens – voiced urgent concern that the NOSB not weaken the standards embodied in the laws governi
    ng organic food production.

    The co-signing organizations concluded that only one kind of fish farming – onshore farming of herbivorous (plant-eating) finfish in enclosed containment ponds – could meet existing organic livestock standards.

    But they all agreed that the farming of carnivorous finfish – such as salmon – in open net cage systems is inherently incompatible with current organic standards and the principles upon which they are based.

    “Allowing net pens to be used on fish farms certified as ‘organic’ weakens the incentive for producers to use innovative technologies like closed containment”, said Shauna MacKinnon of Living Oceans Society, a member of the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform. “The industry needs technology that controls impacts, not standards that endorse the status quo.” (CFS/CU 2008)

    We agree that the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board should limit the organic label to fish that eat 100% organic feed and are produced in closed, controlled production systems where waste is not flushed into the environment.

    Otherwise, the Board should recommend that farmed fish and seafood cannot meet the current bar for organic standards and are therefore ineligible for an “organic” label.

    Given the power of the aquaculture industry, it will take steady public pressure on Congress to reverse the USDA’s unwise moves.

    Organic-fish rules may preclude non-native species

    Depending on how you read the rather vague language in the regulations the NOSB approved last month, it could effectively disqualify non-native species raised in open ocean net pens.

    That means the overwhelming majority of fish produced by salmon farmers in British Columbia and Chile would not qualify for the USDA’s organic label.

    Atlantic salmon account for most of the salmon produced in Western Canada’s $350-million aquaculture industry, and 90 percent of those fish are shipped to the United States.

    Atlantic salmon are alien to the Pacific Ocean, and were brought to the West Coast only because they have proven cheaper and easier to grow in captivity than indigenous species such as King (Chinook) and Silver (Coho) salmon.

    Sockeye Salmon have so far proved impossible to farm-raise successfully.

     

    Sources

    • Center for Food Safety (CFS). New poll reveals that proposed organic standards for fish will fail to meet consumer expectations. November 13, 2008. Accessed online November 23, 2008 at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/NOSBaquaPR11_13_08.cfm
    • Consumers Union (CU). Comment to National Organic Standards Board on Aquaculture Recommendations; Submitted by Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., Senior Scientist and Policy Analyst, on behalf of Consumers Union, non-profit publisher Consumer Reports. November 18, 2008. Accessed online November 23, 2008 at http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/Public%20Comment%20Submission%20to%20National%20Organic%20Standards%20Board%20on%20Aquaculture%20Recommendations.pdf
    • Consumers Union (CU). New Poll Reveals That Proposed "Organic" Standards for Fish Will Fail to Meet Consumer Expectations. November 13, 2008. Accessed online November 23, 2008 at http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_food_safety/006297.html
    • Living on Earth/World Media Foundation. Down on the (Organic) Fish Farm.  Accessed online November 23, 2008 at http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=08-P13-00047&segmentID=4
    • National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Livestock Committee. Proposed organic aquaculture standards: Net Pens and Related Management Issues. September 28, 2008. Accessed online November 23, 2008 at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5072722
    • Simpson S. Organic label may elude B.C. salmon farmers. Vancouver Sun. Saturday, November 22, 2008. Accessed online November 23, 2008 at http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=2f6c02d3-c224-4a59-8c17-c95601841f54 

  • Flu Vaccinations: A Shot in The Dark?

    Flu Vaccinations: A Shot in The Dark?

    When I was 8, one of my friend’s dad died suddenly, at the ripe old age of 35, of the flu. Not cancer, not a heart attack, not a car wreck — the flu.

    One day he was sick in bed with fever, chills, and headache. The next day he saw the family doctor who prescribed an antibiotic (which is worthless for the flu). He had an anaphylactic reaction (severe allergic reaction) to the antibiotic and died that same day. Even at the tender age of 8, it just didn’t seem right for someone to die of such a "garden variety" illness. But he did, and people still do.

    As old-fashioned a disease as "the flu" (influenza) is, 24.7 million people in the US contract the flu each year and over 100,000 of these cases require hospitalization. An average of 41,400 people die from complications of the flu in the US alone every year. Notice I said "complications." People don’t die of the flu directly. They die of pneumonia or other "flu-related" diseases.1, 2 But don’t expect a flu shot to protect you. That’s because the effectiveness of the "flu shot" is in serious question.

    Why The Flu Vaccine is a Bust

    The flu is caused by over 200 different viruses and infective agents; colds are caused by over 700 viruses. Vaccinations against the flu protect against only THREE influenza A and B — that’s right — three of the 200 known A & B viruses, and A and B influenza viruses comprise only a small fraction of all causes of the flu.


    Influenza vaccines are designed to protect against 3 Influenza viruses A & B     (solid pink piece of the pie graph). Graph courtesy of the British Medical Journal.

    So, the flu vaccine protects from only a small percentage of the known causes of flu and flu vaccines may be effective as little as 39% (some studies show 0%) of the time in healthy adults.3 According to the FDA, "The shot doesn’t do as well at preventing flu in older adults and people with certain medical problems." 4

    Great. Flu vaccines only protect against a small number of viruses, are effective 39% or less of the time and work even less well in people who need it most, the elderly and immune-weakened folks. I’d say the flu vaccine is a real shot in the dark. Worse than ineffective or benign, the influenza vaccine is still preserved with thimerosol (mercury), a known neurotoxin. (Mercury-free vaccines exist but you won’t get it unless you specifically request it).

    Of course, the flu isn’t the only malady we are more susceptible to in Winter months. Plain ol’ colds and sinus and respiratory infections also increase in the Winter, not because of cold temperatures directly but because viruses spread more easily in cold, dry air.5

    If the thought of getting sick, or possibly really sick, this Winter doesn’t inspire you, and if feel like I do —- totally underwhelmed by the effectiveness of the flu vaccine — what can you do?

    Fortunately, Mother Nature has more immune-boosting strategies than modern medicine will EVER think of. Here are 4 simple, proven recommendations for keeping yourself "bullet proof" against not only the flu, but colds, sinus infections, pneumonia and all manner of Winter-time maladies.

    How to Make Yourself Flu-Proof:  "Winterize" Your Immune System in Four Easy Steps

    1.) Eat an Immune-Boosting Diet. The two major dietary causes of immune suppression are sugar intake and food allergies.

    I.) Dietary sugar. Sugar suppresses the activity of white blood cells (neutrophils) — an important part of the immune system — for up to 5 hours.  Even fruit juice contains enough sugar to cause this immune-suppressing effect. Sugars which cause immune suppression include glucose, fructose, sucrose, honey, and orange juice.6,7,8 Although original studies showed an immune suppressing effect at 100 grams of sugar other studies have shown that even much lower intakes of dietary sugar have immune suppressing effects. 9,10. The USDA and the Center for Science in Public Interest (CSPI) agree that 40 grams of sugar is an acceptable daily limit.

    Imagine a "healthy" (not!) day of eating that can actually keep immunity suppressed for the entire day.

    Breakfast: glass of orange juice (1 cup has 21 grams of sugar), oatmeal with raisins (2 TBS. has 20 grams of sugar), 1 tsp. of sugar (4 grams of sugar) and lowfat milk (1 cup has 13 grams of sugar). That’s a whopping 58 grams of sugar just for breakfast! Expect a suppressed immune system for the next 5 hours.

    Snack: Nonfat fruit-variety yogurt (1 cup has 47 grams of sugar) Immune suppression for up to 5 hours.

    Lunch: Subway Chicken Teriyaki Sanwich (6 grams of sugar) with 2 oz. fat-free French dressing (12 grams sugar) and 1 oatmeal raisin cookie for desert (16 grams of sugar) [32 grams total].  Immune system still suppressed from breakfast and snack.

    Dinner: green salad with 2 TBS. fat-free french dressing (6 grams), 1 serving Weight Watcher’s chicken enchiladas (33 grams) with 2 TBS fat-free yogurt topping (2 grams) [41 grams total] Immune suppression until bedtime.

    Dessert: 1/2 cup Breyer’s no sugar added vanilla ice cream (only 4 grams), but it’s the "cherry" on the immune-suppression-day cake!

    There you have it. "A day in the life" of someone who thinks they are eating fairly well, with more than enough sugar to cause all-day immune suppression. Notice that fruit juice and flavored yogurt are major offenders. Avoiding sugar is the most important dietary step you can take to strengthen your immune system. Period. II.) Food allergies. Food allergies weaken the immune system. White blood cells and other aspects of immunity get "distracted" taking care of internal annoyances (allergens) instead of protecting against outside "bugs" like the flu virus. Check out the symptoms of food allergy to see if this might be a problem for you. Check Food Allergy Symptoms Here

    2.) Practice simple home and hygiene techniques.

    I.) Wash your hands frequently. Flu and cold viruses can survive on surfaces, including hands, for hours. Every time you touch a doorknob or anything touched by another, you can pick up a virus. And don’t rub your eyes or face, thereby transmitting the virus to yourself from unwashed hands.

    II.) Cover your mouth and nose — preferably with a tissue — when you sneeze or cough. Remember, flu and cold viruses are transmitted primarily through airborne droplets.

    III.) Take the day off! If you’re suffering from a cold, do co-workers and friends a favor and quarantine yourself at home until you’re no longer sneezing and hacking. Of course, if you’ve got a bona fide case of the flu, you WILL be taking the day off. Flu symptoms are almost always severe enough to cause prostration.

    IV.) Keep your house humid. Indoor fountains (even the little table-top varieties), humidifiers and live plants all help keep indoor Winter air moist. Viruses spread more slowly in higher humidity because airborne water droplets "grab" the viruses and pull them out of circulation. In dry air, viruses are left to float around from one sneezing, coughing host to another.5

    3.) Strengthen your immune system with supplements.

    I.) Take an optimal potency vitamin/mineral supplement every day. If you only take one supplement to strengthen your immune system, it should be a good multiple formula. Studies have shown that seniors who take a multiple have stronger immune systems and are less lik
    ely to get a respiratory tract infection or the flu.11,12,13  A deficiency of any single vitamin, mineral or trace mineral can lead to weakened immunity. 12-23

    Improved nutritional status by supplementation can also improve the body’s response to vaccinations. 24

    Notice I said optimal potency, not "minimal." Studies have also shown that a one-per-day formula does virtually nothing to improve immunity. That’s because you can’t fit enough nutrients into one tablet or capsule to do anything but prevent severe deficiency diseases (like just enough vitamin C to prevent scurvy but not enough to strengthen the immune system). In the nutritional industry, we call that "pixie dust." An optimal-potency multi vitamin will require at least 6 caps per day (in divided doses). My Maxi Multi recommendation is 9 caps per day, which also includes a full dose of calcium and magnesium (which take up a lot of space in a capsule).

    Here are the nutrients of particular immune-enhancing importance, and they should all be found in a good multiple nutrient formula.

    * vitamin C – people with daily intakes of 500-1,000mg per day are less likely to catch colds, respiratory tract infections and pneumonia. Vitamin C also shortens the duration and severity of these infections.25-29,45

    * vitamin E – 200IU or more per day reduces the rate of common colds and upper respiratory tract infections 30,31 and increases resistance to influenza in seniors.18, 32-35,44

    * beta carotene – seniors with a high plasma beta-carotene concentration have a lower occurrence of acute respiratory infections.36

    * vitamin A – needed to maintain normal "barrier" function of skin and mucous membranes, thereby preventing entry of viruses. Normal levels improve immunity and disease resistance.14,23,29,37-38

    * vitamin D – Improves immunity and may enhance response to vaccinations.14,23,37,39

    * zinc – normal zinc status lowers the risk of pneumonia by nearly 50% 40 and decreases the incidence, duration and severity of upper respiratory infections and pneumonia.18,38,41,45 Improved zinc status also enhances the body’s response to vaccinations.11,29

    * selenium – Decreases the risk of respiratory tract infections. Improved selenium status also enhances the body’s response to vaccinations.11,18,35,42-43

    If you are not getting these target doses in your multiple vitamin, then add them separately OR switch to a better multiple vitamin/mineral formula. You can take a lot of "separate stuff" to achieve immune-boosting "target doses" of nutrients, but why would you want to work that hard?

    SHAMELESS PITCH HERE: my own Maxi Multi’s contain target doses of all these immune-boosting nutrients. Check to see how your multiple stacks up: Optimal Doses of Vitamins and Minerals for Good Health (scroll to the vitamin and mineral charts toward the bottom of the page)

    II.) Supplement with additional immune-boosting herbs. For additional protection, add an immune-enhancing formula throughout the colder months (recommended Nov.-April). There are literally hundreds of herbs that can be used to strengthen the immune system. Some work better — and some work MUCH better — than others. I’ve put together my own formula of the most "tried and true" (and proven) immune enhancing herbs including Echinacea, astragalus, medicinal mushrooms (Maitake, Shiitake, Reishi), Ligustrum, Goldenseal and Garlic. Learn more about my Immune Support formula here: http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/immunesupport.htm

    I Guarantee You Won’t Get The Flu This Winter

    I’m so confident that Immune Support formula, when used in combination with an optimal potency multiple like Maxi Multi, will help you avoid the flu that I offer a "guaranteed no flu this Winter" money-back guarantee. How confident is that?! Did your local doctor promise if you got a flu shot you wouldn’t get the flu or your money back? (Hahahaha….) See my "No Flu for You" Guarantee here >>>

    And for Goodness sakes, don’t wait until you feel fever and chills coming on to start taking supplements or eating better (although even late in the game, studies show you can shorten the severity and duration of a winter infection). Prevention is surer and safer than cure, and looks to me to be surer and safer than the flu vaccine, too!

    In Health,

    Dr. Myatt

    References

    1.) J. Dushoff, J. Plotkin, Cc Viboud, D. Earn, L. Simonsen. Mortality due to Influenza in the United States—An Annualized Regression Approach Using Multiple-Cause Mortality Data. American Journal of Epidemiology 2006 163(2):181-187
    2.) Molinari NA, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Messonnier ML, Thompson WW, Wortley PM, Weintraub E, Bridges CB. The annual impact of seasonal influenza in the US: measuring disease burden and costs. Vaccine. 2007 Jun 28;25(27):5086-96. Epub 2007 Apr 20.
    3.) Demicheli V, Rivetti D, Deeks JJ, Jefferson TO. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;3: CD001269.
    4.) The Flu. US Food and Drug Administration Fact Sheet, Aug. 2005.
    5.) Lowen AC, Mubareka S, Steel J, Palese P (2007) Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature. PLoS Pathog 3(10): e151. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.0030151
    6.) Sanchez A, et al. Role of sugars in human neutrophilic phagocytosis. Am J Clin Nutr 1973; 26: 1180-84
    7.) Van Oss CJ. Influence of glucose levels on the in vitro phagocytosis of bacteria by human neutrophils. Infect Immun. 1971 Jul;4(1):54-9.
    8.) Ringsdorf WM jr, Cheraskin E and Ramsey RR jr. Sucrose, Neutrophilic Phagocytosis, and Resistance to Disease. Dent Surv 1976; 52 (12): 46-48
    9.) Sanchez A, et al. Role of sugars in human neutrophilic phagocytosis. Am J Clin Nutr 1973; 26: 1180-84
    10.) Ringsdorf WM jr, Cheraskin E and Ramsey RR jr. Sucrose, Neutrophilic Phagocytosis, and Resistance to Disease. Dent Surv 1976; 52 (12): 46-48
    11.) Girodon F, Galan P, Monget AL, Boutron-Ruault MC, Brunet-Lecomte P, Preziosi P, Arnaud J, Manuguerra JC, Herchberg S. Impact of trace elements and vitamin supplementation on immunity and infections in institutionalized elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. MIN. VIT. AOX. geriatric network. Arch Intern Med. 1999 Apr 12;159(7):748-54.
    12.) Langkamp-Henken B, Bender BS, Gardner EM, Herrlinger-Garcia KA, Kelley MJ, Murasko DM, Schaller JP, Stechmiller JK, Thomas DJ, Wood SM. Nutritional formula enhanced immune function and reduced days of symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection in seniors. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Jan;52(1):3-12.
    13.) Winkler P, de Vrese M, Laue Ch, Schrezenmeir J. ffect of a dietary supplement containing probiotic bacteria plus vitamins and minerals on common cold infections and cellular immune parameters. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Jul;43(7):318-26.
    14.) Wintergerst ES, Maggini S, Hornig DH. Contribution of selected vitamins and trace elements to immune function. Ann Nutr Metab. 2007;51(4):301-23. Epub 2007 Aug 28.
    15.) Beck MA, Handy J, Levander OA. Host nutritional status: the neglected virulence factor. Trends Microbiol. 2004 Sep;12(9):417-23.
    16.) Beck MA. Nutritionally induced oxi
    dative stress: effect on viral disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Jun;71(6 Suppl):1676S-81S.
    17.) Chandra RK. Impact of nutritional status and nutrient supplements on immune responses and incidence of infection in older individuals. Ageing Res Rev. 2004 Jan;3(1):91-104.
    18.) High KP. Nutritional strategies to boost immunity and prevent infection in elderly individuals. Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Dec 1;33(11):1892-900. Epub 2001 Oct 25.
    19.) Sebastian RS, Cleveland LE, Goldman JD, Moshfegh AJ.Older adults who use vitamin/mineral supplements differ from nonusers in nutrient intake adequacy and dietary attitudes. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007 Aug;107(8):1322-32.
    20.) Chandra RK. Nutrition and immunology: from the clinic to cellular biology and back again. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999 Aug;58(3):681-3.
    21.) Maggini S, Wintergerst ES, Beveridge S, Hornig DH. Selected vitamins and trace elements support immune function by strengthening epithelial barriers and cellular and humoral immune responses. Br J Nutr. 2007 Oct;98 Suppl 1:S29-35.
    22.) Harbige LS. Nutrition and immunity with emphasis on infection and autoimmune disease. Nutr Health. 1996;10(4):285-312.
    23.) Wintergerst ES, Maggini S, Hornig DH. Contribution of selected vitamins and trace elements to immune function. Ann Nutr Metab. 2007;51(4):301-23. Epub 2007 Aug 28.
    24.) Wouters-Wesseling W, Rozendaal M, Snijder M, Graus Y, Rimmelzwaan G, De Groot L, Bindels J. Effect of a complete nutritional supplement on antibody response to influenza vaccine in elderly people. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2002 Sep;57(9):M563-6.
    25.) Sasazuki S, Sasaki S, Tsubono Y, Okubo S, Hayashi M, Tsugane S.Effect of vitamin C on common cold: randomized controlled trial.Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jan;60(1):9-17.
    26.) Van Straten M, Josling P. Preventing the common cold with a vitamin C supplement: a double-blind, placebo-controlled survey. Adv Ther. 2002 May-Jun;19(3):151-9.
    27.) Carr AB, Einstein R, Lai LY, Martin NG, Starmer GA. Vitamin C and the common cold: using identical twins as controls. Med J Aust. 1981 Oct 17;2(8):411-2.
    28.) Anderson TW, Beaton GH, Corey P, Spero L. Winter illness and vitamin C: the effect of relatively low doses. Can Med Assoc J. 1975 Apr 5;112(7):823-6.
    29.) Romieu I. Nutrition and lung health. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2005 Apr;9(4):362-74.
    30.) Meydani SN, Han SN, Hamer DH. Vitamin E and respiratory infection in the elderly. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Dec;1031:214-22.
    31.) Meydani SN, Leka LS, Fine BC, Dallal GE, Keusch GT, Singh MF, Hamer DH. Vitamin E and respiratory tract infections in elderly nursing home residents: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004 Aug 18;292(7):828-36.
    32.) Meydani SN, Han SN, Wu D. Vitamin E and immune response in the aged: molecular mechanisms and clinical implications. Immunol Rev. 2005 Jun;205:269-84.
    33.) Han SN, Meydani M, Wu D, Bender BS, Smith DE, Viña J, Cao G, Prior RL, Meydani SN. Effect of long-term dietary antioxidant supplementation on influenza virus infection. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000 Oct;55(10):B496-503.
    34.) Meydani SN, Meydani M, Blumberg JB, Leka LS, Siber G, Loszewski R, Thompson C, Pedrosa MC, Diamond RD, Stollar BD. Vitamin E supplementation and in vivo immune response in healthy elderly subjects. A randomized controlled trial. Vitamin E supplementation and in vivo immune response in healthy elderly subjects. A randomized controlled trial.
    35.) Beck MA. Selenium and vitamin E status: impact on viral pathogenicity. J Nutr. 2007 May;137(5):1338-40.
    36.) van der Horst-Graat JM, Kok FJ, Schouten EG. Plasma carotenoid concentrations in relation to acute respiratory infections in elderly people. Br J Nutr. 2004 Jul;92(1):113-8
    37.) Mora JR, Iwata M, von Andrian UH. Vitamin effects on the immune system: vitamins A and D take centre stage. Nat Rev Immunol. 2008 Aug 8. [Epub ahead of print]
    38.) Molina EL, Patel JA. A to Z: vitamin A and zinc, the miracle duo.Indian J Pediatr. 1996 Jul-Aug;63(4):427-31.
    39.) Hayes CE, Nashold FE, Spach KM, Pedersen LB.The immunological functions of the vitamin D endocrine system. Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 2003 Mar;49(2):277-300.
    40.) Meydani SN, Barnett JB, Dallal GE, Fine BC, Jacques PF, Leka LS, Hamer DH. Serum zinc and pneumonia in nursing home elderly.Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Oct;86(4):1167-73.
    41.) Wintergerst ES, Maggini S, Hornig DH. Immune-enhancing role of vitamin C and zinc and effect on clinical conditions. Ann Nutr Metab. 2006;50(2):85-94. Epub 2005 Dec 21.
    42.) Beck MA. Antioxidants and viral infections: host immune response and viral pathogenicity. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Oct;20(5 Suppl):384S-388S; discussion 396S-397S.
    43.) Beck MA. Selenium and host defence towards viruses. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999 Aug;58(3):707-11.
    44.) Burton A. Fewer colds with increased vitamin E intake. Lancet Infect Dis. 2004 Oct;4(10):600.
    45.) Wintergerst ES, Maggini S, Hornig DH. Immune-enhancing role of vitamin C and zinc and effect on clinical conditions. Ann Nutr Metab. 2006;50(2):85-94. Epub 2005 Dec 21.

  • CT Scans And Radiation Risks In Children – Is It Really Worth It?

    Opinion By Nurse Mark

    We have become very quick to request CT scans for just about every complaint these days – for ourselves, and especially for our children.

    And who can blame a worried parent: little Suzy has a tummyache, or little Johnny fell and thumped his head, or there is that nagging cough that hasn’t gone away and it’s been almost two weeks now… so it’s off to the doctor to demand some answers.

    The poor doctor though is swamped with all the other worried parents of all the other Suzies and Johnnies, so he listens quickly to the story, makes a perfunctory check to make sure that no disaster will befall the child before it gets to someone else’s care, and sends ’em packing with an order for a CT of whatever.

    Whew – done! Let the radiologist make a diagnosis! (Or face the wrath of a parent who must be told that there is nothing to be seen, and that coughs and colds and tummyaches and thumped noggins have been survived by kids for millions of years before the advent of CT scans and lawsuits.)

    Let’s look at what this is doing to our kids: In terms of radiation dose, a head CT is equivalent to 200 chest x-rays, a chest CT to 150 chest x-rays, and an abdominal CT to 250 chest x-rays.

    In this report, just issued to doctors, nurses, and radiologists on the Medscape website (they felt this was important enough that they provided "continuing education credits" or CE’s for reading the article and passing the test!)  are told "Computed tomography is of particular interest because of its relatively high radiation dose and wide use. Consensus statements on radiation risk suggest that it is reasonable to act on the assumption that low-level radiation may have a small risk of causing cancer."

    Throughout this article the weasel-words "may have" and "small risk" are used repeatedly, and several times the article assures doctors that they should continue to support the CT imaging industry by ordering scans because "Low-level radiation from CT studies might carry a small risk for cancer, but the risk is outweighed by the benefits of indicated CT studies in children."

    In this last statement note the use of the medical weasel-word "indicated." In normal layperson language "indicated" means "really needed because there is no other way to get the same results." For example, in a septic bacterial infection, an antibiotic would be indicated – for an influenza, not. In terms of CT scanning and other radiological examinations, "indicated" means that the doctor has exhausted all other means of making a diagnosis – including a careful and detailed hands-on physical examination!

    Unfortunately, few conventional (i.e. allopathic) doctors have the time, inclination or, in some cases the skills to do such a detailed examination and work-up – much of today’s "art of medicine" involves remembering what drug or test the Merck Manual dictates as being the "Standard of Care" for any given complaint and writing the appropriate order or prescription. Better to pass the risk of misdiagnosis on to a "specialist" than to try to "make the call" by ones-self… – this is known in clinical practice as "Risk Management."

    There is no question that as exposure to radiation increases, so does the risk of stimulating cancer. It is for this reason that those old fluoroscopes were banned from shoe stores and radium is no longer used on watch dials! Why the Big Medical Establishment continues to try to delude use into believing that these high-radiation-dose CT scans are acceptable for our children who are actively growing and thus at even higher risk is beyond comprehension. Is it ignorance, laziness, or the need to protect the multi billions of dollars per year industry that CT scanning has become?

    Fortunately, parents do have a choice – they can insist that all non-radiological avenues of examination and diagnosis are followed, explored, and exhausted by skilled practitioners before consenting to CT scans for their children!

    The Medscape article can be found here:

    Report Issued on the Risks of Using CT Scans in Children