HealthBeat News

Category: Senior Health

  • Do You Get Enough Of This Health-Improving "Non-Nutrient"?

    Fiber: Twenty-Five Surprising Benefits of  a Dietary “Non-Nutrient”

     

    By Dr. Myatt

     

    It’s not a “sexy supplement” or a “new breakthrough.” In fact, it’s not even officially classified as a nutrient. But Americans get only 10% of the amount we consumed 100 years ago, and our health may be seriously suffering as a result.

    That is this important “non nutrient” that we’re missing? Dietary fiber.

    “Fiber” refers to a number of indigestible carbohydrates found in the outer layers of plants. Humans lack enzymes to break down most types of fiber, so they pass through the digestive system relatively unchanged and do not provide nutrients or significant calories.

    In spite of this indigestibility, fiber has a surprising number of health benefits. In fact, consuming adequate daily fiber may be one of the most important health measures anyone can take.

    Twenty-Five Health Benefits of Fiber — Who Knew?

    There are numerous “sub-classes” of fiber, but the two main types are I.) soluble and II.) insoluble fiber. Both types are beneficial to health and both typically occur together in nature. They each offer independent health benefits. Here are twenty-five known health benefits that fiber provides.

    Bowel Benefits:

    1.) Relieves constipation. Insoluble fiber absorbs large amounts of water in the colon. This makes stools softer and easier to pass. Most people who increase fiber intake will notice improved bowel function in 31-39 hours.

    2.) Relieves diarrhea. It may seem paradoxical that a substance which helps constipation also helps diarrhea, but that’s just what fiber does. Insoluble fiber binds watery stool in the colon, helping turn “watery” into “formed.” Fiber is known to offer significant improvement to those with diarrhea.

    3.) Helps prevent hemorrhoids. Constipation is a leading cause of hemorrhoids. Because fiber-rich stools are easier to pass, less straining is necessary. Diets high in fiber have been shown to prevent and relieve hemorrhoids.

    4.) Reduces risk of diverticular disease. In cultures that consume high-fiber diets, diverticular disease is relatively unknown. That’s because high fiber intake “exercises” the colon, prevents excess bowel gas and absorbs toxins, all of which lead to the “bowel herniation” disease known as diverticulitis. Increased fiber intake is currently recommended in Western medicine as primary prevention for the disease.

    5.) Helps Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). IBS is characterized by constipation, diarrhea, or alternating constipation/diarrhea. Regardless of type, increased fiber intake has been shown to improve IBS symptoms.

    6.) Improves bowel flora. “Flora” refers to the “good bugs” (healthy bacteria) that colonize the large intestine (colon). Antibiotics, drugs, food allergies, high sugar diets and junk food alter this “bowel garden” in favor of the “bad bugs.” Certain types of fiber are rich in substances the “feed” bowel flora and help keep the balance of good bacteria in the colon at a normal level.

    7.) Helps prevent colon cancer. Although research has been controversial, observational studies in the 1970s showed that African natives consuming high-fiber diets had a much lower incidence of colorectal carcinoma. Since the “risk” of increased fiber consumption is so small, the “US Pharmacist,” states…

    “…with no clearly negative data about fiber, it makes sense to increase fiber intake just in case the positive studies did reveal an actual link. The patient will also experience the ancillary benefits of fiber consumption, such as reduction in cholesterol (with psyllium), prevention of constipation, and reducing risk of hemorrhoids.”

    8.) Appendicitis: studies show a correlation between the development of appendicitis and low fiber intake. A diet high in fiber may help prevent appendicitis.

    Whew… that’s just the bowel benefits! Fiber also helps prevent heart disease in multiple ways.

    9.) Lowers Total cholesterol. According to the FDA, soluble fiber meets the standard for reduction of risk from coronary heart disease. Psyllium husk is also able to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease as it contains a soluble fiber similar to beta-glucan.

    10.) Lowers triglycerides. Higher dietary fiber is associated with lower triglyceride levels.

    11.) Raises HDL. Fiber may even raise HDL — the “good cholesterol” — levels.

    12.) Lowers LDL Cholesterol. In addition to total cholesterol, increased fiber lowers LDL — the “bad cholesterol” — levels.

    13.) Aids Weight loss. Fiber helps prevent weight gain and assists weight loss several ways. The “bulking action” of fiber leads to an earlier feeling of satiety, meaning that one feels satisfied with less high-calorie food when the meal contains a lot of fiber. Fiber helps bind and absorb dietary fat, making it less available for assimilation. This means that some fat may be “lost” through the digestive tract when the meal is high in insoluble fiber.

    14.) Lowers Overall risk of Coronary Artery Disease. Perhaps because of a combination of the above-listed lipid-normalizing factors, some studies have shown an overall protective effect of higher fiber intake against coronary heart disease.

    Fiber also benefits blood sugar levels and diabetes…

    15.) Helps Type I Diabetes. Eaten with meals, high-fiber supplements like guar gum reduced the rise in blood sugar following meals in people with type 1 diabetes. In one trial, a low-glycemic-index diet containing 50 grams of daily fiber improved blood sugar control and helped prevent hypoglycemic episodes in people with type 1 diabetes taking two or more insulin injections per day.

    16.) Improves Type II Diabetes. High-fiber diets have been shown to work better in controlling diabetes than the American Diabetic Association (ADA)-recommended diet, and may control blood sugar levels as well as oral diabetic drugs.

    One study compared participants eating the the ADA diet (supplying 24 grams of daily fiber) or a high-fiber diet (containing 50 grams daily fiber) for six weeks. Those eating the high-fiber diet for six weeks had an average 10% lower glucose level than people eating the ADA diet. Insulin levels were 12% lower in the high-fiber group compared to those in the ADA diet group. The high fiber group also had decreased  glycosylated hemoglobin levels, a measure of long-term blood glucose regulation.

    High-fiber supplements such as psyllium, guar gum and pectin have shown improved glucose tolerance.

    More systemic benefits of fiber:

    17.) Gallstone prevention. Rapid digestion of carbohydrates leads to fast release of glucose (sugar) into the bloodstream. In response, the body releases large amounts of insulin. High insulin levels contribute to gallstone formation. Because dietary fiber slows the release of carbohydrates (and corresponding insulin), fiber helps prevent gallstone formation.

    18.) Kidney stone prevention. Low intakes of dietary fiber have been found to correlate with increased kidney stone formation, and higher intakes of fiber appear to be protective against stone formation.

    19.) Varicose veins. “Straining at stool” caused by fiber-deficiency constipation, has been found in some studies to cause varicose veins. Populations with lower fiber intakes have higher rates of varicosities.

    Fiber may even be important in prevention of certain types of cancer…

    20.) Colon Cancer Prevention. Diets higher in fiber have been shown in some studies to reduce the risk of colon cancer.

    21.) Breast cancer prevention. Higher fiber diets are associated with lower breast cancer risk. Some studies have shown up to a 50% decreased risk with higher fiber intakes. After diagnosis, a high fiber diet may decrease the risk of  breast cancer reoccurrence.

    22.) Pancreatic cancer prevention. High fiber diets are associated with lower risk of pancreatic cancer.

    23.) Endometrial cancer prevention. Higher fiber has been shown in some studies to protect against endometrial cancer.

    24.) Prostate cancer prevention. Diets higher in fiber may be associated with lower risk of prostate cancer. After diagnosis, a high fiber diet may decrease the risk of  prostate cancer reoccurrence.

    25.) Cancer prevention in general. Some studies have found that high fiber diets help prevent cancer in general, regardless of type.

    Recommendations vs. Reality

    The average daily American fiber intake is estimated at 14 to 15 g, significantly less than the American Dietetic Association recommendation of 20 to 35 g for adults, 25 g daily for girls ages 9 through 18 years and 31 to 38 g for boys ages 9 through 18. The American Heart Association recommends 25 to 30 g daily.

    Based on dietary intakes of long-lived populations (who typically consume 40-60 grams or more of fiber per day), many holistic physicians recommend aiming for a minimum of 30 grams of daily fiber.

    In my clinical experience, I find that most people over-estimate their fiber intake because they are unaware of the fiber content of many of the foods they eat (see http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/rate_your_plate.htm).

    Since fiber has proven itself to be such an important “non nutrient” for good health, increased dietary consumption and/or supplementation can be considered a wise choice for optimal health and disease prevention.

     

    Dr. Myatt has formulated an excellent fiber supplement – check out EZ Fiber!

    A fully referenced version of this article can be found here

  • 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

  • Would You Like Some Pneumonia With Your Acid Blocker Pill?

    By Nurse Mark

     

    Regular readers are well aware that neither Dr. Myatt nor I have any good thoughts about the current state of conventional treatment for GERD or heartburn despite the fact that Big Pharma would have us believe that their patented drugs such as PPI’s (Proton Pump Inhibitors) like Prevacid, Prilosec and Nexium are not only perfectly safe, but should be included in the diet of almost every human being. PPI’s are now being pushed for children, and even infants!

    Well, it looks like the jig is up, and the cat is getting let out of the bag. Even conventional researchers are daring to stand up to the might of Big Pharma: Papers are being published calling into question the safety of these drugs and discussing some of the “unintended consequences” of their willy-nilly use.

    Here is one such article (actually, this is not the full article – that would be mind-numbing and I wouldn’t do that to someone I like – this is just the abstract of the article) taken from the federal government’s National Institutes of Health website PubMed service: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19149516

    Curr Drug Metab. 2009 Jan;10(1):84-9.

    The effect of proton pump inhibitors on the human microbiota.

    Vesper BJ, Jawdi A, Altman KW, Haines GK 3rd, Tao L, Radosevich JA.

    Center for Molecular Biology of Oral Diseases, Department of Oral Biology, College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.

    Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly used to treat acid-related diseases, most notably gastroesophageal reflux disease. PPIs are designed to shut down the gastric proton pump (H+/K+-ATPase) of parietal cells, thereby raising the pH of the stomach. While effective, a number of side effects have been associated with PPI use. Naturally occurring bacteria, some of which are acid-producing and contain ATPase enzymes, have also been found within the stomach, upper gastrointestinal tract, and oral cavity. Likewise, a number of fungi are known to inhabit the human body; some of these fungi contain H+-ATPase enzymes. Recent literature has suggested that PPIs may be inadvertently affecting these bacteria and fungi in two different ways: 1) PPIs may directly target the proton pumps of the bacteria and fungi, and/or 2) PPIs may indirectly affect the microenvironment of the flora via changes in pH. These unintended interactions are exasperated by the systemic distribution of PPIs throughout the body and may potentially lead to some of the side effects observed with PPI use. Herein we summarize what is currently known about the interactions between the PPIs and the natural human microbiota.

    PMID: 19149516 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    I’m guessing that Big Pharma is not happy about this article… but what does it mean? What’s the bottom line?

    Well, it means that these PPI’s are messing with bacteria and fungus that normally and naturally inhabit our bodies (but are normally kept in check) by 1) affecting the bacteria and fungi directly, presumably making it easier for them to grow and 2) affecting the normal pH of our bodies that helps to suppress the growth (or expression in medspeak) of these bugs.

    Why should we care? Because this is resulting in some very serious increases in the rates of pneumonia in people taking these drugs!

    Consider the following conclusion drawn by a noted (conventional) researcher and published in JAMA – The Journal of the American Medical Association (not a place that you would expect to find something this critical of the offerings of Big Pharma!).

    Conclusions:  In this large, hospital-based pharmacoepidemiologic cohort, acid-suppressive medication use was associated with 30% increased odds of hospital-acquired pneumonia.

    Source: Acid-Suppressive Medication Use and the Risk for Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia
    Shoshana J. Herzig, MD; Michael D. Howell, MD, MPH; Long H. Ngo, PhD; Edward R. Marcantonio, MD, SM
    JAMA. 2009;301(20):2120-2128.

    Folks, that is how I would like my odds to run if I were playing the slots in Las Vegas – but not if I was trying to avoid getting a pneumonia!

    We’ve said it before in HealthBeat News articles (see Help – I’m Hooked On Acid Blocking Drugs! ) – these drugs are nasty: they are dangerous, addictive, and just plain bad medicine. Now we have research that shows that these drugs are acting like “fertilizer” for bacteria and fungus that can cause pneumonia and other serious, even life-threatening illnesses.

    It looks like maybe conventional medicine is beginning to wake up to these facts too.

  • 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