HealthBeat News

Category: Women’s Health

  • Bogus Breast Cancer Research

    Bogus Breast Cancer Research

     

    (Why the Little Pink Ribbon Has Me Seeing Red)

     

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

     

    October is “Breast Cancer Awareness Month,” and little pink ribbons are as plentiful as Halloween candy.

    Have you ever given money to breast cancer research or purchased a “little pink ribbon” to show your support and solidarity? If you have, I believe you’ve been duped by Big Pharma’s and Big Government’s bogus “research projects,” and thrown good money toward a losing game.

    Before you shoot the messenger, let me explain why the “little pink ribbon” has me seeing red.

    Problems with breast cancer fund-raising and research:

    1.) Money often doesn’t go to actual research.

    As much as 90% of revenues can be spent on “administrative” and “fundraising” costs. Depending on which charity your money goes to, the actual money generated for gifting can be less than 10%. That’s ugly.

    To find out which charities retain most of their revenues for genuine research contribution, check out your favorite charity at http://www.charitynavigator.org/

    For example, the Coalition Against Breast Cancer spends 78% of it’s budget hiring for-profit fundraisers:

    The American Breast Cancer Foundation spends 50% of it’s income on administrative and fund-raising costs:

    The United Breast Cancer Foundation spends 59% of revenues on admin and fundraising:

    And “Think Before You Pink,” a service of Breast Cancer Action, offers some additional tips and insider information about donating to breast cancer research:

    When you “give to the cure,” you might want to verify where your money is going and how much of it is actually being spent on breast cancer research.

    2.) Money funds more conventional cancer research, but conventional research, diagnosis and treatments are not improving cancer mortality rates significantly.

    I.) Conventional breast cancer treatments don’t work. At least not very well. Cancer research organizations that put money into Big Pharma are betting on the wrong horse.

    Despite press releases and proclamations which tell us that we’re “winning the war on breast cancer” (thanks, of course, to all of our collective millions of giving), the truth is that conventional cancer diagnosis and treatment have gotten us next to nowhere.

    According to statistics published by the National Cancer Institute, the breast cancer rate has declined 1.7% between 1998 and 2007. That, they say, is a “significant” change.(1)

    Of course, we are led to believe that this 1.7% drop is due to improvements in diagnosis (mammograms) and conventional treatment. But the statistics show otherwise.

    Instead, the single biggest drop in breast cancer rates of all time occurred in 2002-2003 when women flocked away from conventional hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after news “broke” that it increased breast cancer risk. According to the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates fell 6.7% — a heck of bigger drop than the 1.7% being touted —- when over 40 million women stopped taking conventional hormone prescriptions. (2) Actually, the association between HRT and breast cancer was known as early as the 1960’s. (3) For shame.

    In Canada, a 9.6% drop in breast cancer rates was noted when hormone replacement therapy use declined.(4)

    Whether it be a 6.7% or a 9.6% drop, that’s a much bigger improvement that our 1.7% “statistically significant” decrease claimed in the US as a result of millions of dollars of mammogram screenings and expensive chemotherapies.

    The single biggest drop we’ve seen in recent years in breast CA is when women flocked away from conventional hormone therapy in droves. In other words, the best thing that conventional medicine has done to stem the tide of breast cancer is to have women “just say no” to a breast-cancer causing conventional hormone treatment!

    So, the “significant” 1.7% decrease in breast cancer rates in over a decade includes the 6.7% drop in breast cancer due to women discontinuing conventional hormone replacement therapy. Instead of a new drug or surgical treatment being responsible for this modest decline in breast cancer rates, the decline is actually due to women avoiding a dangerous conventional drug.

    This also begs the question — if we are to believe that a 1.7% drop in cancer incidence is “significant,” how come the 2.7 increase between 1995-1998 was not also “significant”? And how come the 6.7% drop when millions of women stopped conventional HRT isn’t WAY significant? (1) Are we perhaps over-selling the “winning the war” statistics in order to give people a warm fuzzy and encourage them to keep contributing?

    II.) Much more is known about how to prevent cancer than how to cure it.

    Of the millions of dollars raised and donated to conventional cancer research, how come none of this money — nay, not even a little bit of it — is spent educating women on prevention? After all, an ounce of prevention really IS worth a pound of cure.

    Forget the measly 1.7% decline in breast cancer rates over the past 9 years, let’s talk about what is known about prevention. The preventive aspects of breast cancer, and how much the risks can be lowered, make the “statistically significant 1.7%” look even more ridiculous. Consider the truly huge improvements in breast cancer rates that could be achieved with known preventive measures.

    Overweight/obesity. Fat cells manufacture estrogen. We already know about the estrogen/breast cancer connection. The fatter a woman, the more breast cancer risk, at least for post-menopausal females. How big is this risk?

    Women who gain 55 pounds or more after age 18 have a 50% greater risk of breast cancer compared with those who maintained their weight. A gain of 22 pounds or more after menopause was associated with an increased risk of 18%, whereas losing at least 22 pounds after menopause and maintaining the weight loss was associated with 57% lower breast cancer risk. In case you missed this, let me repeat, a whopping FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT DECREASED RISK by losing 22 pounds. (5)

    This is incredible news. Instead of putting pink ribbons on buckets of fast-food chicken, why aren’t these “concerned” cancer organizations telling women to back away from the fried chicken, shed a few pounds and drop their risk of breast cancer like a rock?

    Exercise. Invasive, estrogen-receptor negative cancers (less common, more deadly) can be reduced 55 percent by long-term, strenuous physical activity or 47% by long-term moderate physical activity. This amounts to 5 hours of exercise per week. (6) Let’s see…. a 47% drop compared to a 1.7% drop? “Long-term means you start exercising when you are a young woman and continue weekly exercise throughout life. Shouldn’t some of the “little pink ribbon” money be spent educating young women about the profound reduction in cancer risk from a modest amount of exercise, instead of just selling annual mammogram screening?

    Even if you didn’t start exercising as a younger woman, it’s never too late to benefit. In one study from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) as little as 1.25 to 2.5 hours per week of brisk walking reduced a woman’s risk by 18%. (7) Let’s see…. 18% vs. 1.7%. Did you hear any of this from the “little pink ribbon” sponsors?

    Alcohol contributes a small additional risk. Women who drink 2-5 drinks per day have 1 1/2 times the risk as non-drinkers. The effect is magnified in women who use conventional hormone replacement therapy. (8) This amounts to a small increase in risk, but remember — all the millions of dollars of “little pink ribbon” money have amounted to only a small decrease in risk.

    3.) Why should you and I fund Big Pharma’s search for newer, deadlier, ineffective drugs that they are going to profit from? Fund your own darned drug studies I say …

    Alrighty, so you run your butt off in a “race for the cure,” to raise money to assist drug companies in researching more drugs. Some of these drugs cost upwards of $10,000/month to the patient (while costing the drug companies a pittance).

    And then YOU get breast cancer. Do you get a discount because you helped Big Pharma fund a drug that might increase your survival by 8 weeks? NO. You, or more likely your insurer, will be paying full price for your treatment.

    Mike Adams sums this warped situation up succinctly:

    “For most diseases, the race for the cure is really just a way for drug companies to shift R&D costs to suckers. You fund the R&D, and then you get to pay full price for the drug they drummed up thanks to your generous donation. “ – Mike Adams

     

    Dr. Myatt’s Summary: millions of dollars spent over the last 3 decades and what do we have? A 1.7% reduction in breast cancer mortality. And most if not ALL of this decrease is due to declining use of conventional hormone therapy.

    On the other hand, we already know simple ways to slash breast cancer risk by up to 50%

    Until some of the “little pink ribbon” money goes toward public education about how to reduce risks, and some of the money goes to research non-toxic treatments, and until the “little pink ribbon” folks don’t whore their honor by allowing their icons on junk food, I’m keeping my money closer to home.

    _________________

    Find out more about the politics of breast cancer (and how Big Pharma and Big Government gain the most from our “fundraising efforts) here:

    http://bcaction.org/index.php?page=politics-faq#Funding%20for%20Breast%20Cancer%20Research

    _______________________________
    References

    1.) Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Cronin K, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2007, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/, based on November 2009 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2010. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html#incidence-mortality

    The joinpoint trend in SEER cancer incidence with associated APC(%) for cancer of the breast between 1975-2007, All Races Female

    Trend Period

    -0.5 1975-1980

    3.9* 1980-1987

    -0.1 1987-1995

    2.7 1995-1998

    -1.7* 1998-2007

    If there is a negative sign before the number, the trend is a decrease; otherwise it is an increase. If there is an asterisk after the APC then the trend was significant, that is, one believes that it is beyond chance, i.e. 95% sure,

    2.) NCI website accessed 10-26-10:

    http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2007/breastincidencedrop

    3.) McCarthy JD. Influence of two contraceptives on induction of mammary cancer in rats. Am J Surg. 1965 Nov;110(5):720-3.

    4.) Breast Cancer , accessed 10-26-10: http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/new_research/20100924.jsp

    5.) Morimoto LM, White E, Chen Z, et al. Obesity, body size, and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: the Women’s Health Initiative (United States). Cancer Causes Control. Oct 2002;13(8):741-751.

    6.) NCI website accessed 10-26-10:

    Ref: http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/ncicancerbulletin/archive/2008/102108/page8

    7.) http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-risk-factors

    8.) http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-risk-factors

  • Is Chocolate Really a Health Food?

    Is Chocolate Really a Health Food?

     

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

     

    “A new British survey has revealed that 9 out of 10 people like chocolate. The 10th lies”  —Robert Paul

     

    Chocolate has been making headlines for it’s heart-healthy benefits, and chocolate-lovers everywhere are rejoicing that their favorite treat may actually be healthy. Gosh — how great would it be if your doctor “prescribed” a daily chocolate bar?

    Before you start snacking on that daily treat, here is some “medical insider” information you should know.

    Who Thought to Research Chocolate for Health Benefits?

    A tribe of indigenous people in Panama — the Kuna tribe — have been known to scientists since the 1940’s for their absence of high blood pressure and heart disease. When tribe members move to the city, blood pressure and heart disease rates rise.(1)

    OK, so city life is probably more stressful than living naturally in the bush. But another significant difference in bush-living Kuna is their intake of chocolate, or more specifically, flavonol-rich cocoa. The indigenous Kuna consume 10 times more cocoa flavonols in the form of 5 or more cups per day of a cocoa beverage. They also use cocoa in many recipes. Their city-dwelling counterparts do not. (NOTE: Indigenous Kuna also consume 4 times more fish).(2,3)

    The “magic” in the Kuna beverage is a minimally processed cocoa that contains high levels of polyphenols which are a type of flavonol that triggers nitric oxide production.

    Nitric oxide (NO) is a potent vasodilator that opens blood vessels, lowers blood pressure and increases blood flow. Many natural physicians use L-arginine, which converts to NO. Chocolate flavonols increase the conversion of L-arginine to nitric oxide. [Note: Viagra ™ works by increasing NO, but by a different mechanism.] (4,5)

    Several new studies suggest that chocolate lowers blood pressure.

    Earlier this year, a study published in The Journal of American Hypertension reported on an experiment with 102 hypertensive patients randomized to consume either 6 or 25 grams per day of flavonol-rich dark chocolate for 3 months. [Dr. Myatt’s side note: this is one of the few medical studies I’d probably agree to participate in! 😉 ]

    Blood pressure in both groups dropped, independent of dose. In other words, it doesn’t take much chocolate to achieve health benefits. (Sorry to those who were thinking this was going to be a “green light” to eat an entire chocolate bar every day).(6)

    Another meta-analysis analyzed data from 10 separate chocolate studies and found that chocolate intake decreased systolic B.P. an average of 4.5mm Hg and diastolic BP an average of 2.5mm Hg.(7) This is a very modest reduction of blood pressure.

    Other Benefits of Chocolate

    Besides modest blood pressure-lowering effects, chocolate flavonols have also been shown in various studies to decrease vascular inflammation (a separate cause of heart disease) and improve blood lipids by lowering LDL and raising HDL.(4,8)

    How Much Chocolate Should You Eat for Health Benefits?

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but here goes.

    The studies mentioned above all used special chocolates processed with low heat and not “Dutched” (alkalinized). These are not the types of chocolate you can purchase in stores. The “magic” in chocolate, the flavonols, are destroyed by heat processing and alkali (“Dutched” cocoa).Even the “organic” and “extra-dark” chocolates with 70% cocoa don’t necessarily get the job done. Flavonols are damaged by heat and alkalinization. Period. Bummer.

    Flavonols in chocolate — the healthy stuff — is bitter. This is why chocolate is “dutched” (alkalinized) and heat-treated. It makes the “bitter” more palatable. But in processing chocolate to make it tasty, the health properties are damaged.(9,10)

    Fonus Balonus Chocolate Studies

    It should also be noted that many of the “chocolate is good for you” studies have been funded by the chocolate industry.(11-13) However, when the benefits are touted to the public, no mention is made of the “must be low heat processed in order to work.” The natural foods industry has apparently caught on to Big Pharma’s “massage the statistics and obfuscate the facts” tricks. Hey — whatever it takes to sell more stuff.

    Don’t Give Up on Chocolate Just Yet

    The right dark chocolate, minimally heat processed and not “dutched,” can contain enough flavlonols to have potential health benefit.(14) Cocoa “nibs” — roasted cocoa beans separated from their husks and broken into small bits — also have some of the very highest flavonol content.(15)

    If you are serious about eating a SMALL piece of chocolate each day for both health benefit and enjoyment, be sure to get dark chocolate with high flavonol content. Vital Choice Seafood features chocolate bars with some of the highest flavonol content available. Vital Choice Organic Extra Dark Chocolate features healthy fats, minerals, and antioxidants. Savored sparingly, it makes a delicious, satisfying treat that supports your health and helps sustain cacao growers’ land, communities, and culture.

    Chocolate Antioxidant Chart

    REFERENCES

    1.) K Hollenberg N. Vascular action of cocoa flavanols in humans: the roots of the story. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2006;47 Suppl 2:S99-102; discussion S119-21.
    2.) Hollenberg NK, Fisher ND, McCullough ML. Flavanols, the Kuna, cocoa consumption, and nitric oxide. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2009 Mar-Apr;3(2):105-12. Epub 2009 Feb 20.
    3.) McCullough ML, Chevaux K, Jackson L, Preston M, Martinez G, Schmitz HH, Coletti C, Campos H, Hollenberg NK. Hypertension, the Kuna, and the epidemiology of flavanols. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2006;47 Suppl 2:S103-9; discussion 119-21.
    4.) Fisher ND, Hollenberg NK. Aging and vascular responses to flavanol-rich cocoa. J Hypertens. 2006 Aug;24(8):1575-80.
    5.) Taubert D, Roesen R, Lehmann C, Jung N, Schömig E. Effects of low habitual cocoa intake on blood pressure and bioactive nitric oxide: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007 Jul 4;298(1):49-60.
    6.) Desch S, Kobler D, Schmidt J, Sonnabend M, Adams V, Sareban M, Eitel I, Blüher M, Schuler G, Thiele H. Low vs. higher-dose dark chocolate and blood pressure in cardiovascular high-risk patients. Am J Hypertens. 2010 Jun;23(6):694-700. Epub 2010 Mar 4.
    7.) Desch S, Schmidt J, Kobler D, Sonnabend M, Eitel I, Sareban M, Rahimi K, Schuler G, Thiele H. Effect of cocoa products on blood pressure: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Hypertens. 2010 Jan;23(1):97-103. Epub 2009 Nov 12.
    8.)  Engler MB, Engler MM, Chen CY, Malloy MJ, Browne A, Chiu EY, Kwak HK, Milbury P, Paul SM, Blumberg J, Mietus-Snyder ML. Flavonoid-rich dark chocolate improves endothelial function and increases plasma epicatechin concentrations in healthy adults. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Jun;23(3):197-204.
    9.) McShea A, Ramiro-Puig E, Munro SB, Casadesus G, Castell M, Smith MA. Clinical benefit and preservation of flavonols in dark chocolate manufacturing. Nutr Rev. 2008 Nov;66(11):630-41.
    10.) Andres-Lacueva C, Monagas M, Khan N, Izquierdo-Pulido M, Urpi-Sarda M, Permanyer J, Lamuela-Raventós RM. Flavanol and flavonol contents of cocoa powder products: influence of the manufacturing process. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 May 14;56(9):3111-7. Epub 2008 Apr 16.
    11.) Hurst WJ, Payne MJ, Miller KB, Stuart DA. Stability of cocoa antioxidants and flavan-3-ols over time. J Agric Food Chem. 2009 Oct 28;57(20):9547-50.
    12.) Miller KB, Hurst WJ, Flannigan N, Ou B, Lee CY, Smith N, Stuart DA.Survey of commercially available chocolate- and cocoa-containing products in the United States. 2. Comparison of flavan-3-ol content with nonfat cocoa solids, total polyphenols, and percent cacao.J Agric Food Chem. 2009 Oct 14;57(19):9169-80.
    13.) Stahl L, Miller KB, Apgar J, Sweigart DS, Stuart DA, McHale N, Ou B, Kondo M, Hurst WJ. Preservation of cocoa antioxidant activity, total polyphenols, flavan-3-ols, and procyanidin content in foods prepared with cocoa powder. J Food Sci. 2009 Aug;74(6):C456-61.
    14.) Djoussé L, Hopkins PN, North KE, Pankow JS, Arnett DK, Ellison RC. Chocolate consumption is inversely associated with prevalent coronary heart disease: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Family Heart Study. Clin Nutr. 2010 Sep 19. [Epub ahead of print]
    15.) Ortega N, Romero MP, Macià A, Reguant J, Anglès N, Morelló JR, Motilva MJ. Obtention and characterization of phenolic extracts from different cocoa sources. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Oct 22;56(20):9621-7. Epub 2008 Sep 27.

  • When Supplements Are Marketed Like Drugs

    When Supplements Are Marketed Like Drugs

     

    By Nurse Mark

     

    Everyone is constantly bombarded being with advertising and it is often difficult to separate the fact from the fiction and from the hype which can be either. While the Big Pharma marketing departments are the unquestioned masters at this, the natural supplement industries are not immune to the siren song of the advertising and marketing consultancies and agencies either.

    Ethel wrote recently to ask:

    What is your opinion of Amberen, that promotes to be the choice for women experiencing menopause?

    Here are some of my thoughts on this new product:

    This is a supplement that is being given the look of a drug, complete with a Big-Pharma-style website and “free trial” offer. While I respect the right of this supplement maker to market this supplement in any way they like, the amount of “hype” involved makes the B.S. warning lights on my dashboard begin to glow…

    The website relies heavily on the power of the “testimonial” as “proof” of the value and effectiveness of this supplement – and while it is always great to hear of these “success stories” they are not proof of anything other than that these women claim that they feel better. Testimonials are not scientific proof of anything – and my B.S. warning lights are glowing brighter…

    Speaking of scientific proof, the website offers a page detailing “clinical trials”. There they present their one human trial and two lab rat studies. They offer 3 links to journals which have published the human study. Here is the kicker though: the human study was relatively small at 70 women and brief – lasting only 35 days, and it was sponsored (paid for) by the company that makes Ambren. Here is the acknowledgement at the end of the paper:

    The authors’ research in this paper was supported by Mikhail L. Uchitel, The Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Biophysics of RAS (Pushchino, Russia), and The Scientific-Production Company “Biophysics, Ltd.” (Moscow, Russia). The publication of this article was initiated and supported by “Lunada Biomedical, Ltd” (USA).

    Now my B.S. light is not just glowing brightly – it’s actually beginning to flash. This is a standard technique used by Big Pharma: create a product, pay for a study or trial, and publish the positive results of that trial so that there are “Clinical Trials Proving The Effectiveness” that you can use in your advertising materials.

    They mention a second human trial of 32 women studied over 5 years, but provide no reference where one might actually see the study. I guess we just have to take their word on that one…

    Then there is the classic marketing technique of the “free sample.” Big Pharma has a harder time with this one since their offerings usually require a prescription – so they handle it with ads that encourage you to “Ask your doctor if this drug is right for you!”

    Your local street drug dealer has it a little easier – the pusher can simply say “go on kid, try a hit – it’s free, it’s on the house, and you’ll like it!” He knows you’ll be back for more as soon as you are hooked… The Ambren people have settled on a compromise: they offer to have you “Try Amberen free for 30 days”. But it’s not actually free – they will send you a 90 day supply if you will pay the shipping up front, and they will not charge your credit card for that 90 day supply until the 31st day. Is that a warning horn that I hear along with my flashing B.S. warning light?

    So much for their marketing practices – what about the product?

    Their theory sounds intriguing: Stimulate an aging hypothalamus and encourage it to produce signals that will tell the endocrine glands to produce more youthful hormone levels. And indeed, if their studies are to be believed, this does in fact occur. They claim that Amberen use results in increased estrogen production. This is wonderful if decreased estrogen is the sole cause of a woman’s symptoms.

    I have some concern about some of the ingredients: since this is a “proprietary blend” and is not a drug they are not required to list specifics but one of the ingredients is Monosodium L-Glutamate – good old MSG. This is a substance that can have some not-so-good effects on the nervous system as anyone who is sensitive to it will quickly tell you. Even in those who do not show a “sensitivity” (think “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome”) are affected neurologically by this substance – it functions as an excitatory neurotransmitter which, if taken in excess, can become neurotoxic. (This is what happens when the chef at the local Chinese buffet goes a little too heavy on the MSG and you end up with symptoms like numbness, burning sensations, tingling, facial pressure or tightness, chest pain, headache, nausea, rapid heartbeat, drowsiness, weakness, or difficulty breathing for asthmatics – the MSG becomes an excitatory neurotoxin.)

    Now, I’m not suggesting that the amounts of MSG in Amberen are problematic – their website claims that the product is well-tolerated and that “Animal studies, toxicology and clinical trials with Amberen did not reveal any significant side-effects.”

    I also have some concern any time someone suggests a “shotgun” approach to any health concern, where they’ll just throw something at it, based on the success of someone else, and hope it works for them.

    Unfortunately, while decreasing levels of estrogen can indeed be a part of menopause, this is often not the whole story. Our bodies, both male and female, are a veritable stew of different hormones, none of which work in isolation – they are all interdependent and inter-related. Hormones can be deficient, excessive, or relatively deficient or excessive in that there may be too much or too little of one hormone in relation to another hormone that counteracts or balances it.

    When Dr. Myatt works with menopausal women (and men!) she doesn’t guess – she performs detailed hormone testing and analysis and this allows her to make precise corrections using herbs, nutrition, bio-identical hormones, or more likely, a combination of these. Her patients won’t stand for guess-work – they want results, and they want those results to be provable with lab testing, not just by subjective symptoms.

    You see, Dr. Myatt’s patients are very well-educated about their health – Dr. Myatt insists on that. They know that, to use the now-discredited drug Premarin as an example, it is possible to give a single substance (i.e.: to make an isolated correction) that will improve symptoms – and Premarin was very effective at improving symptoms – but that can result in multiple other problems and even dangers, as Premarin was eventually shown to do.

    So, Ethel, should menopausal women try Aberen?

    Well, maybe: The product looks like it should be safe. The theory behind it looks good. There are limited studies suggesting that it is effective and generally well-tolerated. It is not excessively expensive.

    For me however, the jury is still out. Until I see some additional scientifically-conducted, peer-reviewed studies my advice would be to wait – there are plenty of women out there who will be the testers for this product – the guinea-pigs. Let’s wait until there is some history behind this product and there are no unforeseen or even nasty surprises with it’s use.

    I can tell you with certainty that Dr. Myatt will not likely recommend this to her patients until there is more evidence of it’s safety and effectiveness. She will continue to work with her menopause patients the “old-fashioned” way – one person at a time, individually, uniquely, and based on hormone testing lab results, not guess-work. If a patient were to say to Dr. Myatt “I want to use Ambren” I’m sure she would say “fine – let’s follow your lab results to be sure that it is doing what we want it to, and let’s not forget all the other supportive measures that go along with this too.”

    You see, we firmly believe that in anything as complicated as the human organism there are no one-pill, one-size-fits-all answers or remedies. Every woman is different, and every woman’s menopause will benefit from an approach tailored just for her, based on her own unique needs.

    And that’s our Bottom Line!

  • Dangers of your Daily Shower: Part I

    Deadly Daily Showers, Part I: Hot Water

     

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

     

    What should be a relaxing, cleansing daily health ritual may actually be one of the most dangerous things you do every day. Learn how and why your daily shower is far more dangerous than you know, and how to reclaim your daily shower as a truly healing ritual.

    What’s in Your Water?

    Over 315 different chemicals have been identified in municipal water sources around the country. There are no federal testing guidelines for more than half of these chemicals.

    Of the remainder, as many as 49 have been found in levels above that allowed by law. This means that 53.6 million Americans are exposed to dangerously high levels of contaminants in municipal water! (1)

    Unregulated contaminants include antibiotics, statin drugs, pain medications, “head meds” like Prozac and estrogens among others.(2)

    If unintended contaminants — including drinking your neighbor’s drug-filled toilet-water — isn’t disgusting enough, remember that the deliberately added chemicals chlorine and fluoride, carry their own risks.

    Chlorine, added to kill bacteria, combines with organic matter to form chloroform, trihalomethanes (THMs) and other Disinfection By-Products (DCP’s). According to the U.S. Government, these chemicals “result in adverse effects on the central nervous system, liver, kidneys and heart” and are also potent carcinogens. (3)

    Fluoride in the form of hexafluorosilicic acid, a waste product of the fertilizer industry, vaporizes to hydrogen fluoride (HF).

    According to the U.S. Government, HF is highly corrosive to the lungs, “irritating to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes, and inhalation may cause respiratory irritation or hemorrhage. Systemic effects can occur from all routes of exposure and may include nausea, vomiting, gastric pain, or cardiac arrhythmia. Symptoms may be delayed for several days, especially in the case of exposure to dilute solutions of hydrogen fluoride (less than 20%).” At the highest doses, HF is lethal.(4)

    Alrighty Then… Let’s Take a Shower

    Many people realize that municipal water is often contaminated, and they take steps to drink pure water, like buying bottled water or a filter for the sink. But exposure to contaminants from your shower water are up to 62% more deadly. (9) Why?

    Exposure to the chemicals in your shower are more dangerous than drinking the same water because I.) your pores are open and toxins can be readily absorbed through the skin and II.) you also inhale the toxic vapors of chlorine and fluoride by-products.

    In the case of a shower, the longer you spend, the more toxins you are exposed to.(5-6). The greatest observed increases in trihalomethane concentrations in blood and breath were seen from hot water use, specifically showering and hand-washing.(7)

    Studies have shown that the amount of these volatile organic chemicals (VOC’s) from the shower and other indoor hot-water uses (such as the vapors exhausting from your dishwasher) are “significant.” When THM’s are measured in the blood, showering contributed to a 64% increase compared to swimming in pools at 23%, bathing 12%, and drinking water 1%. The total THM uptake is much higher from showering than any other use of treated water.(9)

    Reclaim Your Shower as a Healing Ritual

    Part I of reclaiming your daily shower as a true healing ritual includes making sure that your shower water is pure. This may be even more important than ensuring pure drinking water.

    Shower-head filters are inexpensive and reliable. I recommend a shower water filter for anyone using municipal water.

    Aquasana Water Purifiers makes some of the highest-rated filters at the best prices.

    Related Articles

    Drugs In Our Water:
    http://healthbeatnews.com/news/archives/511

    Guys: Is Your Water Turning You Into a “Girlie-Man”?
    http://healthbeatnews.com/news/archives/502

    Female Hormones in Drinking Water
    http://healthbeatnews.com/news/archives/52

    References

    1.) Environmental Working Group National Drinking Water Data Base. http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/home . Accessed 07/28/10.

    2.) Associated Press Investigation: Pharmaceuticals Found in Drinking Water.
    http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/pharmawater_site/day1_05.html . Accessed 07/28/10.

    3.) Trihalomethanes: Health Information Summary.
    http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/ard/documents/ard-ehp-13.pdf

    4.) Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Fluoride (HF). Dept. of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg11.html#bookmark02

    5.) Wilkes CR, Small MJ, Davidson CI, Andelman JB. Modeling the effects of water usage and co-behavior on inhalation exposures to contaminants volatilized from household water. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 1996 Oct-Dec;6(4):393-412. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9087861

    6.) Haddad S, Tardif GC, Tardif R. Development of physiologically based toxicokinetic models for improving the human indoor exposure assessment to water contaminants: trichloroethylene and trihalomethanes. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2006 Dec;69(23):2095-136.

    7.) Nuckols JR, Ashley DL, Lyu C, Gordon SM, Hinckley AF, Singer P.Influence of tap water quality and household water use activities on indoor air and internal dose levels of trihalomethanes.Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Jul;113(7):863-70.

    8.) Lourencetti C, Ballester C, Fernández P, Marco E, Prado C, Periago JF, Grimalt JO. New method for determination of trihalomethanes in exhaled breath: applications to swimming pool and bath environments.Anal Chim Acta. 2010 Mar 3;662(1):23-30. Epub 2010 Jan 11.

    9.) Villanueva CM, Gagniere B, Monfort C, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Cordier S. Sources of variability in levels and exposure to trihalomethanes. Environ Res. 2007 Feb;103(2):211-20. Epub 2006 Dec 26.

  • Healthy Bones At Any Age

    Healthy Bones At Any Age

     

    By Nurse Mark

     

    Bone health is a big concern for most women – and surprisingly, a growing number of men need to pay attention to their bones as well!

    According to the National Osteoporosis Foundation:

    “Today, 2 million American men have osteoporosis, and another 12 million are at risk for this disease. Yet, despite the large number of men affected, osteoporosis in men remains underdiagnosed and underreported.”

    And they go on to say;

    “In the U.S. today, 10 million individuals are estimated to already have the disease and almost 34 million more are estimated to have low bone mass, placing them at increased risk for osteoporosis.”

    So, bone health is serious business! Ann, a regular reader, wrote to ask the following:

    Hi again

    I have been told to add Calcium 1200-1500mg with vitamin D/per day.  I can’t seem to find that on your site.  Do you carry that?

    Thank you
    Ann

    Well Ann, yes we do – but calcium alone does not make strong bones! There are several other minerals and a very important vitamin that need to be considered too. Though we discuss Osteoporosis and Bone health in depth on our website, here is the “short course.”

    The recommended calcium dose for post-menopausal women or for those with osteoporosis is 1,500 mg calcium with corresponding magnesium, boron and vitamin D.

    A daily dose of Maxi Multi contains high potency calcium / magnesium (1,000:500) plus other bone-building nutrients (boron, vitamin D). Pre-menopausal females and men usually get an optimal dose of bone nutrients from Maxi Multi alone.

    Cal-Mag Amino™ is a very easy to assimilate form of calcium-magnesium plus vitamin D and boron, all needed for healthy bone formation. Dr. Myatt recommends a “balanced” bone formula over a single calcium supplement for keeping bones strong.

    Each Capsule of Cal-Mag Amino™ provides:

    Calcium (amino acid chelate, carbonate) 150 mg
    Magnesium (amino acid chelate, oxide) 100 mg
    Vitamin D (cholecalciferol) 25 IU
    Boron (citrate, aspartate, glycinate) 200 mcg

    Post-menopausal women taking Maxi Multi can take an additional 3 caps of Cal-Mag Amino daily.

    Vitamin D is getting plenty of press recently – I wrote about it in the HealthBeat article Vitamin D – An Old Friend Finding New Respect

    The recommended daily dose is 400 to 2000 IU – though recent research is showing that much higher amounts may be needed to replenish depleted reserves in many people. How to know? The Wellness Club offers Vitamin D testing

    Maxi Multi provides 800 IU of Vitamin D daily.

    Also, let’s not forget Strontium – a forgotten mineral that is essential to bone health. It appears that not only can strontium prevent osteoporosis, it can repair existing damage.

    Maxi Multi does not contain strontium. If you see a “bone formula” with strontium, don’t take it. Strontium should be taken away from calcium and magnesium for best absorption.

    The suggested dose of strontium is 1 capsule, 1-2 times per day with or between meals (take separately from calcium).  One capsule per day is advised for prevention, 2 caps per day for those at high risk of osteoporosis or in already-established cases of osteoporosis.

    And just in case you are thinking of taking that prescription for “Bone-building Drug” that your conventional doctor is pushing on you, please read this HealthBeat News article first: The Ugly Truth About “Bone-Building” Drugs for Osteoporosis