HealthBeat News

Category: Cancer

  • Chemicals That Give Life and Chemicals That Kill

    The human organism is a wild and wonderful place – we are a veritable chemical soup of minerals, acids, electrolytes, proteins, and fats. (well, proteins and fats are acids…) This does lead to a whole lot of confusion though, and sometimes outright deception by those who would have us believe that such-and-such spooky-sounding chemical must be bad for us…

    Here is a case in point: Dave knows, correctly, that formaldehyde, which is a breakdown product of Aspartame the artificial sweetener is not very good for us – after all, it is used to preserve cadavers, right? (see our recent HealthBeat Article Is Nutrasweet (Aspartame) Safe?)

    Dave writes:

    I have a nephew who is a chemical engineer and he tells me Aspartame, when warmed up equals formaldehyde. Ill bet that’s as safe as all the other garbage the AMA says we need. I’m still wondering what good nicotinic acid does for me. That’s what niacin is isn’t it?

    Well Dave, Aspartame is a spooky chemical, and your nephew is right. Formaldehyde, while it occurs naturally in very minute amounts in the human body, is not something we want to ingest.

    This is much the same situation as the sodium benzoate and citric acid or ascorbic acid combo that is present in so many soft drinks – and breaks down into benzene, a known and potent carcinogen. Yet another well-meant chemical offering with unintended and poisonous consequences.

    But that leaves us with the $64,000 question: which "chemicals" are good for us, and which are not?

    Here is a "Pop Quiz":

    Which of the following chemicals are unsafe for humans?

    • Strontium
    • Deoxyribonucleic acid
    • Boron
    • Muriatic acid
    • Selenium
    • Cyanocobalamin
    • Ascorbic acid

    How did you do? Let’s look at each of these ominous-sounding chemicals:

    • Strontium – Safe or Not? Answer: Safe
      No, not the radioactive fallout stuff, this trace mineral is essential to strong, healthy bones. Read more about why we need strontium here.
    • Deoxyribonucleic acid – Safe or Not? Answer: Safe
      In fact, this rather ominous sounding chemical is essential for life as we know it – it is the fancy name for what we all know as DNA – it contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms, including us.
    • Boron – Safe or Not? Answer: Safe
      Another trace element vital to good bone health and the prevention of osteoporosis. Boron is an important part of Dr. Myatt’s Cal-Mag Amino – find out more here.
    • Muriatic Acid – Safe or Not? Answer: Safe
      "Now wait just a minute" you’re saying, "That stuff is nasty – it will burn you!" Yep, you’re right – it is nasty stuff – but it is also essential to your ability to digest food. Also known as hydrochloric acid, it is produced naturally by a healthy stomach, and a deficiency of this important chemical can lead to all sorts of problems. Learn More about gastric acid and digestive health here.
    • Selenium – Safe or Not? Answer: Safe
      Another trace element that we need in just the right amount – too much and it can be toxic, too little and we become deficient and unhealthy. AKA l-selenomethionine which sounds even scarier! Learn why selenium is so important here.
    • Cyanocobalamin – Safe or Not? Answer: Safe
      Despite the ominous sounding name containing the cyano (cyanide) root, this is a chemical name for vitamin B12 – even the FDA says we must have adequate intakes of this important vitamin to keep healthy. Read up about B12 the essential energy vitamin here.
    • Ascorbic acid – Safe or Not? Answer: Safe
      That one was easy, right? Just another name for vitamin C, and a name that we all recognize. Did you know that it is also used as a food additive to prevent oxidation, and it is also used in the making of plastics? Vitamin C is essential for health – find out why here.

    Like many things, these and a lot of other nasty sounding chemicals have some very important uses and functions within our bodies. As with most things, they need to be in the right place at the right time and in the right amount in order to be beneficial rather than harmful.

    So, pyridine-3-carboxylic acid, AKA nicotinic acid, AKA Niacin, AKA vitamin B3 is the only substance (dare we say "drug"?) that has been proven to reduce mortality from elevated cholesterol levels. It also improves microcirculation. Read about how the Coronary Drug Project found that niacin was the only “drug” that actually reduced mortality.

    Not bad for a spooky-sounding chemical, right?

  • "Shorts" from This Month’s Conventional Medicine News

    I get a summary of major world medical "breakthroughs" and reports of medical study findings on a daily basis. Here are recent "findings" from conventional medical journals that may be of interest or humor to you.

    Aren’t you glad I read all of these medical reports so you don’t have to?!

    1.) "Keeping Active, Not Smoking Can Reduce but Not Abolish CV Risks of Obesity."

    Dr. Myatt’s comment: Yes, good health habits are cumulative. Still, nothing completely eliminates the risk of being overweight except losing weight.

    Abstract: June 16, 2008 — What people do, whether they smoke, and what they eat can mitigate the adverse cardiovascular effects of obesity, but they cannot do away with them altogether, researchers say. While other studies have investigated the relationship between fitness and fatness, this latest study also factors in dietary habits and smoking.

    Reference: Keeping Active, Not Smoking Can Reduce but Not Abolish CV Risks of Obesity. Medscape Medical News. June 16, 2008.

    2.) "Red Yeast Extract Reduces Major Coronary Events in Large, Randomized Clinical Trial."

    Dr. Myatt’s comment: I thought we knew this but yet another study proves it. Look for Red Yeast Rice to be "outlawed" as a nutritional supplement because studies prove that it actually works!

    Abstract: June 16, 2008 — A large, randomized clinical trial with the partially purified extract of Chinese red yeast rice has shown that the extract, known as Xuezhikang (XZK), reduced the risk of major coronary events by almost 50% as well as reduced the risk of cardiovascular and total mortality, in patients with a previous myocardial infarction (MI)

    Reference: Red Yeast Extract Reduces Major Coronary Events in Large, Randomized Clinical Trial; Medscape Medical News.June 16, 2008.

    3.) "Calcium Supplementation May Reduce Fracture Risk."

    Dr. Myatt’s comment: Another one I thought we knew buy hey, here’s more "proof" that people benefit from higher calcium intakes. (And another good reason why Maxi Multi contains a full 1,000mg of calcium).

    Abstract: June 13, 2008 — Calcium supplementation reduced risk for all fractures and minimal traumatic fractures in healthy adults younger than 80 years, according to the results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial reported in the June issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

    Reference: Calcium Supplementation May Reduce Fracture Risk; Medscape Medical News. June 13, 2008.

    4.) "Omega-3 Fatty Acid Consumption Tied to Lower Risk of Macular Degeneration"

    Dr. Myatt’s Comment: With so many important functions of Omega-3 fatty acids (Remember, that’s why it is called an Essential Fatty Acid), I can’t understand why everyone doesn’t supplement with fish oil in addition to their daily multivitamin/mineral formula.

    Abstract: Jun 13,2008 – High dietary intakes of omega-3 fatty acids and fish appear to lower the risk of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), according to a meta-analysis of observational studies.

    Reference: Omega-3 Fatty Acid Consumption Tied to Lower Risk of Macular Degeneration. Reuters Health Information, Jun 13 , 2008.

    5.) "Low Testosterone Levels Increase Mortality Risk in Men"

    Dr. Myatt’s comment: Long known, yet completely ignored in conventional medicine. Most holistic practitioners (myself included) practice natural hormone replacement therapy with men, not just women.

    Abstract: June 18, 2008 (San Francisco) — A population-based cohort study has demonstrated a link between low levels of testosterone and increased risk for mortality from all causes in adult men of all ages.

    Reference: Low Testosterone Levels Increase Mortality Risk in Men.Medscape Medical News. June 18, 2008.

    6.) "Osteoporosis Drug Promotes Atrial Fibrillation in Population-Based Study"

    Dr. Myatt’s comment: this isn’t the first time you’ve heard me warn of the dangers of "bone building" drugs. The side effects are often worse than the "disease" being treated. Better stick to the basics for preventing osteoporosis: calcium, magnesium, vitamin D, boron, AND strontium (vitamins and minerals needed for bone health); balance the sex hormones and get regular exercise.

    Abstract: April 30, 2008 — Women who have ever taken alendronate (Fosamax, Merck), the bisphosphonate widely prescribed for preservation of bone density that recently went off patent, have an increased risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF), according to a population-based, case-control study in the April 28, 2008 Archives of Internal Medicine.

    Reference: Medscape Medical News, April 30, 2008.

    And Some of the Latest Drug Warnings Announced …

    (More good reasons to avoid drugs and actually fix your health problems whenever possible)

    "Diabetic Ulcer Drug Gets Black Box Warning" Medscape Medical News. June 9, 2008

    Dr. Myatt’s summary: Cecaplermin gel (Regranex, Johnson & Johnson) increases risk for cancer mortality in patients who use 3 or more tubes of the product.

    Evista: The Deadly "Bone-Building" Drug

    Dr. Myatt’s comment: Here’s the "black box warning" from a swell new drug prescribed to help prevent osteoporosis:

    "WARNING: INCREASED RISK OF VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM AND DEATH FROM STROKE
    Increased risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism have been reported with EVISTA® (raloxifene HCl). Women with active or past history of venous thromboembolism should not take EVISTA. Increased risk of death due to stroke occurred in a trial in postmenopausal women with documented coronary heart disease or at increased risk for major coronary events. Consider risk-benefit balance in women at risk for stroke."

    "Digitek Digoxin Tablets Recalled: Possible Double Dose Released by Accident"

    April 29, 2008 (Morristown, NJ) – The manufacturer of Digitek digoxin tablets is recalling the product, saying that it may have accidentally released pills that are double the normal thickness, carrying twice the normal dose.

    Digoxin is used in the treatment of arrhythmias and heart failure, and a double dose could cause toxicity.

    from Heartwire — a professional news service of WebMD

    Dr. Myatt’s Comment: Ever notice that if one manufacturer of a nutritional supplement releases a "bad batch" (remember tryptophan?), the entire supplement is BANNED? But if a drug manufacturer releases a bad batch, hey, they just do a recall and often don’t even apologize for killing people.

  • Vitamin D Deficiency Can Be Deadly

    Of note in this morning’s new headlines was this from Associated Press: Lack of sunshine vitamin may cloud survival odds which leads off by saying "New research linking low vitamin D levels with deaths from heart disease and other causes bolsters mounting evidence about the "sunshine" vitamin’s role in good health." and continues to say: "Patients with the lowest blood levels of vitamin D were about two times more likely to die from any cause during the next eight years than those with the highest levels, the study found. The link with heart-related deaths was particularly strong in those with low vitamin D levels."

    This news article was written in response to the recent release of yet more studies showing not just the benefit of Vitamin D, but it’s absolute essential need for our bodies to survive and thrive. One of those studies, with the imposing title of "25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Men – A Prospective Study" which appears in this weeks edition of Archives of Internal Medicine concludes: "Low levels of [Vitamin] D are associated with higher risk of myocardial infarction in a graded manner, even after controlling for factors known to be associated with coronary artery disease."

    Whew – this from a conventional medical journal! It seems vitamin D is no longer just for healthy bones! Even the mighty FDA is bending to the pressure of scientific evidence and allowing more liberally addition of Vitamin D to foods and allowing simpler and more general claims to be made about the health benefits of additional vitamin D.

    But this is not news to us here at the wellness club – we have long-recognized the essential nature of Vitamin D, and the role it plays in bone health, cardiac health, cancer prevention, and general illness prevention. This is so important that when Dr. Myatt recently improved the formulation of Maxi Multi Optimal Dose Daily Multiple Vitamins she DOUBLED the amount of Vitamin D from 400 to 800 iu!

    Are You getting enough of this vital, health-preserving vitamin?

    Visit The Wellness Club to learn more about Vitamin D.

  • Conventional Medicine Finally Admits PSA Screening For Prostate Cancer is a Bust

    Many of Dr. Myatt’s patients have come to her seeking alternatives to the Conventional Medical treatments of “cut, burn, and poison” that are prescribed, often based on little more than an elevated PSA reading.

    While Dr. Myatt recognizes the value of PSA she is less enthusiastic about the way it is used by Conventional Medicine – that is, as a “diagnostic indicator” which allows a harried, busy, and personal risk-conscious physician to minimize the need to think and maximize the opportunity to refer the patient for additional tests and treatment most of which have the potential to cause as much harm as they do good, and all of which can be very distressing to the patient.

    A number of scholarly articles have recently called into question the value and necessity of widespread PSA screening.

    One of Dr. Myatt’s patients had some questions about this, and here is what she replied to him his wife:

    Hi J and M

    This video (a couple of minutes long) just in on the medical airwaves today.
    Conventional medicine finally admits that PSA screening for prostate cancer is a bust.
    You might be VERY relieved to see this video…

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/574168

    This refers to an editorial article and video available on the website Medscape.com – a resource that is directed toward informing and educating your conventional medical doctor.

    Since this website requires registration and log-in and some of our readers may not be able to access this video for that reason we have included here a transcript of that video:

    Screening for prostate cancer in men age 50 and older is common in clinical practice today, but it’s not based on adequate evidence that it improves health outcomes. That’s why the US Preventive Services Task Force, the leading independent panel of experts in prevention, has found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for prostate cancer.

    The benefits of screening for early prostate cancer are unknown. There are substantial harms associated with detection and treatment of prostate cancer, and the research fails to show a reduction in prostate cancer death and a net improvement in a patient’s well-being.[1]

    Patients deserve to know when there’s insufficient evidence that a preventive screening will do more good than harm. Do not screen for prostate cancer without first discussing with patients the potential — but uncertain — benefits and possible harms. We need to inform patients about the gaps in the evidence. Then we need to help them assess their personal risks and other individual considerations and preferences that might influence their decisions.[2]

    Be prepared to answer questions. Patients are likely to want to know what the potential harms of screening, detection, and treatment of prostate cancer might be. These potential harms include fairly frequent false-positive results from PSA screening tests that might lead to unnecessary anxiety and unnecessary biopsies. All treatments for prostate cancer carry risks of harm.[3]

    Remember this is your patient’s decision, too. And helping patients make decisions that are appropriate for them as individuals is one way to provide high-quality care, in the absence of definitive evidence.[4]

    That is my opinion. I’m Dr. Michael LeFevre of the US Preventive Services Task Force.

    References

    1. Screening for Prostate Cancer: What’s New From the USPSTF? AHRQ Publication No. APPIP03-0003. Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; December 2002. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/prostatescr/prostatwh.htm Accessed May 7, 2008.
    2. Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH; Shared Decision-Making Workgroup of the US Preventive Services Task Force. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26:56-66.
    3. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1250-1261.
    4. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Prostate Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale. Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; December 2002. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/prostatescr/prostaterr.htm Accessed May 7, 2008.

  • Reader Questions Soy Benefits: “One Man’s Meat is Another Man’s Poison”

    Michael writes to comment:

    All of my other “Natural Health” information areas (including the book , “The Whole Soy Story”) are stressing the detriments of soy, so I am surprised to see such a positive review (of course, with some caveats). This statement from “The Dangers of Soy” actually contradicts what you have stated: Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.”
    What’s up??? I usually trust what you have to say, but I have a hard time believing that soy is good for us!!!

    Dr. Myatt replies:

    Hi Michael:

    Your question brings up several good points that I’d like to address. The first one is taken directly from my “Read This First” letter found on the footer of every page of my website. I’m betting about 3 people have read this in the 14 years I’ve been in business, but here’s the “short course”:

    “Also keep in mind that although my advice and statements are supported by scientific research, experts do not always agree on the meaning and interpretation of research data. Another physician might look at the same information and draw a different conclusion. This is why it makes good sense to get a second (and even a third and fourth!) medical opinion…”
    Read the full letter here.

    Second, I believe the “black and white” argument about soy is completely misguided. Some folks totally vilify soy (as in the book you quote), while others make it sound so great that you’d think it should be added to the public drinking water supply!

    My opinion? Soy is neither a terrible substance nor a “miracle food” that everyone should take. As with many foods, it has “pros” and “cons.”

    Soy has estrogenic effects. That is, soy acts as a weak estrogen. Is this bad? Ask a post-menopausal female suffering from hot flashes if using a weak (and therefore presumably safer) form of estrogen is bad and she’ll probably look at you like you just got off a spaceship from Mars. Estrogenic effects have a role to play in medical practice, especially when they are safer alternatives to more potent estrogens. A number of studies have shown that soy helps prevent and may even be effective for treatment of hormone-related cancers. Please visit our webpage on soy for a complete list of references — 45 in total.

    Soy has also been shown to help lower cardiovascular disease risk (a claim allowed by the FDA), lower cholesterol levels, improve bone mineral density, and improve insulin sensitivity. Again, all of this is fully referenced on the above-mentioned page.

    Now, is estrogen good for babies? Hello? I think not. And for men? Sometimes in prostate cancer it is useful, but overall, increasing estrogen effects is not generally desirable in men.

    Further, as I have previously mentioned, unrefined soy (such as soy protein powder and soybeans) acts as a goitrogen and can lower thyroid function. Soy is also allergenic to many people, especially in this form. Fermented soy products such as tofu, miso, and tempeh are better tolerated.

    As for soy lowering fertility, this has not been a problem in Asian countries with the highest intakes of soy! Again, if someone is eating enough soy to lower thyroid hormone production, this can cause infertility. (low thyroid is associated with infertility). This is easy to monitor with a simple blood test.

    My summary: “Soy: not all good, not all bad.” It depends on the person and their unique cirumstance. Please be sure to take a peek at our website page on soy for a boat-load of references that reveal some of the “positives” of soy and it’s derivatives.

    P.S. You’ve got a book that vilifies soy? (There are a number of them).
    But here are some titles that sing soy’s praises:
    Soy One Choice For Menopausal Health, Ari Babaknia, M.D.
    Soy The Right Protein For Improving Your Health, Ari Babaknia, M.D.
    The Soy Zone, Dr. Barry Sears (author of The Zone Diet)
    Soy for Health: The Definitive Medical Guide, Stephen Holt, M.D.
    Earl Mindell’s Soy Miracle, Earl Mindell, pH.D