HealthBeat News

Category: Health Questions

  • Ubiquinone (CoQ10) versus Ubiquinol: Which Is Better?

    Ubiquinone (CoQ10) versus Ubiquinol: Which Is Better?

    by Dr. Myatt

     

    Ann wrote Nurse Mark recently to ask:

    Mark

    A friend asked if the body can process coq10 or do we need to get the ubiquinol instead? I could not really find an answer.

    Thank you

    Ann

     

    Most everyone has heard of CoQ10, an important antioxidant produced by the body. CoQ10 benefits everything from the heart function, high blood pressure, the immune and neurological systems to athletic performance and male fertility. It is surely one of the most important antioxidants in the body and levels decline with age. (What doesn’t?! ;-)). Learn about the many crucial functions and benefits of CoQ10, and if you would benefit from taking supplemental CoQ10, here CoQ10: Super-Energizer and Potent Antioxidant.

    Ubiquinone and ubiquinol exist together in the body; the body converts ubiquinone into ubiquinol.

    Current marketing strategies promote the idea that the ubiquinol form of CoQ10 is much more absorbable and therefore preferable, which is what Ann’s question is about.

    Here’s the scoop.

    CoQ10 as ubiquinone is the “old” form of CoQ10 (by “old” I mean the form that has been commercially available for a long time). The ubiquinol form is “new” in the commercial sense, and the form touted as being much more absorbable.

    The “old” CoQ10 (ubiquinone) is quite absorbable, especially when taken with food. There is evidence that oil-based forms might have some additional absorption advantage over powdered forms.[1-3]

    There have been literally hundreds of human studies on CoQ10 in it’s ubiquinone form — the “old” form — but literally only a couple of studies on the ubiquinol form in humans. Check out our descriptive page about CoQ10 and you’ll see dozens of references. All of those references refer to the “old” form of CoQ10, the form that 99% of all studies have used.

    One study cited by everyone selling the “new” form showed improvement in heart patients (4). However, it was not a comparative study looking at ubiquinol versus ubiquinone. So the “new” stuff worked in one heart study and I can’t find any other human studies. The “old” stuff has been proven in dozens of human heart studies, it works amazingly well and is quite safe. (5-18, to list only a few of the many studies)

    Studies showing the effectiveness of CoQ10 in heart disease, arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, Parkinson’s, AIDS, cancer, migraine, muscular dystrophy, fatigue and chronic fatigue, male infertility and other conditions have been done using the “old” form of CoQ10. This is the form that we KNOW works. The safety and efficacy of ubiquinone has been well-established; the safety and efficacy of the “new” ubiquinol form is largely unstudied.

    Remember that people selling supplements are always on the lookout for a marketing angle — as in “my CoQ10 is better than your CoQ10.” It’s about trying to sell supplements in a competitive market. Marketers look for a “new and improved” or “more bioavailable” angle because it sounds important and helps sell product. Sometimes these claims are true, but many times they are just marketing hype.

    When the body of evidence shows that the “new” ubiquinol form of CoQ10 works better and is just as safe as the older form, I’ll switch. Until then, I’m sticking with the well-proven “older” form of CoQ10 known as ubiquinone, and that is what we continue to recommend and offer here at The Wellness Club.

    References

    1.) Bhagavan HN, Chopra RK. Plasma coenzyme Q10 response to oral ingestion of coenzyme Q10 formulations. Mitochondrion. 2007 Jun;7 Suppl:S78-88. Epub 2007 Mar 27.
    2.) Chopra RK, Goldman R, Sinatra ST, Bhagavan HN. Relative bioavailability of coenzyme Q10 formulations in human subjects. Int J Vitam Nutr Res 1998;68:109–13.
    3.) Weiss M, Mortensen SA, Rassig MR, et al. Bioavailability of four oral coenzyme Q10 formulations in healthy volunteers. Molec Aspects Med 1994;15:273–80.
    4.) Langsjoen PH, Langsjoen AM. Supplemental ubiquinol in patients with advanced congestive heart failure. BioFactors. December 2008;32:119-128.
    5.) Kumar A, Kaur H, Devi P, Mohan V. Role of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) in Cardiac disease, Hypertension and Meniere- like syndrome. Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Jul 25. [Epub ahead of print]
    6.) Langsjoen PH, Folkers K, Lyson K, Muratsu K, Lyson T, Langsjoen P. Pronounced increase of survival of patients with cardiomyopathy when treated with coenzyme Q10 and conventional therapy. Int J Tissue React. 1990;12(3):163-8.
    7.) Langsjoen PH, Folkers K, Lyson K, Muratsu K, Lyson T, Langsjoen P. Effective and safe therapy with coenzyme Q10 for cardiomyopathy. Klin Wochenschr. 1988 Jul 1;66(13):583-90.
    8.) Langsjoen P, Langsjoen A, Willis R, and Folkers K. The Aging Heart: Reversal of Diastolic Dysfunction Through the Use of Oral CoQ10 in the Elderly. Anti-Aging Medical Therapeutics. Klatz RM and Goldman R (eds.). Health Quest Publications. 1997;113-120.
    9.) Langsjoen PH, Langsjoen A, Willis R, Folkers K. Treatment of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with coenzyme Q10. Mol Aspects Med. 1997;18(S):s145-s151.
    10.) Langsjoen PH, Vadhanavikit S, Folkers K. Response of patients in classes III and IV of cardiomyopathy to therapy in a blind and crossover trial with coenzyme Q10. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 Jun;82(12):4240-4
    11.) Mabuchi H, Higashikata T, Kawashiri M, Katsuda S, Mizuno M, Nohara A, Inazu A, Koizumi J, Kobayashi J. Reduction of serum ubiquinol-10 and ubiquinone-10 levels by atorvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients. Journal of Atheroscler Thromb. 2005;12(2):111-9.
    12.) Molyneux SL, Florkowski CM, George PM, Pilbrow AP, Frampton CM, Lever M, Richards AM. Coenzyme Q10: an independent predictor of mortality in chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Oct 28;52(18):1435-41.
    13.) Mortensen S.A., Vadhanavikit S., Muratsu K., Folkers K. (1990) Coenzyme Q10: Clinical benefits with biochemical correlates suggesting a scientific breakthrough in the management of chronic heart failure. In: Int. J. Tissue React., Vol. 12 (3), pp 155-162.
    14.) Rosenfeldt F, Hilton D, Pepe S, Krum H. Systematic review of effect of coenzyme Q10 in physical exercise, hypertension, and heart failure. Biofactors. 2003;18(1-4):91-100.
    15.) Silver MA, Langsjoen PH, Szabo S, Patil H, Zelinger A. Effect of atorvastatin on left ventricular diastolic function and ability of coenzyme Q10 to reverse that dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 2004 Nov 15;94(10):1306-10.
    16.) Singh RB; Wander GS et al Randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of coenzyme Q10 in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther, 12(4):347-53 1998 Sep.
    17.) Singh RB; Wander GS et al Cardiovasc Drugs Ther, 12(4):347-53 1998 Sep.
    18.) Weant KA, Smith KM. The role of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39(9):1522-6.

  • 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.

  • Life Line Screening – Is It Worth It?

    By Nurse Mark

     

    We are bombarded with sales-pitches and come-on’s daily, with various health care or health insurance or health improvement schemes preying upon the fears and uncertainties of Americans – especially older Americans – with well-written and compelling advertising copy.

    No wonder so many are confused. Fortunately there are also many like Jean who are skeptical.

    Jean writes:

    What do you think of the Life Line Screening?  We received a flyer through the Masons, but I read something on line that indicated it may be a scam.

    Here is Nurse Mark’s answer:

    Hi Jean,

    Regarding “Life Line Screenings” – I was unaware that Masonic Lodges were promoting this, or any company’s services, and a little surprised.

    I don’t think that it is actually a scam, but I’m not sure that it is all it’s promoted to be by the company. Their “screenings” look at a fairly small number of risk factors from a fairly narrow perspective. They do not offer their screenings as being diagnostic and they admit in several places on their website that these screenings are “limited” in nature. They do present their results in a rather “pretty” user-friendly (to the layperson) and colorful format however.

    If your concern is with Carotid Artery Disease, which Life Line Screening claims to detect and stroke, the thing that Life Line Screening claims to  prevent, Dr. Myatt has an newly-revised article here: Herbs for Stroke / Thrombophlebitis Prevention that will be very useful to you.

    For a fairly balanced look at the Life Line Screenings ultrasound service – written by a conventional doctor – check out this article: http://www.everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use/life-line-screening-a-scambuster-report/

    Remember, as a conventional doc this fellow’s recommendation must be to lower both cholesterol and blood pressure in order to lower stroke risk – and as Dr. Myatt has written before, neither of those strategies is really beneficial to very many people other than the Big Pharmaceutical Companies.

    Here is another article, from the magazine Nurseweek: http://www.nurseweek.com/features/99-1/stroke.html

    They also promote their ultrasound screenings for the detection of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm, Peripheral Artery Disease, and for Bone Mineral Density Screening.

    The company also offers fingerstick blood screening for a number of risk factors and limited ECG (electrocardiogram or heart rhythm monitor) testing in some of it’s locations.

    These tests are all well and good, but often unnecessary in the absence of any clear indication such as known risk factors or symptoms – and then, such testing should be recommended and interpreted by your doctor to ensure that you are getting the most “bang for your buck”. Remember, you always have the option of asking your doctor if he or she feels a certain test might be indicated, and if not, why not. If your doctor is unwilling to spend the time to discuss your concerns, well, then it’s time to find a new doctor!

    I personally see this service as fitting into the same category as those “head-to-toe” CAT scans that were promoted heavily a while back. My advice would be to pass on the Life Line Screening and save my money for the basic vitamins and supplements that have been well-proven to lower the risks of cardiovascular disease including strokes. Remember, it is easier and better to stay healthy than it is to play “catch-up” based upon the results of these “screening tests”.

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers,
    Nurse Mark

  • The Internet Can Be A Scary Place

    By Nurse Mark

     

    HealthBeat News readers are a smart and computer-savvy lot – after all, they find us on-line and they are not the least shy about searching online for whatever information they seek. There is a massive amount of information available – just for fun, this morning I entered the word ‘cancer’ in a popular search engine and got 190,000,000 results! Let’s face it – no matter how important a subject is to you, that much information is overwhelming and is bound to leave most people desperately confused rather than usefully educated.

    Chat boards, forums, and discussion groups are another aspect of the internet that can be both good and bad – they can be a wonderful source of support and encouragement; just knowing that there are others out there facing the same challenges, and being able to chat and share tips and experiences can be very gratifying.

    Unfortunately, many of the participants of these chat boards and forums are "regular folk" like everyone else, and much of the "helpful information" tends to be of the "since I had my heart attack two years ago, I eat steel-cut oatmeal every morning for breakfast and drink a cup of cider vinegar every day. My doctor says I’m doing great. That has probably saved my life and I’ll never stop it!" variety – anecdotal at best.

    At worst there are the quacks and hucksters who also haunt these places, looking for the unwary and the desperate to prey upon. Selling everything from "enhanced water" (over which they have meditated to give it "energy"), to coral calcium, to any number of fruit and berry and grass juices, or dubious and even potentially harmful concoctions of supposedly "all-natural" ingredients their glossy and compelling advertisements and unsupported testimonials, often accompanied by ad copy that claims that the product is being "suppressed by the government!" confuse and confound many people and separate them from time, attention and money that could be better used for the pursuit of more proven treatments.

    We’ve had several emails recently that point out just how confusing a place cyberspace can be:

    One was from Gail, whose conventional doctors gave a diagnosis of cancer and told her she had "six months to live" a number of years ago and who is now not only very much alive but is thriving under Dr. Myatt’s care. Gail wrote with a question about a much-hyped but unproven "cure" for her cancer. Here is Dr. Myatt’s reply to her:

    Hi Gail:

    The single most important control cancer treatment is a ketogenic diet. Please read the attached abstract "Dietary Ketosis In The Treatment of Solid Tissue Malignancy" from an upcoming medical presentation of mine concerning cancer.

    [Nurse Mark Note: Please follow the link above or this link to read this important abstract.]

    Carctol is a combination of aryuvedic herbs ( Hemidesmus indicus, Tribulus terrestris, Piper cubeba, Ammani vesicatoria, Lepidium sativum, Blepharis edulis, Smilax china and Rheum emodi). It has never been tested in any controlled trial, not even in animals. There are only some anecdotal stories about it’s use.

    Because it has never been studied, we don’t know IF it works or how it works. Many claim that it works by alkalinizing the body. Since cancer cells produce lactic acid, this sounds reasonable to a layman. However, the substrate or "fuel" for cancer cell’s production of acid is glucose — sugar. A ketogenic diet stops lactic acid production by removing the fuel that allows for this acidity. Of course, the production of lactic acid is only one of the many mechanisms whereby cancer wreaks havoc in the body.

    Because I not only practice but also teach in the field of cancer medicine, I’m pretty "hip" on  anti-cancer substances, both conventional and natural. I focus on those that have a high degree of proof behind them. I and my research team are constantly reviewing the literature from all angles. There aren’t any scientific references on this herbal formula, only "testimonials." There are so many substances that are PROVEN to help cancer that I really don’t mess around with the ones that aren’t proven.

    Also, there is no "one magic bullet" for cancer. Instead, there needs to be a complete strategy to thwart the disease at a number of different places: angiogenesis, apoptosis, immune system recognition, anti-inflammation, decreasing radical oxygen species production, etc. (you’ll see the list of objectives in the paper). This means a complement of substances, each one doing one of the many "jobs" of a complete anti-cancer strategy, are best employed. When people are taking a number of disconnected "miracle substances," they rarely get results because there is no concerted plan. It would be like having a pile of materials — wood, windows, doors, roofing material and nails — and starting to build a house without a house plan. All you wind up with is a jumbled mess.  I once tried building a garden shed this way so I know whereof I speak. It’s a mess (we call it the Taj Mahal because it felt like such a major construction).

    Don’t build a house without a house plan and don’t treat cancer without a concerted protocol the addresses all the factors of cancer.

    It sounds like you would benefit from an updated review of your nutritional, supplement and other parts of your protocol so we can make sure you are doing the best that can be done (not just a "patchwork quilt," which I find many patients eventually drift toward). I will be leaving the end of next week on a 3-week speaking/ patient tour but I would be sure to work you in before then if you agree that it would be in your best interest.

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

    Then there is Katrina, who found us recently in her search for relief from what sounds like arthritic pain, requesting more information about glucosamine sulfate and wanting to know if we provide a "chat board" or blog where our customers (and presumably patients) can chat with each other.

    I’ll answer some of Katrina’s health questions in another article, since the answers may be of benefit to our other readers – but for now, here is the answer to the Chat Board question:

    No.

    Here’s why: When we look at some of the other medical condition forums and chat boards, we have seen that the "signal-to-noise ratio" is skewed very heavily to the "noise" side. There are plenty of well-meaning (and some, as described above, not so well-meaning)  folks and huge amounts of conflicting, erroneous, and even dangerous "advice" being shared around. Because Dr. Myatt’s and my policy for our website and HealthBeat news articles is that they be scrupulously researched and strictly correct, we would spend all our time sorting out misinformation and setting straight well-meant but wrong or even dangerous suggestions.

    Anyone who wants to see just how far off-base some of these discussion forums can get should check out websites like Dr. Mercola’s Optimal Wellness Center and Mike Adams "The Health Ranger’s" NaturalHealth – just two of many websites that allow a free-for-all comments feature. Some of these websites require registration, many don’t, but almost none of them are truly moderated by medically knowledgeable people. They are fun, but everything there must be taken with a healthy dose of caution.

    So, there you have it – since the potential for misinformation is so great on chat boards and forums, we will not be a party to them. Instead, we do take and answer questions from our readers – and you can be sure that the information that you are reading in those answers really is "The Straight Goods!"

  • Questions About Things We Don’t Even Sell…

    By Nurse Mark

     

    It’s no secret that we get a lot of questions here – Dr. Myatt has a well-deserved reputation for being scientific, honest, thorough, and for being more interested in what’s best for the person than in just "making a sale."

    So, we get plenty of questions about products we do not carry: questions of the "have you heard of…" variety are common, and yes, Dr. Myatt has probably heard of it.  Questions of the "I bought this product at my local health food store because the sales clerk said it was really good and now I think I’m having  a bad reaction to it – is that possible?" variety are tougher since 1.) we probably know little about that particular product (if we don’t carry it ourselves) and, 2.) we certainly know little about the person, their medical history, their medication or supplement regimen, their diet, and a dozen other things. To those people we can only suggest they go back to the health food store and ask the sales clerk… Then there are the "I bought this supplement from someone else – now can you tell me all about it and how to use it?" variety of questions – which mostly just get a chuckle from us here…

    Then there the questions that ask for our "opinion" regarding supplements being sold by others: Brenda sent us a rather confusing email recently asking about such a product and acknowledging that she could not find it on our website – a fact which by itself be pretty revealing of how Dr. Myatt feels about it. If it’s worthwhile, that is if it can benefit our patients and customers, we’ll probably carry it! Brenda also mentioned Larch in her subject line, but did not ask about it in her question – so maybe she pushed the ‘send" button before she was quite ready…

    I cannot find this on the shopping portion of your site. Do you have an opinion on Protocel?
    Thanks,
    Brenda

    Dr. Myatt took some time to answer Brenda as best she could, since she is familiar with the product through her research into cancer:

    Hi Brenda:

    No studies on Protocel have been published in standard scientific journals, and no clinical trials (research studies with people) of Protocel have been done.

    NCI studies have uncovered nothing special about this substance. It is certainly not one of the more promising substances for cancer treatment if that is your interest in Protocel.

    One of the ingredients in the formula, copper, can actually hasten metastasis when it is present in higher doses in the body. The other ingredients have been little studied. There are only a few testimonials in the advertising pages. Testimonials alone do not constitute a promising cure unless they are extensive and spread throughout non-sales forums across the internet (as the Budwig cure is for example).

    I have just finished my lecture notes for a medical conference in July where I am speaking on the subject of nutritional and botanical agents for cancer treatment.

    My research and criteria for each agent is extensive; a number of promising therapies exist. Protocel didn’t make any of my lists, not even the "promising but unproven" list. It may be an antioxidant, but there are numerous other nutrients, formulas and herbs that are far better proven as anti-carcinogenic agents. This is why you will not find Protocel on my website.

    I am finishing up a medical white paper on the most promising cancer treatments including dietary therapies. Would you be interested in reviewing this document when it is ready?

    If yes, please let me know and I’ll put your name on my special pre-review list.

    In Health,
    Dr. Myatt

    P.S. Why is your subject line "Larch"? Larch (arabinogalactans) ARE are promising agent for anti-metastatic properties.