HealthBeat News

Category: Opinion

  • Stevia – "We Told You So!"

    Deborah from Oklahoma wrote recently to ask:

    Do you have a take on this Truvia sweetener?

    Well, as a matter of fact we do have a take on it!

    I wrote about the future of stevia a little while ago in Another Chance For Stevia – where I predicted that this natural sweetener was getting ready to have a new lease on life as far as the FDA is concerned.

    You see, I had noticed the rumblings in the financial news – certain stocks were going up, based on the work of the American Industrial giants Coca Cola and Pepsico who were preparing to market their own patented versions of the age-old natural sweetener.

    I predicted that as soon as these industrial giants made it known to the FDA that they wanted no regulatory resistance to their new products then the "natural" forms of stevia would also have to be "recognized" to be safe since the new, patented sweeteners Truvia and PureVia are nothing more than isolates of natural stevia. My understanding is that the substances are not patented, the process for obtaining the substance is patented.

    So, what’s my take? I think it is great news that Coca Cola and Pepsico have listened to consumer demand and that the FDA is finally forced to listen to good sense – perhaps now Americans can begin to turn away from the toxic synthetic sweeteners marketed by the chemical and pharmaceutical industries and enjoy some nice, sweet, natural stevia.

    Are the new, patented sweeteners Truvia and PureVia going to prove to be safe over the long haul? My first reaction is to say "yes" – though with any substance that is isolated from the natural substance there is a risk that by isolating one small part of it we may be discarding another important part that somehow serves to prevent harm. The natural "sweet leaf" stevia has a history of safe use that spans thousands of years – Truvia and PureVia can’t say the same thing though there should be no reason for them not to be just as safe.

    Here at the Wellness Club we’ll continue to use natural stevia – but it sure is a pleasure to be able to find stevia in it’s natural form and it’s new patented forms on the shelves of our local grocery store! Coca Cola and Pepsico have given stevia it’s freedom and respect back.

    Thank you Coca Cola and Pepsico – did you ever think you would hear us say that here?

  • We Got ‘Spanked’ Over Salba?

    Some time ago I wrote an article about the latest “Miracle Food” being proclaimed and promoted variously as “nature’s most perfect food” and “the food of the gods”… It was a good article, well-researched, and our readers enjoyed it. Well, most of them did… For a few others, it seems that I touched a raw nerve… A fellow named Gary wrote to take us to task for publishing a “misleading” article – in other words he says we lied to you.

    Well, here is the article that cause Gary such upset – read it for yourself and see what you think. I stand by every word of it.

    And here is Gary’s letter to us:

    Name:   Gary Gxxxxxx
    Email:  garyxxxxxx@yahoo.ca; xxxxxx@corenaturals.com
    Comments:       Dear Dr. Myatt:

    I switched over from flax to Salba and found a great improvement in my overall health.  This is a misleading article because the numbers attributed to Salba in the article are in actuality the nutritional information for Chia on the USDA website.  If you had wanted to compare Salba and Flax in a truthful manner, you could have gone to any of the Salba websites for the true and accurate nutritional information.  Did you happen to notice on the USDA website for flax that there is a caveat from the USDA that because of cyanogenic glycosides, they do not recommend more than 12% flax be added to a product, or ingested.  There is no such caveat with Salba.
    Why don’t you put a warning on your packaging for Flax about this.

    I will continue to take Salba because it has proven in a very short time through clinical research that it is superior to flax.  I know I speak for many people when I say that no one minds paying more when they know exactly what they are getting.   I believe it is very fair to pay less than $1.00 a day for the proven benefits that Salba offers.  Do your due diligence and don’t play games with your valued readers.

    Yours truly,

    Gary Gxxxxxx

    P.S.  I have no affiliation with Salba.

    Hmmm… Gary, you say you have no affiliation with salba, but Gary, the “from” line of your email lists two addresses: garyxxxxxxx@yahoo.ca and the address of the CEO of the Florida-based company that touts itself as being “The Exclusive U.S. Distributor of Salba.” What’s up with that Gary?

    Dr. Myatt takes this sort of letter seriously, and though it has taken her a while to reply to it (after all, patients come first!), reply she has: fully researched and referenced as is her usual way. Here is what Dr. Myatt has to say to Gary in response to what I’m sure he thought was a stinging rebuke to us:

    [Dr. Myatt Notes: Note to readers: I believe this letter is a “plant,” written by someone with an agenda to promote Salba (chia seed), not a legitimate reader. However, I’ll answer it anyway to hopefully discourage other such bogus “responses”! (And to prove that we do in fact perform our “due diligence” when writing articles). ]

    Dear Gary

    I’m glad you’ve found salba helpful. However, I stand by every word we spoke about chia vs. salba, and it is YOU who needs to do your “due diligence” in this regard.

    Here are the facts (fully referenced) in case you’re really interested.

    Salba is a variety of the mint family; it’s botanical name is Salvia hispanica. Chia is the same herb, botanical name Salvia hispanica. Salba is just one varietal of Chia. Ergo ipso, Chia and salba are two common names for the same plant. Varietal differences do not show any significant nutritional differences. Learn more about this from a book written by the leading researcher on chia, Dr. Wayne Coates. (1).

    The marketing of chia (sold under brand names of “Salba,” “Benexia,” and “Aztec White” ) are, in my opinion, largely designed to obfuscate that it is merely a brand of chia seed being sold. “Exotic” usually sells unwitting consumers better than “gee, is that the same stuff as my chia pet?” would. But somewhere on the label you’ll see the botanical name, Salvia hispanica. Again, “exotic sells.”

    As to your comment that I should get the “real” nutritional information from the sellers website? Hahahaha! This is tantamount to saying “find out what a drug REALLY does by going to the drug company’s website.” Yeah, right. Independent research, not information presented by the seller, would seem to be a more reliable place to gather such “real” nutritional information.

    In fact, here are the nutrition claims from salbausa.com, the website I was referred to when I typed in the site you gave me, corenaturals.com. Every nutrition claim they make on their website’s homepage is either false or at least misleading. (Can you say “marketing hype”?) The website claims:

    “More omega-3’s than salmon.” This is a half-truth, which makes it also a half-lie. Salmon contains pre-formed DHA and EPA. Flax seed and chia both contain alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), a form of Omega-3 that must be converted in the body to EPA and DHA before it can used. Many people have problems making this conversion, so ALA is not truly equivalent to EPA and DHA.

    Further, although this website claims “30% more Omega-3s (ALA)” than flax seed, there is no reference cited for this claim.  According to USDA nutrition data files and other sources, flax actually has slightly more ALA than chia.(2)

    “25% more fiber than flax seed.” This one is closer to a truthful statement than any other made on the website. Actually, chia has approx 20% more fiber per 100 grams than flax seed. It also contains approximately 28% more carbohydrates than flax, making it a more “expensive” (in terms of carbohydrates) way to obtain those extra grams of fiber.(2)

    Other claims don’t compare chia to flax, they compare it to something else, such as “more magnesium than broccoli.” Of course, flax has more magnesium than broccoli, too. And so goes the list of other chia-to-NOT-flax comparisons.

    All in all, flax and chia are very close nutritionally. Chia may have more calcium and a wee bit more magnesium, but flax has a lot more potassium, zinc, copper, manganese and vitamins C and B-6. Remember, however, that most people are taking these seeds for Omaga-3 (ALA) fatty acids and fiber, not as a vitamin and mineral supplement.

    There is one important nutrient that the chia folks avoid mentioning, and that is a special type of fiber called lignan. Lignans are a special class of fiber that:

    • contain phytoestrogens (plant estrogens) which balances human estrogen levels (3-7)
    • has anti-cancer effects, especially in hormone-related cancers such as breast, prostate, ovarian and uterine cancer (8-18)
    • has bone-building effects (19-20)
    • has heart-protective effects (21-24)
    • improves blood sugar control (25-29)
    • may decrease the risk of lung (30) and colon (31) cancer
    • and may DECREASE ALL-CAUSE MORTALITY! (32)

    Flax seed is the richest known dietary source of lignans. (33,34) I can find no authoritative data demonstrating that chia seed contains any lignan, although I suspect it does. But how much? And since all lignans are not the same, and the effects/studies quoted above have been done on flax lignans specifically, even if chia proves to contain significant lignans, it remains to be studied if these will have the same effects as flax lignans.

    Here is a good t
    able of comparison, with information derived from USDA  and other authoritative sources: http://www.eatchia.com/flax.htm

    So.. flax has about the same fiber (a bit less, but also less carbs) than chia, it has more Omega-3 ALA and is high in protective lignans. And it costs a lot less. You can buy expensive “Salba” and other trademarked-brands of chia seed, but for my money, I’m sticking with organic flax seed for now.

    Got flax seed? Get it here.

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

    P.S.: “Cyanogenic glycosides,” also known as laetrile or vitamin B17, have long been used (with much supporting data) as a prevention for cancer. Laetrile is found in a wide variety of foods including berries, currants, millet, black beans and black-eyed peas. Populations with high intakes of laetrile have lower rates of cancer. Entire books have been written about studies on laetrile and the FDA’s cover-up of this valuable, naturally-occurring substance.

    Of course, the FDA and other government agencies claim laetrile is dangerous (to protect Big Pharma’s strangle-hold on cancer treatment). So when you state that I should warn people about the laetrile content in flax, I think it should go the other way. I should actually brag about laetrile’s content in flax and the potentially important role it has to play in cancer prevention. Meanwhile, you can trust the FDA’s word on flax seed toxicity if you choose to. I’m sticking with the numerous proven health benefits of laetrile and the paucity of “evidence” the FDA uses to condemn it.

    [Nurse Mark Notes: Dr. Wayne Coates whom Dr. Myatt refers to in her response to Gary is perhaps the world’s foremost educator on chia seeds. A research professor at the University of Arizona for over twenty-five years, Dr. Coats was among the first to grow chia seeds experimentally and later for commercial purposes. He co-authored the book Chia: Rediscovering a Forgotten Crop of the Aztecs, 2005.]

    References
    1.) Coates, Wayne; Ayerza,  Ricardo. Chia: Rediscovering a Forgotten Crop of the Aztecs, University of Arizona Press 2005.
    2.)     http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp
    3.) National Cancer Institute. Understanding Estrogen Receptors/SERMs. National Cancer Institute. January, 2005.  http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/estrogenreceptors.
    4.) Wang LQ. Mammalian phytoestrogens: enterodiol and enterolactone. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2002;777(1-2):289-309.
    5.) Brooks JD, Thompson LU. Mammalian lignans and genistein decrease the activities of aromatase and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase in MCF-7 cells. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005;94(5):461-467.
    6.)Mousavi Y, Adlercreutz H. Enterolactone and estradiol inhibit each other’s proliferative effect on MCF-7 breast cancer cells in culture. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 1992; 41: 615–9.
    7.) Basly JP, Lavier MC. Dietary phytoestrogens: potential selective estrogen enzyme modulators? Planta Med 2005; 71: 287–94.
    8.) Can the combination of flaxseed and its lignans with soy and its isoflavones reduce the growth stimulatory effect of soy and its isoflavones on established breast cancer? Mol Nutr Food Res. 2007 Jul;51(7):845-56
    9.) Kitts DD, Yuan YV, Wijewickreme AN, Thompson LU. Antioxidant activity of the flaxseed lignan secoisolariciresinol diglycoside and its mammalian lignan metabolites enterodiol and enterolactone.  Mol Cell Biochem. 1999 Dec;202(1-2):91-100.
    10.) Arts ICW, Hollman PCH. Polyphenols and disease risk in epidemiological studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 81 (suppl.): 317s–25s.
    11.) Linseisen J, Piller R, Hermann S, Chang-Claude J. Dietary phytoestrogen intake and premenopausal breast cancer risk in a German case-control study. Int J Cancer. 2004;110(2):284-290.
    12.) Ingram D, Sanders K, Kolybaba M, Lopez D. Case-control study of phyto-oestrogens and breast cancer. Lancet. 1997;350(9083):990-994.
    13.) Dai Q, Franke AA, Jin F, et al. Urinary excretion of phytoestrogens and risk of breast cancer among Chinese women in Shanghai. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002;11(9):815-821.
    14.) Horn-Ross PL, John EM, Canchola AJ, Stewart SL, Lee MM. Phytoestrogen intake and endometrial cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(15):1158-1164
    15.) McCann SE, Freudenheim JL, Marshall JR, Graham S. Risk of human ovarian cancer is related to dietary intake of selected nutrients, phytochemicals and food groups. J Nutr. 2003;133(6):1937-1942.
    16.) McCann MJ, Gill CI, Linton T, Berrar D, McGlynn H, Rowland IR. Enterolactone restricts the proliferation of the LNCaP human prostate cancer cell line in vitro. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2008 May;52(5):567-80.
    17.) Saarinen NM, Wärri A, Airio M, Smeds A, Mäkelä S. Role of dietary lignans in the reduction of breast cancer risk.  Mol Nutr Food Res. 2007 Jul;51(7):857-66.
    18.) Chen LH, Fang J, Li H, Demark-Wahnefried W, Lin X. Enterolactone induces apoptosis in human prostate carcinoma LNCaP cells via a mitochondrial-mediated, caspase-dependent pathway. Mol Cancer Ther. 2007 Sep;6(9):2581-90.
    19.) Sacco SM, Jiang JM, Reza-López S, Ma DW, Thompson LU, Ward WE.Flaxseed combined with low-dose estrogen therapy preserves bone tissue in ovariectomized rats. Menopause. 2009 Jan 29. [Epub ahead of print]
    20.) Kim MK, Chung BC, Yu VY, et al. Relationships of urinary phyto-oestrogen excretion to BMD in postmenopausal women. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2002;56(3):321-328.
    21. Vanharanta M, Voutilainen S, Rissanen TH, Adlercreutz H, Salonen JT. Risk of cardiovascular disease-related and all-cause death according to serum concentrations of enterolactone: Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(9):1099-1104.
    22. Cunnane SC, Hamadeh MJ, Liede AC, Thompson LU, Wolever TM, Jenkins DJ. Nutritional attributes of traditional flaxseed in healthy young adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 1995;61(1):62-68.
    23. Arjmandi BH, Khan DA, Jurna S. Whole flaxseed consumption lowers serum LDL-cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) concentrations in postmenopausal women. Nutr Res. 1998;18:1203-1214.
    24. Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Vidgen E, et al. Health aspects of partially defatted flaxseed, including effects on serum lipids, oxidative measures, and ex vivo androgen and progestin activity: a controlled crossover trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69(3):395-402.
    25.) Bhathena SJ, et al, Beneficial role of dietary phytoestrogens in obesity and diabetes. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Dec;76(6):1191-201.
    26.) Prasad K.  Secoisolariciresinol diglucoside from flaxseed delays the development of type 2 diabetes in Zucker rat. J Lab Clin Med. 2001 Jul;138(1):32-9.
    27.) Prasad K. Antioxidant Activity of Secoisolariciresinol Diglucoside-derived Metabolites, Secoisolariciresinol, Enterodiol, and Enterolactone. Int J Angiol. 2000 Oct;9(4):220-225.
    28.) Prasad K. Oxidative stress as a mechanism of diabetes in diabetic BB prone rats: effect of s
    ecoisolariciresinol diglucoside (SDG). Mol Cell Biochem. 2000 Jun;209(1-2):89-96.
    29.) Prasad K, et al, Protective effect of secoisolariciresinol diglucoside against streptozotocin-induced diabetes and its mechanism. Mol Cell Biochem. 2000 Mar;206(1-2):141-9.
    30.) Schabath MB, Hernandez LM, Wu X, Pillow PC, Spitz MR. Dietary phytoestrogens and lung cancer risk. JAMA. 2005 Sep 28;294(12):1493-504.
    31.) Cotterchio M, Boucher BA, Manno M, Gallinger S, Okey A, Harper P. Dietary phytoestrogen intake is associated with reduced colorectal cancer risk. J Nutr. 2006 Dec;136(12):3046-53.
    32.) Ivon EJ Milder, Edith JM Feskens, Ilja CW Arts, H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita, Peter CH Hollman and Daan Kromhout. Intakes of 4 dietary lignans and cause-specific and all-cause mortality in the Zutphen Elderly Study.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 84, No. 2, 400-405, August 2006.
    33.) Milder, I. E. J., Arts, I. C. W., Van de Putte, B., Venema, D. P., and Hollman, P. C. H. 2005. Lignan contents of Dutch plant foods: a database including lariciresinol, pinoresinol, secoisolariciresinol, and matairesinol. British Journal of Nutrition, 93:393-402.
    34.) Thompson LU. Experimental studies on lignans and cancer. Baillieres Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998;12(4):691-705.

  • What’s Old Is New Again – Can You Say "Chia Pet?"

    What’s Old Is New Again – Can You Say "Chia Pet?"

    By Nurse Mark

    There’s a New Kid On The Fiber Block… and his name is Salba.

     

    Like you, our email has been bombarded with ads and claims and articles and come-on’s for what is being touted as being a miracle food.

    Well, I decided to do a little research – because we don’t carry this "New Miracle Food" and I wanted to be sure that we were not missing out on something that would benefit our patients and customers.

    You see, we had looked at Salba previously, and found that in our opinion it didn’t have any clear advantages over tried-and-true flax seed. Yet now, with ad after ad and with pseudo-scientific "come-on’s" breathlessly trumpeting the wonders of this new offering, I just had to be sure.

    I looked up Salba – it turns out that "Salba" is a made-up name; a trade name for Salvia hispanica which is also known more traditionally (and popularly) as Chia Seed. Yep, the same stuff that your Chia Pet grows from… You won’t find Salba listed in the USDA Nutritional Database, but you will find Chia seed. I then looked up Flax seed in the USDA Nutritional Database – I really wanted to be sure I was making a true comparison, with data from a respected source, so that I could be sure I was comparing apples and apples – not apples and oranges.

    Various of these ads glowingly proclaim that "Salba’s nutritional content leaves flaxseed in the dust. Gram for gram, it’s got more Omega 3, more fiber and way more calcium and magnesium." That really got my attention.

    Is that fact I wondered? Well, let’s look at the advertising hype, and at the facts, according to the USDA:

    More Omega 3? Nope – according to the USDA figures, Flax beats Salba for Omega 3’s by a pretty good margin.

    More Fiber? Yes, Salba does have a little more fiber per 100 grams – but at what cost? Salba’s 37.7 grams of fiber comes at the price of 43.85 grams of carbohydrates – while flax, with 27.3 grams of fiber will cost you only 28.88 grams of carbs – much closer to the ideal 1:1 ratio of fiber to carbs. This might not make a difference if your weight is ideal, but it sure could make a big difference if you are on a low-carb diet…

    Calcium? Yes, Salba has more. ‘Way more. But should you rely on this for your daily calcium intake? Not hardly! We recommend at least 1000 mg of calcium daily, more for post-menopausal women. Our Maxi Multi contains 1000 mg of calcium and everybody should be taking Maxi Multi (or an equivalent multiple vitamin) every day.

    Magnesium? Well, the USDA for some reason has not listed magnesium for chia (Salba) but looking at a Salba industry website (you knew that there would be a Salba growing industry didn’t you… complete with growers "organizations" and lobby groups and advertising campaigns…) it looks like, according to their figures Salba has 383 mg of magnesium per 100 grams. The USDA does list this important mineral for flax seed – at 392 mg per 100 grams. Hmmm… sounds like somebody’s math is off just a little bit… but again, neither food should be relied upon for one’s daily intake of this mineral.

    Better taste? That’s an opinion call, but we haven’t heard any complaints about the mild, buttery taste of flax.

    Salba keeps for up to 5 years. So does Flax seed. But why would you keep something around that long without using it?

    So what else is there to compare? Well, most of these ads tout the protein content of Salba – proclaiming "more protein than soy!" Well, so does flax. In fact, flax has over 3 grams more protein per 100 grams that Salba!

    As for other nutrients, Salba claims to provide a whole bunch of goodness in the form of antioxidants and other valuable micronutrients – but then so does flax. Flax even provides a surprising 651 mcg of eye-healthy Lutein + zeaxanthin per 100 grams – something that Salba does not claim.

    So what does Salba do that flax doesn’t? It costs more!

    One popular and respected internet source is selling Salba seed in 444gm (just less than 1 lb) bottles for $29.95. Yikes!

    Flax seed can be found on our website at $6.49 per pound.

    Let’s see: Salba = $29.95 per pound, flax = 6.49 per pound.

    So, is Salba bad or worthless? Of course not! It is a fine and valuable food, both nutrient and fiber rich. But then so is flax.

    Is it worth over four-and-a-half times the cost of flax? Not in our opinion!

    We are also "Endorsing Birdseed" – in the form of flax seed. We’ll leave the chia seed in the Chia Pets where it belongs.

    The chia seeds do have one benefit though – when they sprout on your Chia Pet they can be picked and eaten – they make a tasty addition to a fresh salad…

     

    Nutrient Salba per 100 gm Flax per 100 gm
    Energy 490 Kcal 534 Kcal
    Carbohydrate 43.85 gm 28.88 gm
    Protein 15.62 gm 18.29 gm
    Fiber 37.7 gm 27.3 gm
    Omega 3 (18:3) 17.550 gm 22.813 gm
    Omega 6 (18:2) 5.785 gm 5.903 gm
    Omega 9 (18:1) 2.007 gm 7.359 gm
    Calcium 631 mg 255 mg
    Phosphorus 948 mg 642 mg
    Potassium 160 mg 813 mg
    Zinc 3.49 mg 4.34 mg

    All figures in this table are taken from the USDA National Nutrient Database http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/index.html

  • Doctors vs. Gun Owners – The Statistics of Death

    Doctors vs. Gun Owners

    Commentary by Nurse Mark

    This set of statistics has been circulating around the internet for a while – you have probably seen it. While it is certainly not politically correct (in light of our new Presidential Administration’s overall attitudes towards guns and gun owners) it does make one chuckle.

    It also points out how statistics can be used and manipulated.

    Just to get another view of these figures, I used the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) statistical engine to see what they had to say on the subject – and found that according to the CDC in 2005, in the United States, out of a population of 295,895,897,(All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages):

    Adverse effects – Medical care Deaths and Rates per 100,000 were 2,309  for a rate of 0.78,

    while

    Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000 were 789 for a rate of 0.27.

    This is a little different way of looking at the statistics, but still an eye-opener.

    Just to introduce a little perspective, I looked at the following:

    Overall Motor Vehicle Deaths and Rates per 100,000 were 45,520 deaths for a rate of 15.38

    (The above figures are courtesy of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html)

    So, please remember to fasten you seatbelt every time you ride in a motor vehicle – and sit back, put a smile on, and enjoy a little irreverent, politically incorrect humor!

    Doctors vs. Gunowners

    Doctors Gunowners
    Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services Statistics courtesy of FBI
    The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000 The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000
    (Yes, that’s right, 80 million)
    Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year: 120,000 Accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups: 1,500
    Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171 Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.000188

    So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

    Remember, ‘Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.’

    FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

    Please alert your friends to this alarming threat to our safety.

    Though doctors are licensed and closely regulated in America this daily carnage continues unchecked – perhaps we should consider a ban on doctors before this gets completely out of hand. If it saved even one life it might be worth it to keep these dangerous tools of conventional medicine out of the hands of dangerous people!

    Out of concern for the public at large, I’ve withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!

  • Antibiotics For Everything! A pill For Every Ill!

    How "Drug Resistant" Superbugs Are Born…

    Commentary by Nurse Mark

    Here is an interesting series of correspondence, and one that shows just how well the drug companies have conditioned us to believe that the only answer for any malady is a prescription drug, and just how casual conventional medicine practitioners have become about prescribing powerful drugs. This woman recently wrote in with the following question:

    Dr. Myatt:
    I Hope all is well with you and your family.  Fortunately for me, all I have is blood in my urine, burning sensation when urinating and bubbles (clouds) in my urine.  I don’t think this is serious yet.  But if it goes untreated, it can be deadly.  I do not have any medical insurance and due to the economy, my business is not bringing in income.  I cannot find a job. Q = Is there an antibiotic that I can take, without seeking a physician?
    Thanks!
    N

    Well, times are tough and a lot of Americans are not doing well financially – but being without "disease insurance" is not necessarily a bad thing…

    And it is true that if left untreated a urinary tract infection can be serious – indeed, alarming headlines have been filled recently with the tragic death of the South American  model who developed a septicemia – reportedly from a bladder infection.

    The short answer to N’s question is No.

    Prescription drugs are called that because they must be prescribed by a licensed health care professional – usually a doctor with prescribing privileges – and all patented antibiotics that I know of are controlled substances, available by prescription only.

    So, Dr. Myatt took the time to send N a brief reply pointing her in the direction of effective self-care:

    Dear N,
    This page tells you exactly what to do. More than 90% of people with a UTI (urinary tract infection) do NOT need, and shouldn’t take an antibiotic. Here’s what to do instead: http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/UrinaryTractInfections.htm

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

    Well, it seems that in the meantime N was able to get together the money to go and seek a prescription – she wrote:

    Hi,
    …Your web-site stated "Antibiotics not only kill bacteria in the urinary tract, but they can kill a lot of "friendly bacteria" in the gut as well." I don’t want to destroy the good bacteria in my body.  I was prescribed the medication below.  I was instructed to take 1 tablet twice a day for 7 days. Are you saying that I shouldn’t take it?

    SMZ/TMP DS 800-160 TAB INTERPHARM substituted for BACTRIM DS

    Can I find this D-mannose in the stores?

    I have been reading up on your diet information. It’s makes a lot of sense.  Some of these things I have known for years.  I am from the old school where mom used bushes, weeds, roots, etc to heal our illnesses.  I am a descendant of Africans who were captured and made into slaves in the 1700-1800’s.  I am the 5th generation.

    Since Dr. Myatt was up to her eyebrows in patient reports I took a few minutes to answer N this time – since I wanted a little more information about how this popular and powerful antibiotic was prescribed so quickly.

    Hi N,
    You may be able to find D-Mannose in local health-food stores. Be careful to obtain a high-quality product – not all supplements are created the same!

    D-Mannose can also be found on our website: http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/DMannose.htm – this is a pharmaceutical grade product and we can vouch for it’s purity, potency, and quality.

    As Dr. Myatt mentioned, it is impossible for us to advise you regarding the use of the antibiotic that was prescribed to you – we do not have benefit of the information that the person who prescribed it has: your history, symptoms, and laboratory report of the culture and sensitivity of your urine which tells whether there is a bacteria present in your urine, what variety of bacteria that is, and whether that bacteria is sensitive to (will be killed by) the antibiotic that was prescribed. The person who prescribed the antibiotic ~DID~ have a urinalysis culture and sensitivity performed, right?

    An analogy could be that all snakes can bite – but some snake bites are much more serious than others. Knowing which kind of snake has bitten is pretty important!

    If the urine C&S (med-speak for culture and sensitivity) showed that there was a bacteria present and that bacteria is sensitive to the antibiotic that was prescribed, then you should probably take the antibiotic as directed. Using the D-Mannose along with the antibiotic will help it to do it’s job better.

    Some harm to the normal flora (bacteria) of the gut is unavoidable with almost any antibiotic use, but can be corrected with the use of  probiotics (friendly gut bacteria) to replace the bacteria harmed by the antibiotics. More information, and an excellent product for this purpose can be found here: http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/supremadophilus.htm

    N, as you know we often use the questions and comments of folks who write us in our HealthBeat Newsletter when we feel that they can be helpful to others. Some form of this back-and-forth will likely appear in an upcoming article as these are questions that we hear often. Can you tell me please, did the person who prescribed the antibiotic for you perform the laboratory test for culture and sensitivity on a sample of your urine, or was the antibiotic prescribed to you just based on your symptoms?

    Cheers,
    Nurse Mark

    N wrote back once more to say:

    Hi Nurse Mark,
    Thank you for commenting on my questions. I went to one of the local hospitals. I gave a urine sample. The nurse said that I have a urinary tract infection. He said that there were white blood cells, bacteria and something else in the urine     [Nurse Mark notes: probably protein]. Another nurse brought me a prescription along with home care instructions and sent me on my way.

    Mark, thank you and Dr. Myatt for all of your help.

    Well, there you have it – as I suspected, a urine sample was collected. It was certainly "dipped" – a test done in a few seconds using a dipstick that will demonstrate the quick results that N described. It may have been sent on to be cultured – a more expensive and time consuming test requiring 48 hours or more for meaningful results – but I doubt it. No, the antibiotic was prescribed presumptively – based on N’s reported symptoms and the results of the "dip".

    You see, it is very common in conventional medicine to prescribe powerful antibiotics "presumptively", and here’s how it works: the patient complains of a symptom, and the doctor (or in this case the nurse) presumes that this symptom is the result of something common and therefore no further testing is necessary before prescribing a drug. Further, in this case, SMZ/TMP (Bactrim) is considered a "broad spectrum" antibiotic, meaning that accuracy in diagnosis is even less important – it’ll kill a wide variety of bacteria and so it is easy to prescribe. It’s easy, "cookbook" medicine.

    Is this a good thing? Well, if used carefully it certainly is – broad spectrum antibiotics can be life-saving in the case of an overwhelming infection. They can be used to begin a patient on antibiotic therapy while a careful doctor awaits the results of the Culture and Sensitivity lab test that will t
    ell him if he guessed correctly at what the causative bacteria was, and what that bacteria would be sensitive to. If the results of the C&S show that a different bacteria is present or is sensitive to a different antibiotic, then the antibiotic can always be changed – but only if a C&S was done, and only if the doctor was made aware of the results in a timely manner.

    My guess is that none of that will happen and that N was prescribed her powerful antibiotic based on presumption and a "standing order". Standing Orders allow people who otherwise are not allowed to prescribe drugs to do so based on a set of defined conditions – the doctor just comes along and "signs off" on the order later. This saves time, gets more people seen, and sells more prescription drugs to people.

    And that’s just the way the big drug companies like it.

    Unfortunately this willy-nilly prescribing of powerful antibiotics at the drop of a hat (or the dip of a test stick) is giving us a frighteningly powerful crop of drug-resistant bacteria that scoff at our current antibiotics – these are the "superbugs" that we hear about ever more often in the news.

    Superbugs that will need to be battled with yet-to-be-developed Super Antibiotics that can be patented and offered to a frightened and desperate public at "Super" prices.

    And that’s just the way the big drug companies like it.