HealthBeat News

Category: Women’s Health

  • Seven Inconvenient Truths About the 2009 H1N1 Flu Pandemic

    Seven Inconvenient Truths About the 2009 H1N1 Flu Pandemic

    by Dr. Dana Myatt

     

    “Selective reporting” about the H1N1 virus and vaccine make it sound like getting a vaccination for the “pandemic flu” is a no-brainer. Thinking men and women should know the under-reported scientific conclusions and plain vanilla government statistics concerning this year’s “Panic-Demic” before making this seemingly simple but potentially life-threatening decision.

    To that end I present these “inconvenient truths” (fully referenced) for your consideration. Please note that it is extremely politically incorrect to question the value of the flu vaccine.

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

    Seven Inconvenient Truths About the 2009 H1N1 Flu Pandemic

    by Dr. Dana Myatt

    1.) What is a “Phase Six” Pandemic? (Probably NOT what You Think)

    Contrary to popular thought (and most dictionaries), “pandemic” does not mean “large numbers” in WHO / CDC language. According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Pandemic Phase Descriptions, “pandemic” refers to distribution, not numbers or severity. Here is the WHO criteria for pandemics:

    • A “Phase 4” pandemic means only that a virus is transmissible between humans.
    • A “Phase 5” pandemic means only that one viral disease has been seen in two countries.
    • A Phase 6 pandemic means only that one viral disease has been seen in three or more countries.

    Again, the term “pandemic” does NOT refer to numbers of people affected or severity of the disease. (1)

    For perspective, The WHO announced as of 20 September 2009 that there have been 3917 total deaths worldwide from H1N1, on par with world-wide mortality from any seasonal or other flu for this time of year. (2) Malaria kills an average of 3,000 people every day in southeast Asia. (3)

    2.) Is The H1N1 Flu Really a Danger to the U.S.?

    Of less than 4,000 flu-related deaths world-wide, only 211 have occurred in the US as of August 2009. (4) This represents a death total lower than from seasonal flu for years 2005 through 2008 in the U.S. (5)

    Adding H1N1 and seasonal flu together, flu-related deaths are still lower this year compared to previous “non-pandemic” years.

    Not only is the total flu rate lower this year in the U.S., but the H1N1 flu has been much milder than predicted here and abroad. (6-10)

    According to the WHO, most H1N1 infections are mild, occurring in numbers comparable to seasonal flues, with fast recovery and mostly without need for medical care. Mortality rates so far have been only a fraction of the number of those reported each year from seasonal flu. WHO also acknowledges that “Large outbreaks of disease have not yet been reported in many countries…” (11)

    Harvard researcher Mark Lipsitch, PhD, explained at an Institute of Medicine meeting that on a 1 to 5 scale — with 5 being a 1918-like pandemic — this swine flu pandemic is a 1. Deputy Director of the CDC’s flu division, Daniel Jernigan, MD, concurs. “We are likely to have numbers that look very similar to what Dr. Lipsitch had,” Jernigan said. (12)

    3.) Why H1N1-related deaths are actually smaller than reported in the U.S.

    As of August 2009, ALL flu-associated deaths in the U.S. are being reported together. H1N1, seasonal flu and “influenza-like illness” (ILI) are added together to give the “flu mortality rate.” Reported illness and death totals, now include “influenza-like illness” (ILI) that in some cases may not be any form of flu at all. (13)

    Other reports concede that a portion of reported H1N1 deaths have actually been caused by pneumonia, not the H1N1 virus itself. (14)

    Because the new reporting system tallies deaths from all types of flu, the reported numbers of total flu deaths are not all attributable to H1N1. This means the true H1N1 mortality rate is only a portion of the total reported. Remember that deaths from all types of flu added together are lower in the U.S. this year than from the four previous “non pandemic” years before. (5,13)

    3.) Flu vaccines provide little or no protection from the flu.

    Vaccination is claimed to prevent the spread of influenza, protect individuals from acquiring the disease, and do so to a high degree of efficacy. Unfortunately, the majority of scientific studies do not support these claims. In fact, meta analyses (“master studies”) that look at large numbers of scientific studies and their outcomes, show the opposite. Influenza vaccine is minimally or not at all effective for most age groups. Here is how the numbers break down.

    In children under two:

    In children under the age of two, influenza vaccines are no more effective than placebo. (15)

    One meta analysis evaluating fifty-one published studies with 294,159 observations found “no efficacy” in children under the age of two. (16) The authors conclude that “It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months old in the USA and Canada.”

    Simply put, the authors question why the U.S. is targeting children under the age of two for vaccination when the studies show the vaccine to be ineffective in this age group.

    In children over two:

    The same meta analysis found influenza vaccines effective 33% of the time in children over the age of two. (16) Followed to it’s logical conclusion, this means the flu vaccines are ineffective 67% of the time in children over the age of two.

    Another study found influenza vaccine ineffective up to age 5. (17)

    In healthy adults:

    A meta analysis evaluating 25 studies conducted on 59,566 adults age 14-40 found a mere 6% decrease of clinical influenza in those vaccinated. The conclusion: “Universal immunization of healthy adults is not supported by the results of this review.” (18)

    The recent update to this study, pooling 38 published studies encompassing 66,248 healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years, found that “serological flu” (lab numbers) were reduced but actual cases of flu were not reduced. This meta analysis concluded that improvements in overall flu rates in those vaccinated “was extremely modest.” (19)

    In seniors:

    Seniors over age 70 account for 75% of all flu-related deaths. Since 1980, the vaccination rate in seniors has increased from 15% to 65% but the death rate from flu has not declined. The authors conclude that “the evidence is insufficient to indicate the magnitude of a mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive from the vaccination program.” (20)

    Contrary to popular belief, studies have found that secondary pneumonia in seniors is not decreased by flu vaccination, and that reduction of mortality through influenza vaccination has been greatly overestimated in this age group. (21,22)

    5.) “Fast track” approval of flu vaccines, especially H1N1, leaves safety questions unanswered.

    “Fast track” approval means that influenza vaccines do not have to go through the normal regulatory procedures. The H1N1 vaccine approval was especially fast because of the “pandemic” designation. One of the approved 4 vaccines was approved after testing in only 221 people for 21 days. (23) Another was approved after testing on 175 adults for 21 days. (24).

    The World Health Organization (WHO) admits that people who get vaccinations will be the “field testers” of their safety. From the WHO website:

    “Time constraints mean that clinical data at the time when pandemic vaccines are first administered will inevitably be limited. Further testing of safety and effectiveness will need to take place after administration of the vaccine has begun. (Author’s italics)

    … On the positive side, mass vaccination campaigns can generate significant safety data within a few weeks. (Author’s italics) (25)

    In other words, we won’t know the safety of these vaccines until we vaccinate millions of people (45 million is the U.S. “target” for October) (26,27); the side effects experienced by those vaccinated will be the “safety data.”

    The U.S. Government conferred immunity from prosecution to drug manufacturers of the H1N1 vaccine in July 2009. (28)

    6.) Vaccines May Be More Dangerous than the Flu Itself.

    In 1976, 200 soldiers at Fort Dix were stricken with the flu, with one reported death. A pandemic was declared and nearly 40 million people in the U.S. received the 1976/H1N1 vaccine before the campaign was stopped due to an increase in Guillain-Barré syndrome, a paralytic autoimmune disease. (29)

    More than 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome were reported, 25 of which resulted in death. This “pandemic that wasn’t” never spread beyond Fort Dix. (30)

    In a recent statement by the The American Academy of Neurology, experts said they don’t expect the 2009 H1N1 vaccine to increase risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome or other autoimmune disease but they acknowledged that this is a concern with any pandemic vaccine. (31)

    Mild short-term reactions to the vaccine can include soreness, redness, or swelling at vaccination site, low grade fever, runny nose, headache, chills, tiredness/weakness and body aches and pains. (32) These symptoms are very much like the flu itself.

    Life-threatening allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) and Guillain-Barré syndrome (a paralytic autoimmune disease) can also occur. (33)

    These short-term side effects of influenza vaccination are easier to observe because of their close proximity to vaccination, beginning within minutes to several weeks. Long-term and/or cumulative effects of vaccinations are more difficult to monitor, and questions remain about the long-term safety of vaccines.

    For example, the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in adults and autism in children has skyrocketed in the last several decades. These rates are continued to increase. (34,35)

    The cause of these increases is not known. Some camps maintain that these neurological disease escalations may be caused by vaccinations, especially since many vaccines still contain mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and other neurotoxic compounds. (36-39)

    The US government, CDC, FDA, and drug manufacturers claim there is no correlation between vaccines and these diseases, (40-43) although many question the quality of evidence used to draw this conclusion. (44,45)

    7.) “Herd Immunity” Remains Speculative

    “Herd immunity” (community immunity) is the belief that if a portion of society gets vaccinated, weaker members of “the herd” who do not respond satisfactorily to the vaccine (children under two and seniors over 65) will be protected from the flu because those around them have been vaccinated. Much evidence contradicts the concept of “herd immunity.” (46-49)

    If healthcare workers get vaccinated, they purportedly decrease the risk of influenza in their high-risk patient, hence the “heavy push” that borders on mandate for health care workers to receive the vaccine. One large meta analysis found “no high quality evidence that vaccinating healthcare workers reduces the incidence of influenza or its complications in the elderly in institutions.” (50)

    Conclusions

    My purpose in presenting these statistics and studies is to assist the reader in drawing independent conclusions about the true risk of H1N1 flu and advisability of vaccination for same.

    We are each responsible for our own “due diligence” when making decisions concerning our health, although many people defer to the media and government for their directives.

    Here are the points I see from these studies and statistics:

    1. The safety and effectiveness of H1N1 vaccines has not been proven.
    2. The transmissibility of H1N1 flu is small and the severity mild compared to seasonal flu.
    3. My risk of getting the H1N1 flu is small; my risk of dying from this flu is quite small and no greater than for any seasonal flu.
    4. Flu vaccines confer little if any protection from influenza viruses in my age group.
    5. There is much conflicting “proof” that by getting a vaccination, I help make others around me safer through “herd immunity.”
    6. There are known short-term and possibly unknown long-term side effects from vaccines.

    All things considered, I’m going to pass on the H1N1 flu vaccine. I believe there are far safer, better-proven methods to increase my resistance to H1N1 and make sure I have a mild case of it (as most cases are) if I do contract the flu.

    If you’d like to see what natural measures I am personally taking, please subscribe to HealthBeat News here.

    My plan for increasing natural resistance to the H1N1 and other flues will be in next week’s online edition of HealthBeat News.

    The fully referenced version of this article with links to government websites can be viewed here.

  • More Concerns About H1N1 And Vaccines – Dr. Crafton Warns Us…

    Doctor Denham B Crafton III, a good friend and dentist now practicing in Vermont, sends us information and updates about dentistry and the health impacts of mercury – a special interest for him – from time to time. This morning he sent us this cautionary note regarding mercury in H1N1 vaccines and about the grim specter of “enforced isolation” for persons exhibiting symptoms that could possibly be related (or not!) to infection with a viral illness.

    Here is Dr. Denny’s note, as we received it, with minor edits for clarity and formatting:

    As a concerned Health Care Practitioner, I have been following the “news” about H1N1 / (not) Swine flu  closely…thus far, the mortality rate is lower than last year’s flu, which essentially means it isn’t terribly consequential, despite what the “mainstream media” would have you believe.

    Last week the Federal government authorized the use of 4 different “Swine Flu Vaccines”… all 4 have never been tested on humans.   This is extremely poor thinking on behalf of the Federal Government (gee, what’s new?)  Of course, the manufacturers cannot be sued for negligence / malpractice under existing Federal legislation.

    Making matters even worse, most of these vaccines are actually produced in China… if that doesn’t raise your index of suspicion, it should. Chinese products over the past few years, especially in critical medical components, have  become increasingly suspect – from ethylene glycol in toothpaste to seriously contaminated Heparin (imported by Baxter Pharmaceuticals) last year… in short, this is very bad policy.

    Now, making things even worse, the standards relating to the presence of toxic materials in vaccines are being suspended.

    You read that right: suspended [see below] Only Plutonium is more toxic than mercury.

    Personally, I am refusing any vaccinations and I am strongly recommending against any vaccinations for H1N1. The H1N1 virus is obviously a laboratory product – and what hasn’t been widely reported is that many of the deaths associated with Swine Flu appear to be directly associated with Vitamin D deficiency.

    Making matters worst of all, the “government” has targeted pregnant women and children under age 3 as being “high risk” for flu and consequently, these groups are targeted for vaccination.

    Do your own research, be suspicious of anyone recommending any vaccination for this flu – most likely the death toll from the vaccine will be higher than the flu itself.

    The CDC has composed a draft for an “isolation order” as a template for state and local officials to impose quarantines. According to the document officials are able to impose a quarantine without a definite confirmation or evidence that the person in question is even ill. According to the CDC a person who has the H1N1 virus will exhibit symptoms of a “fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue.” Under the order, anyone who is suspected to be exposed or is reasonably suspected to be exposed with H1N1 can be quarantined. This broad definition could apply to anyone and exposes this power grab for what it is.

    Click here for more information >>> CDC Drafts “Isolation Order” for H1N1

    Washington’s Secretary of Health, Mary Selecky, is temporarily suspending the limit of the amount of Mercury allowed in the H1N1 vaccine in an effort to ensure the highest risk residents of Washington (pregnant women and children under three) get vaccinated when it becomes available.

    Secretary Selecky states that she does not want anything in the way of protecting people if the mercury-free vaccines run out of stock. The suspension is to last six months, effective through March 23, 2010, and it only applies to the swine flu vaccine currently in production. The law, however, still requires that any pregnant or lactating women or guardians of children under 18 be told that they are receiving a vaccine with more mercury than is usually permitted, while the limits are suspended. As of now, vaccination remains on a voluntary basis.

    Click here for more information >>> Mercury Limits Suspended for H1N1 (Swine Flu) Vaccine to Improve Access

  • Soy, Phytoestrogens, And Cancer – A Bad Combination?

    By Dr. Myatt

     

    Cancer, diet, hormones, drugs – individually these are incredibly complex subjects, and when one has to consider them all together – well, then things get really complicated!

    This looked at first sight to be a fairly straightforward question, but the answer actually required several hours of intensive research and fact-checking. Now you, dear reader, are the beneficiary of that! 

    Question:
    I have a question about Cal-Mag Amino supplements.  I have just purchased and received this item for the first time (since my old supplements are no longer available).  After opening the first bottle, I noticed on the label under “other ingredients” that the supplement tablets contain soy.  Under ordinary circumstances, this would not be a problem for me.  However, I have a history of estrogen 3+ / progesterone 1+ positive,  tubular breast cancer.  I am currently taking Arimidex and have completed 3 years of adjuvant therapy.  I was unaware that the Cal-Mag Amino contained soy, and now that I have several bottles I am concerned with how much soy is in the product.  I have an appointment with my medical oncologist in August and I would like to discuss this with her.  It would be helpful to know how much soy is in the product so that I may discuss this with my doctor. Could you please address this question for me? 
    Thank you,
    Sharon

    Dr. Myatt’s Answer:

    Phytoestrogens and Breast Cancer

    “Phytoestrogens” (literally, “plant estrogens”), are substances found in many foods and plants including flax seeds, soy and soy products (tofu, etc.), sesame seeds, garlic, apricots, squash, green beans and more. Here is a list of common phytoestrogen-containing foods. http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/phytoestrogen.php

    Phytoestrogens are not true estrogens and cannot be converted in the body into estrogens. Because of molecular similarities between human estrogens and phytoestrogens, the phytoestrogens are able to bind to estrogen receptors where they have weak estrogenic effects.

    Because of these weak estrogenic effects, some people theorize that phytoestrogens should be avoided in the treatment of hormone-responsive cancers such as breast cancer. In my opinion, this hypothesis is partly correct and partly incorrect. Here’s why.

    First, phytoestrogens are widespread in plants. In order to avoid all phytoestrogenic substances, one would need to stop eating a wide variety of foods, including such things as flax seed which have proven anti-cancer effects (1-3).

    Soy isolates including MSG and “hydrolyzed protein” are not necessarily listed on food labels — they are “stealth ingredients” — which means that if you eat ANY processed foods, you are likely consuming phytoestrogens. The best advice is to avoid processed foods, for this and many other reasons.

    Second, there are studies which show that phytoestrogens may actually be protective against hormone-related cancers by blocking more potent estrogenic substances from occupying estrogen receptors. Though not all studies agree (they never do!), the preponderance of epidemiological evidence shows that Southeast Asian women, who typically consume high amounts of soy (10-50 g/day), have a four to six-fold decreased risk of breast cancer compared to American women who typically consume negligible amounts of this legume (1-3 g/day).(4-5) The difference in these cancer rates is believed due to the phytoestrogens in soy.

    Aromatase Inhibitors (estrogen-blocking drugs) Vs. Phytoestrogens

    Although the verdict is still out on this issue, I wouldn’t recommend taking concentrated soy or other phytoestrogen substances on a daily basis if I had a hormone-sensitive cancer NOR would I make a big deal out of avoiding all phytoestrogen containing foods.

    Aromatase inhibitors (estrogen blockers) such as Arimidex work (we think) by blocking the body’s formation of estrogen. Phytoestrogens appear to work, at least in part, by actually blocking the estrogen receptors. The end result is similar: decrease the ability of strong estrogens to bind to estrogen receptors, either by blocking their production (the drugs) or blocking their receptor (phytoestrogens). Some studies have shown that use of phytoestrogens has a similar effect as the drugs (1-5) but without the long list of negative side effects.

    Arimidex side effects:

    Possible Side Effects of ARIMIDEX.

    • Based on information from a study in patients with early breast cancer, women with a history of blockages in heart arteries (ischemic heart disease) who take ARIMIDEX may have a slight increase in this type of heart disease compared to similar patients who take tamoxifen.
    • ARIMIDEX can cause bone softening/weakening (osteoporosis) increasing the chance of fractures. In a clinical study in early breast cancer, there were more fractures (including fractures of the spine, hip, and wrist) with ARIMIDEX (10%) than with tamoxifen (7%).
    • In a clinical study in early breast cancer, some patients taking ARIMIDEX had an increase in cholesterol.
    • Skin reactions, allergic reactions, and changes in blood tests of liver function have also been reported.
    • In the early breast cancer clinical trial, the most common side effects seen with ARIMIDEX include hot flashes, joint symptoms (including arthritis and arthralgia), weakness, mood changes, pain, back pain, sore throat, nausea and vomiting, rash, depression, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, fractures, swelling of arms/legs, insomnia, and headache.

    “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

      … from the manufacturer’s website: http://www.arimidex.com/arimidex-about/index.aspx

    Several studies have found that the isolated soy phytoestrogen genistein, but not other phytoestrogens, countered the effect of aromatase inhibitors. (6-8)

    On the other hand, though I would not take concentrated genistein with Arimidex, neither would I be concerned about eating small amounts of phytoestrogens that occur naturally in many foods. Again, there are studies which show phytoestrogens to be PROTECTIVE in hormone-sensitive cancers. I wouldn’t take concentrated forms of soy products or soy powder with estrogen-blocking drugs but neither would I avoid normal dietary amounts of phytoestrogen-containing foods. Since soy has the largest concentration of genisteins, I would not eat this every day; on the other hand, I wouldn’t skip my favorite tofu and veggie stir-fry when eating at The China Wok, either!

    Finally, the “soy” that occurs in Cal-Mag amino is the isolated amino acids from same, used as protein chelators of the minerals to increased absorption. The phytoestrogen component of whey has been removed; only the amino acids (protein fractions) are used in Wellness Club Nutritionals.

    Far more important than fussing about small amounts of phytoestrogens in food, a ketogenic diet is the single most important “treatment” that a person can use to both prevent and treat cancer. A brief description of the benefits of this diet, as written for doctors, can be found in this previous HealthBeat News article.

    One final note. Asking your conventional oncologist about the advisability or non-advisability of a natural or nutritional substance is usually like asking your acupuncturist about brain surgery: it is outside their scope of practice, meaning they don’t have the information to be able to give you a good answer.

    What does a conventional doctor do when they don’t know? Do they say “I don’t know”? Rarely. Instead, the thought is “If I don’t know the answer, then don’t do it.” Unfortunately, this mindset isn’t just “erring on the side of caution” and has in fact often steered people away from helpful treatments.

    I wouldn’t look to a conventional oncologist for sound advice on diet (most say it doesn’t matter, eat anything you want and just “keep up your weight”), supplemental nutrition or herbs for cancer unless they have done some serious extra-curricular studies on the subject. Most are not even aware of the numerous references and benefits of a ketogenic diet on cancer.

    I find no justification for avoiding phytoestrogens as found in food in instances of breast or prostate cancer, but I DO recommend avoiding concentrated genisteins and soy products with a history of breast cancer, especially when taking estrogen-blocking drugs.
    ____________

    References:
    1.) Power KA, Thompson LU. 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.
    2.) Bergman Jungeström M, Thompson LU, Dabrosin C. Flaxseed and its lignans inhibit estradiol-induced growth, angiogenesis, and secretion of vascular endothelial growth factor in human breast cancer xenografts in vivo. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Feb 1;13(3):1061-7.
    3.) Touillaud MS, Thiébaut AC, Fournier A, Niravong M, Boutron-Ruault MC, Clavel-Chapelon F. Dietary lignan intake and postmenopausal breast cancer risk by estrogen and progesterone receptor status.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Mar 21;99(6):475-86.
    4.) Messina MJ, Persky V, Setchell KD, Barnes S. Soy intake and cancer risk: a review of the in vitro and in vivo data. Nutr Cancer 1994;21:11331.
    5.) Birt DF, Hendrich S, Wang W. Dietary agents in cancer prevention: flavonoids and isoflavonoids. Pharmacol Ther. 2001;90:157-161.
    6.) Ju YH, Doerge DR, Woodling KA, Hartman JA, Kwak J, Helferich WG. Dietary genistein negates the inhibitory effect of letrozole on the growth of aromatase-expressing estrogen-dependent human breast cancer cells (MCF-7Ca) in vivo. Carcinogenesis. 2008 Nov;29(11):2162-8. Epub 2008 Jul 16.
    7.) Edmunds KM, Holloway AC, Crankshaw DJ, Agarwal SK, Foster WG. The effects of dietary phytoestrogens on aromatase activity in human endometrial stromal cells. Reprod Nutr Dev. 2005 Nov-Dec;45(6):709-20.
    8.) de Lemos ML. Effects of soy phytoestrogens genistein and daidzein on breast cancer growth. Ann Pharmacother. 2001 Sep;35(9):1118-21.

  • Do Vitamins Really Make Any Difference?

    Lots of conventional (allopathic) docs, and certainly Big Pharma and the Mighty FDA will tell you that there is no need for what we call optimal dose multiple vitamins – indeed they’ll tell you that vitamin supplements are "useless", "dangerous", "not necessary when you can get all the vitamins you need from your diet", and "a waste of money" that will "just give you expensive urine!"

    That’s OK – we know we’ll never convince them, since their minds are made up – there is no way we’ll confuse them with mere scientific fact… But every now and again we get an unsolicited note or letter from someone who has discovered the worth of optimal dose vitamins and wants to share their happiness and success with us.

     

    We thought we would share this woman’s happiness with you too…

    Dear Dr. Myatt:

    Just two years ago, (age 57), I was running, tripped over my dog, and smashed my collar bone.  For the first three months the collar bone did nothing toward healing.  After another month, I had a surgery to immobilize the bone.  Another month, and still no real progress toward healing, and the screws and plate had worked loose. When the doctor showed me the x-rays, I suggested in exasperation that maybe twist ties would work better than plates and screws.  He said he was thinking along those same lines, and would use sutures to keep the bone in place. During this time I did research on bone health and nutrition, and ordered every vitamin and mineral suggested for bone health.  The vitamins and minerals* came in the week after my second surgery.  There were many variables here, including bone graft plugs for the old screw holes, the nutritional supplements, more effort to stay immobile for a week or two after the surgery, and the sutures holding the bone ends in place.  But within the next few weeks, we could actually see healing taking place, and in another few months, the bone was set and stable, and I was released.  In a few months, I was at the dentist, and the hygienist persuaded me to take some dental x-rays just to gauge the (natural) bone loss.  Rather than losing bone, as expected, the bone had had actually built up around my teeth from the last x-ray a year or two earlier.  Then I noticed two photographs.  The first was taken just a few weeks after my accident, and I had been dismayed that my previously pearly whites were looking almost translucent, giving a beigy-gray appearance to my teeth.  The one taken more recently showed that my teeth had returned to a whiter color.  The teeth told me that the difference was actually related to nutritional supplementation rather than to the exercise/immobility factors or the surgical repair or graft factors.

    I recently tripped over a loose rug on a stair, and fell, severely bruising my arm and skinning my knee.  It was very painful, but there was no hint of a bone fracture.

    *The vitamins and minerals were calcium, vitamin D, magnesium, phosphorus, strontium citrate, boron, vitamin K, zinc, copper, vitamin C, and a regular multi-vitamin. I was also eating a balanced diet and using topical natural progesterone cream.

    I was not exercising very much because of the severity of the break.

    I thought you might appreciate the anecdotal information.  While not a controlled scientific study, it could support your work on nutrition and other alternative treatments for bone loss – or gain!

    Anne M

    Yup, we here at the Wellness Club know only too well that without the basic raw materials, the body cannot repair itself. Like baking a cake, if you are short just one ingredient it won’t come out right!

    So, here is what Dr. Myatt had to say to Anne:

    Hi Anne:

    Thanks for the great report!

    Say, you might be working too hard on your bone-building protocol.

    My Maxi Multi’s have the full daily dose of calcium, vitamin D, magnesium, boron, vitamin K, zinc, copper, vitamin C, and the rest of a good multiple vitamin-mineral all in one convenient formula. Check out the doses of bone-building nutrients; they are "right up there" with what you are probably taking as a bunch of separate things.

    Maxi Multi’s plus strontium makes an excellent foundation for a bone-restorative program.

    That extra progesterone is a good idea, too, especially if you have not had your hormones tested in order to make a more precise determination of natural hormone needs.

    Here’s the link to Maxi Multis: http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/maximulti.htm

    Again, congrats on your health success and thanks for the testimonial for natural remedies!

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

  • Which Test Is Better For Hormones – Urine Or Saliva?

    Many of you know already that one of Dr. Myatt’s areas of specialty is endocrine health and function: hormones and bio-identical hormone replacement. The human endocrine system is an exquisitely complicated and elegant chemical equivalent to the human nervous system – hormones are the chemical messengers for our bodily functions. Indeed, without healthy hormones, even the nervous system cannot function correctly!

    While at first glance hormone balance looks like a fairly simple task, it truth it is not – there are too many things that are inter-dependant, and the do-it-yourself approach to correcting and maintaining hormone balance can be like walking blindfolded through a minefield.

    We offer hormone testing, and we also offer a very special service where Dr. Myatt will provide an analysis and interpretation of the results of that testing. For this service, Dr. Myatt spends up to an hour (and sometimes more!) consulting with top experts at the testing lab and then provides a written interpretation, report, and recommendations. This allows those who wish to attempt to manage their own hormone health to do so with the benefit of as much knowledge and understanding as possible – to keep them from stepping on any of those "hormonal land-mines" that await the unwary.

    Another question we often hear is which is better – blood, saliva, or urine testing for hormone levels?

    Will recently wrote to ask:

    Dr. Myatt

    Why do you recommend urine over saliva for male hormone test?  Dr. John Lee recommends saliva but nothing said about urine. I am 44 and am do bikram yoga 5 times a week eat mostly raw etc. and want to establish a "baseline" marker today and maintain using the bioidentical hormone therapy mode (I think). LEF.ORG has a list of markers that they recommend and yours are somewhat different.  Please advise!  Thanks in advance for your time.

    Thank you
    Will

    It is clear that Will is trying to do things right with his health, and he is correct to be wary of the conflicting information that can be found on the internet. One advantage that we have here at the Wellness Club is that Dr. Myatt’s knowledge is cutting-edge and very up-to-date.

    Here is Dr. Myatt’s response to Will:

    Hi Will:

    Sex hormones are released in "bursts" throughout a 24-hour period. Obviously, a blood test will be the least accurate. Saliva is next best for a baseline, but hormones are not always consistently concentrated in saliva in a way the is truly representative of the 24-hour average. Urine is the most accurate, because it factors in the "bursts" and tells us the true 24-hour average.

    The urine test was not available back when Dr. Lee started making recommendations about testing. I have used all three tests over the years and believe solidly in the value of the 24-hour urine.

    The Comp Plus urine test also gives much more information than just the sex hormones because it tells us "intermediates" (as one thing is converted to another), plus HGH, adrenal hormones and ratios of sex hormones that are known to be markers (preventive) for hormone-related cancers. This information gives a much more complete picture than just the sex hormones alone.

    I recommend you spend the extra dollars and get the "state-of-the-art" 24 hour urine test. That way, you’ll have an excellent baseline to refer back to.

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

    P.S. Here’s the link to my medical test page so you can read more about these tests. I still offer saliva hormone testing but feel it if far inferior to urine. http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/medicaltests.htm#CompPlus