AddThis Feed Button "Frequently Copied, Never Duplicated"

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

TRICLOSAN

Sunday, August 29, 2010

FDA Looking into Triclosan?

 
UPDATE: 8/29/10  Triclosan and antibacterial warnings -
Updates at Natural Healing through Natural Health -

New article here from Jill Richardson, compiling much of what we have been teaching about the risk of triclosan since the late 80s.

from Natural Health News...
Apr 09, 2010
In a claim filed Tuesday, the National Resources Defense Council says the FDA didn't regulate the levels of triclosan and triclocarban in the soap, two toxic chemicals that can cause problems with reproductive organs, sperm quality and ...
Apr 16, 2005
The main reason for my advice has been that these chemicals, such as triclosan, disturb the balance of naturally occurring staph bacteria on the skin's surface (epidermis). Now here is more convincing evidence. ...
Nov 01, 2009
If the product contains Triclosan, also be cautious: Researchers who added triclosan to water and exposed it to ultra-violet light found that a significant portion of the triclosan was converted to dioxin. Triclosan reacts with chlorine ...
May 26, 2008
But I did already know that certain hand purifying gels contained, among other undesirables, the hormone disrupting antibacterial/antifungal agent triclosan, which can form dioxins when it comes into contact with water and has some
Dec 26, 2009
These contain Triclosan and will kill off naturally occurring bacteria on your skin that serves to protect you from infection. Many non-effective anti-biotics are on the market today and some of these have very serious side effects.


UPDATE: 8/21/10 - Two Dangerous Ingredients in Everyday Products That Are Threatening Our Health
Triclosan and triclocarban are widely used in antibacterial soaps, body washes, deodorants, lip glosses, dog shampoos, shave gels and even toothpastes. Read more...
UPDATE: 7/30/10 - 

Health Group Sues FDA Over 'Dangerous' Antibacterial Soap

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is being sued by a nonprofit environmental group for what the members claim is dangerous “antimicrobial” soap, Reuters reports.
In a claim filed Tuesday, the National Resources Defense Council says the FDA didn’t regulate the levels of triclosan and triclocarban in the soap, two toxic chemicals that can cause problems with reproductive organs, sperm quality and the production of thyroid and sex hormones.
Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, is named as a defendant in the suit, but no specific manufacturers or retailers were mentioned, according to Reuters.
The nonprofit claims it first approached the FDA about regulating this soap and other personal care products for over-the-counter use more than 30 years ago, but no action has been taken.
According to the lawsuit, the FDA proposed a ban from interstate trading of both chemicals in 1978 but nothing changed until 1994 when some ingredients were reclassified, Reuters reports.
The FDA said in April that the ingredient triclosan has not been shown to be harmful
to humans and that further study is needed.
The plaintiffs are requesting the FDA be given a deadline to complete its study on the conditions for using these products.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted April 2010: It never ceases to amaze me just how slow out US government agencies are slow to act to protect the citizenry. And they won't comment until sometime in 2011. Maybe an addendum to the health bill should require that the FDA clean up its political quagmires.

I've been warning about triclosan for at least 15 years, based on the science and at least the MSDS data.

What is so bad about triclosan is that is destroys what is referred to as the protective "acid mantle" of the skin, and creates a breeding ground for infection because it destroys the healthy bacteria on your skin:the healthy bacteria that is there to protect you from infection.

This is one time it pays to read labels and another to look to the use of natural castile soaps without fragrance and using truly health promoting skin lubrication like you can get from my colleague at Kettle Care.

FDA Warns of Risk in Antibacterial Additive
By Cole Petrochko, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: April 08, 2010


WASHINGTON -- The FDA has notified consumers that the antibacterial agent triclosan's safety data is being reviewed due to concerns raised in lab tests on animals.
Research from the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development found triclosan had thyroid and estrogen effects in animals.
The agent is a common ingredient in antibacterial soaps and washes, toothpastes, and cosmetics, all of which are regulated by the FDA.
The ingredient's profile was raised in January when Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, wrote the FDA to ask about a review of triclosan's use in consumer products.
Additional investigation was deemed necessary after animal studies showed potential negative effects of the ingredient, the FDA said in a prepared statement. Though studies are ongoing, the FDA does not currently have enough evidence to suggest a change to any consumer products with triclosan.
The FDA noted that although triclosan provided a clear benefit in some consumer products, the extra health benefit it offered in others was not as apparent.
The agency advised consumers that the ingredient poses no apparent danger to humans, but that soaps and body washes with triclosan may not provide additional health benefits over soaps without the additive; consumers concerned about its potential health hazards should switch to regular soaps without triclosan.
The FDA announced it will work with other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to study the effects of triclosan on humans, animals, and the environment.
The agency said it planned to publish its findings in spring 2011.
Chloroform Danger With Antimicrobial Soap, a 2005 post from Natural Health News
Nov 01, 2009
If the product contains Triclosan, also be cautious: Researchers who added triclosan to water and exposed it to ultra-violet light found that a significant portion of the triclosan was converted to dioxin.Triclosan reacts with chlorine ...
May 26, 2008
But I did already know that certain hand purifying gels contained, among other undesirables, the hormone disrupting antibacterial/antifungal agent triclosan, which can form dioxins when it comes into contact with water and has some ...
Dec 26, 2009
These contain Triclosan and will kill off naturally occurring bacteria on your skin that serves to protect you from infection. Many non-effective anti-biotics are on the market today and some of these have very serious side effects. ... 

Saturday, April 16, 2005:  Chloroform Danger With Antimicrobial Soap

 
It's now been over six or seven years that I have advised people not to use hand soaps with anti-bacterial ingredients. The main reason for my advice has been that these chemicals, such as triclosan, disturb the balance of naturally occuring staph bacteria on the skin's surface (epidermis). Now here is more convincing evidence.

The problem remains that this substance is not just in soaps, but many other items labelled as "anti-bacterial". It has been proven over the years that the process of hand washing, and the friction it causes, aids in the removal of dirt, grime and bacteria. A best bet is to get our natural hand cleaner with pure essential oils, and switch to one of our recommended 'safe'soaps, herbalYODA Says! 

By Kellyn Betts, Environmental Science & Technology
4-15-5

Washing dishes by hand with an antibacterial dishwashing liquid can do more than just ensure that the plates, glasses, and silverware are free from grease and germs, according to Peter Vikesland of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. In research published this week on ES&T's Research ASAP website (es048943+), he and his colleagues show that the triclosan antimicrobial agent used in household dishwashing soaps reacts with chlorinated water to produce significant quantities of chloroform. The research also suggests that the reaction of triclosan with chlorine could be producing highly chlorinated dioxins in the presence of sun
light. 

Because of its antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral properties, triclosan is found in toothpastes, acne creams, deodorants, lotions, and hand soaps. It is also incorporated into a wide range of consumer goods, including kitchen tiles, children's toys, cutting boards, toothbrush handles, hot tubs, and athletic clothing. As triclosan flows down drains, it is making its way into surface waters and sewage treatment plants, the bile of fish, and breast milk, according to the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, a consumer group. Since 2000, the American Medical Association has been urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to closely monitor and possibly regulate the home use of antimicrobials such as triclosan. 

The formation of chloroform from triclosan is of concern because the U.S. EPA classifies the compound as a probable human carcinogen. Moreover, the presence of trihalomethanes such as chloroform in drinking water has been linked with human bladder cancers and miscarriages.

The reaction of phenols such as triclosan with free chlorine is well known, but Vikesland's research is important because "it ties the use of a household product [to] increased exposure to a disinfection byproduct," says David Sedlak, a professor in the civil and environmental engineering department at the University of California, Berkeley. "This research is important for demonstrating that the chlorination of triclosan can occur under environmentally relevant conditions," says Kristopher McNeill of the University of Minnesota's department of chemistry. "The fact that you can chlorinate triclosan [under] pretty mild conditions is troubling," he adds.

Since writing the paper, Vikesland's team has conducted follow-up research under conditions that more closely mimic those found during home dishwashing. The new experiments used EPA's maximum allowable residual disinfectant concentration of 4 milligrams per liter in tap water and were conducted at 40 C, which fits well with the cleaning recommendations of the Soap and Detergent Association. (The association's website says that dishwater temperatures of less than 33 C, even with sufficient detergent, are likely to leave a greasy film, while the hottest water most people's hands can tolerate is about 43 C.) 

Under these conditions, triclosan reacts with free chlorine to generate more than 50 parts per billion (ppb) of chloroform in the dishwater. When combined with the other trihalomethanes in the water, the additional chloroform could easily ratchet up the concentration of total trihalomethanes to 80 ppb, which is EPA's maximum allowable amount, or higher, Vikesland says. 

"Since chloroform and other trihalomethanes and disinfection byproducts are already likely to be present in the tap water, and since chloroform, the other THMs, and many other [disinfection byproducts] are highly volatile, there is a very real likelihood that washing dishes with triclosan-containing liquid could cause additional and troubling significant exposure to these volatiles through inhalation and potentially through dermal absorbtion," says Erik D. Olson, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental group. Olson calls the research "significant." 

Water treatment plants are working hard to keep the levels of trihalomethanes in tap water below 80 ppb, Vikesland says, noting that the admissible level has recently decreased from 100 ppb. If there is any bromide in the water, the level of trihalomethanes produced during dishwashing is likely to shoot up even higher, he says. 

The research makes clear that it is always wise to wear gloves when dishwashing, says Doris Day, M.D., an assistant professor of dermatology at New York University Medical Center. In light of previous studies showing that the levels of trihalomethanes in people's blood increase when they shower, the research raises questions about exposures to chloroform when antimicrobial soaps are used. At this point, however, no one knows what risk they may pose. 

Vikesland's research also shows that triclosan's reaction with free chlorine produces a number of chlorinated triclosan intermediates, including 2,4 dichlorophenol. In the presence of sunlight, these chlorinated intermediates could be producing dioxins, say McNeill and his colleague, William Arnold of the University of Minnesota's department of civil engineering. The two have recently demonstrated that sunlight readily converts triclosan in river water to produce dioxins (Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2005, 24, 517ñ525). But the more highly chlorinated dioxins that could be generated photochemically from chlorinated triclosan intermediates could be far more toxic, says McNeill. 

It is unlikely that such dioxins would be generated during dishwashing even near a window on a sunny day because the glass would screen out most of the ultraviolet light necessary to produce the dioxin. But the research suggests that dioxins could be forming near swimming pools in some situations. "There's triclosan in hand soaps and moisturizers. [If] someone who has triclosan-containing moisturizer [on jumps] into the pool Ö they're a potential source for chloroform [and chlorinated dioxin] formation," Vikesland says. The same is true for a child using an antimicrobial soap before getting into the pool, McNeill and Arnold agree. "You could produce a dioxin on the surface of your skin [that] gets absorbed through the skin," Sedlak adds. 

McNeill and Arnold say that the research also calls for more detailed studies of whether chlorinated triclosans are being released from wastewater treatment plants. Because triclosan is widely found in the environment, chlorinated triclosan could be a source of toxic dioxins in the environment, says Arnold. Research has already shown that the presence of triclosan can affect algae populations (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 162Añ164A). 

Copyright © 2005 American Chemical Society 

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/apr/science/kb_chlorine.html

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Our Best Wishes for Your Naturally Healthy New Year


"Medicine doesn't get to the root of the trouble. It only conceals it. The result is a more highly poisoned condition which may become chronic disease. All drugs are harmful to the system. They are contrary to nature.

Mark my words.

There is no way to health except the natural way."

("M" to Bond 007, in Thunderball.)

FLUORIDE: Protecting the Public From Harmful Dentist Dogma

No need for me to say more. You can use our search function to locate other articles we have posted on the hazards of fluoride.

The Basics of Regulatory Toxicology: Protecting the Public from Harmful substances By Paul Connett

A note to readers Some readers may find this bulletin a little daunting but please don’t be put off. Take it step by step. If you do you will know more about this subject than most of the proponents of fluoridation. We need you to be better armed than they are so please struggle if necessary to get on top of this. I am happy to answer any questions you may have on this topic (write to pconnett@gmail.com).
Many promoters know little about toxicology So many of the statements and arguments coming from proponents of fluoridation betray their lack of knowledge of basic toxicological principles especially as it is applied in the regulatory field. It is one thing when such poorly informed positions emanate from lay persons but quite another when it comes from pediatricians or people at the very top of large organizations promoting fluoridation. Here is one shocking example. The appalling toxicological ignorance of the American Dental Association (ADA) was demonstrated when it dismissed the relevance of the landmark review by National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) on the very day it was published in 2006. The same ignorance was displayed by the CDC Oral Health Division six days later. Both organizations argued that the NRC (2006) was not relevant to water fluoridation because the panel (they claimed) only looked at harm in communities with fluoride levels between 2 and 4 ppm. There are four major problems with this position: a) The NRC panel looked at several studies in which harm was found at less than 2 ppm b) Chapter 2 of the NRC (2006) review consisted of an exposure analysis that concluded that certain subsets of the US population (including bottle-fed babies) drinking water at 1 ppm were exceeding the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) safe reference dose for fluoride (0.06 mg/kg/day). c) Neither the ADA or the CDC Oral Health Division appears to realize that there is a difference between concentration and dose. When comparing two populations and considering whether a certain concentration is safe or not one must first calculate the dose involved. This depends on how much water is consumed. As far as a harmful dose is concerned there will be an overlap between the doses ingested by individuals when comparing two communities – one drinking water at 1 ppm fluoride and one drinking water at 4 ppm – and even more so when comparing 1 ppm and 2 ppm. This overlap will occur even before we consider individuals exposed to other sources of fluoride. It is the total daily dose that is the critical calculation as far as harm is concerned. So both the ADA and CDC are incorrect when they imply there is a margin of safety simply because harm has been found at a higher concentration (in the studies cited by the NRC) and not necessarily at the 1 ppm used in water fluoridation. Concentration is not an appropriate basis for comparison as far as toxicity or safety is concerned. d) They also ignored the need to use a safety factor when extrapolating from small studies to estimate a safe dose needed to protect everyone in a large population.
I will now go into more detail on these issues below.
The difference between concentration and dose.
Concentration is measured in milligrams (mg) of fluoride per liter (1 mg/liter = 1 part per million or ppm). This can be controlled at the water works. Dose is measured in mg/day and this cannot be controlled as it depends on how much someone drinks – and some drink a lot – and how much fluoride they are getting from other sources. It is the total dose that has the potential to harm someone. The concentration (mg/liter) offers no guarantee of safety. It is actually worse than that, which brings us to part b) above.
The difference between dose and dosage. The same dose (mg/day) can have different affects on different people. There are two reasons for this: 1) because in a large population there is a large range of sensitivity to any toxic substance (more about that later) and 2) because the same dose can have a very different affect on people of different body weights. This is especially relevant when comparing the impacts of the same dose on adults and infants. That is why toxicologists use a different measure called dosage. In this they take account of body weight by dividing the dose in mg/day by the adult’s average body weight of 70 kg. Thus supposing it was determined that 7 mg/day was safe for an adult (for some health end point), then the safe dosage (sometimes referred to as a safe reference dose) which can be applied to anyone of any weight including an infant, would be 0.1 mg/kg body weight per day. 7mg/day divided by 70 kg = 0.1 mg/kg/day Going from safe dosage to safe dose for a particular body weight From a safe dosage we can work out a safe dose for any age range by multiplying the safe dosage by the average bodyweight for that age range. Thus for a 7 kg infant the safe dose for this hypothetical situation would be 0.7 mg/day and for a 20 kg child it would be 2 mg/day.
The EPA’s Iris Reference Dose (Dosage) Going back to the real world. The (EPA) determined a safe reference dosage (for the end point of moderate dental fluorosis) of 0.06 mg/kg/day (the so-called IRIS reference dose). Using this Iris reference dose we can determine the safe dose for a bottle-fed infant – at least for dental fluorosis. Assuming an average bodyweight of 7 kg, the safe dose would be 7 kg x 0.06 mg/kg/day = 0.42 mg/day. A 7 kg infant drinking 800 ml of formula per day made up with fluoridated water at 1 ppm, would receive 0.8 liters x 1 mg/liter/ day = 0.8 mg/day. In other words a bottle-fed baby consuming water at 1 ppm fluoride would get about twice the safe dose based upon the EPA’s IRIS safe reference dose.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s safe reference dosage for bone ATSDR’s reference dosage for the end point of bone damage was set at 0.05 mg/kg/day. A 70 kg adult would exceed this safe reference dosage if they ingested more than 3.5 mg/day (0.05 mg/kg/day x 70 kg = 3.5 mg/day). Such an adult could exceed this safe reference dosage by i) drinking 3.5 liters of water at 1 ppm (3.5 L x 1 mg/Liter/day = 3.5 mg/day) ii) drinking 2.5 liters of water at 1 ppm and getting 1 mg/day from other sources. iii) drinking 1.5 liters of water at 1 ppm and getting 2 mg/day from other sources. A U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s (DHHS) report from 1991 estimated that the range of exposure of the American adult was 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day from all sources.
The large range of sensitivity to any toxic substance In any large population we can anticipate a very large range of sensitivity to any toxic substance. Like other human traits such sensitivity follows a normal distribution curve (the famous bell-shaped curve). The average person will have an average response but at the two tails – we will have people who are very sensitive at one end and very resistant at the other. Typically we assume some people are going to be 10 times more sensitive than others. This is then used to generate a safety factor of 10 (sometimes referred to as the intra-species safety factor). Thus if we find harm in a small human study and wish to determine the level that would protect everyone in a large population from that harm this is what we do. We take the dose, which has been found to cause no harm (the so-called no observable adverse effect level or NOAEL) and divide that dose by 10 to give a safe dose for the most sensitive individual in the population. Frequently we don’t have a NOAEL and so we have to use a LOAEL (the lowest observable adverse effect level) and divide that by 100. Sometimes this process is corrupted and it is the LOAEL not the NOAEL that is divided by 10.
Margin of Safety Analysis Applying these calculations in a real world situation is called a Margin of Safety Analysis and shockingly it is very seldom considered by people who promote fluoridation. They simply use the very crude and highly misleading approach of comparing the concentration used in the study group with the concentration of the fluoride in the water of the fluoridated population as discussed above.
An example of a Margin of Safety analysis using an IQ study Here I will attempt a real world calculation for lowered IQ. I will use the study by Xiang et al. 2003 who reported a threshold for lowering of IQ at 1.9 ppm of fluoride in the water. Our first task is to estimate the dose range this represents for the children in the study – which of course, will depend on how much water they drink and how much they get from other sources. We believe very few of these rural Chinese children use fluoridated toothpaste and thus their daily dose comes largely from the water. • If they drank 2 liters of water per day at 1.9 mg/liter their daily dose would be (2 L x 1.9 mg/L ) = 3.8 mg/day. • If they drank 1 liter of water per day their daily dose would be 1.9 mg/day • If they drank 0.5 liters of water per day their daily dose would be approx 1 mg/day. In other words a reasonable estimate of the range of dose leading to a lowered IQ was approximately 1- 4 mg/day. If we treat this as a NOAEL the safe range of doses of fluoride to protect the most sensitive child in a large population would be 0.1 to 0.4 mg/day (1-4 mg/day divided by 10). In other words we wouldn’t want a child in a large population drinking more than 400 ml (0.4 L) of water (0.4 liters/day x 1 mg/liter = 0. 4 mg/day). If the Xiang’s et al. study is valid a responsible regulatory authority would not allow water fluoridation. Little wonder then that fluoridation promoters are doing everything they can to criticize the methodology of the Xiang et al. study and the methodology of all the other 36 studies (out of 43) that have found a lowering of IQ associated with drinking naturally occurring fluoridated water ranging from 0.9 to 11.5 ppm. Fourteen of the studies, ten of which were part of the 27 studies reviewed in the meta analysis carried out by the Harvard team (Choi et al., 2012), found a lowering of IQ at or lower than 3 ppm. Using the same calculation as above the lowering of IQ was associated with a range of fluoride from 1.5 – 6 mg/day in these fourteen studies. Thus dividing by the safety margin of 10 a dose estimated to be safe for the most sensitive child in a large population would range from 0.15 to 0.6 mg/day. Even if we take the highest (i.e. least conservative) estimate, such a dose would be exceeded by a child drinking about two large glasses of 1 ppm fluoridated water per day (it could be worse than that because I am using these doses as NOAELs and not LOAELs).
US EPA Office of Water is Not Doing its job. Using a large amount of taxpayers’ money the US EPA paid the NRC to do the review of their safe drinking water standards discussed above. When the NRC panel released its report in March 2006 it concluded that the EPA’s current safe drinking water standard of 4 ppm (both the MCL and the MCLG are set at 4 ppm) were not protective of health. The panel recommended that the EPA Office of Water perform a new risk assessment and determine a new safe MCLG (maximum contaminant level goal).
The difference between an MCL and an MCLG The MCL (or maximum contaminant level) for the contaminant in question is a federally enforceable standard and for fluoride it was set at 4 ppm in 1986 by the EPA Office of Water. The MCLG (or maximum contaminant level goal) is a goal based upon the best science as far as determining harm is concerned with a margin of safety analysis applied sufficient “to protect the most vulnerable from known and reasonably anticipated health effects.” As the name suggests this is not a standard but an ideal goal. Incredibly this was also set at 4 ppm for fluoride in 1986. What frequently happens for naturally occurring contaminants (e.g. arsenic) is that the economic costs of removing the contaminant to the desired goal (i.e. MCLG) is prohibitively expensive and so a compromise is set between the ideal goal and what can be achieved economically. It is this compromise level, which is the MCL. For arsenic - because it is a known human carcinogen - the MCLG is set at 0. The MCL is set at 10 parts per billion (ppb).
The EPA has not determined a new MCLG after 7 years It is extremely disturbing that after nearly 7 years the EPA’s Office of Water has not completed the needed risk assessment to determine a new MCLG. Had the EPA used any one of several end points finding harm in the NRC (2006) review (but particularly the IQ studies) and performed an appropriate margin of safety analysis as discussed above a new MCLG would have to be set well below 1 ppm and thus end water fluoridation immediately. However, it may be that the EPA’s Office of Water is not anxious to remove the rug from under the program that the DHHS (or its preceding agencies) have championed for over 68 years.
Going from a safe reference dose to an MCLG for fluoride Once one has determined a safe dose sufficient to protect for the full range of sensitivity in a large population the following steps are needed to determine a safe drinking water standard or in this case the MCLG (the maximum contaminant level goal). We will use another real world example. As explained above using the 14 IQ studies that found a lowering of IQ at 3 ppm or lower a conservative safe dose would be 0.6 mg/day (actually more conservatively it would be 0.15 mg/day). Now we would have to subtract from this the dose ingested from other fluoride sources. For many children this would be well over 0.6 mg/day (from swallowing toothpaste and food sources). Thus the regulatory agency would have to conclude that given current exposures to fluoride no extra fluoride could be condoned. Thus the MCLG would have to be set at ZERO ppm (like arsenic and lead) – and that dear readers would be the end, finito, morte for water fluoridation!* This looks like a clear example of bad politics keeping fluoridation afloat. If you can follow the above arguments you will understand this and be in a better position to argue the case. Given a fair hearing, an application of honest and standard risk assessment procedures and an open-minded judge fluoridation would be over. It is a matter of simple arithmetic and scientific integrity. There’s the rub. Between that arithmetic and this result are powerful political forces who – for reasons I for one cannot fathom - feel the need to keep this practice alive at any cost. That cost today probably includes the lowering of the IQ of our children. The shift in IQ maybe small, but as Philippe Grandjean (one of the authors of the Harvard meta-analysis by Choi et al, 2012) in his new book (Only Once Chance) explains, a small shift in IQ in the whole population is incredibly serious. For example, a negative shift of 5 IQ points would halve the number of geniuses in our society and double the number of mentally handicapped.
How you can help protect our children We urge you to support FAN’s mission to educate as many citizens, decision-makers and media persons about fluoridation’s dangers – as well as the political forces that are keeping those dangers hidden from the public - as possible. We need education not fluoridation. Please help us end this unacceptable practice immediately.
*Completing the MCLG calculation Had the number after subtraction of other sources of fluoride from the safe dose yielded a number greater than zero then a MCLG would be determined on the basis of an estimate of how much water people drink per day. Typically the EPA assumes that the average person drinks 2 liters of water per day. However, this assumption does not protect a higher-than-average water drinker. Thus at this point the EPA would have to determine what percentage of the population it wishes to protect. In the 1986 derivation of the MCLG the EPA derived a safe dose of 8mg/day. Then ignoring other sources of fluoride, they assumed an average water consumption was 2 liters per day and thus declared that 4 mg/liter was a safe level. i.e. if someone drank two liters of water at 4 ppm per day they would get 8 mg/day, 2 L/day x 4mg/L = 8 mg / day.
For more information on Margin of Safety calculations and risk assessment procedures please see chapter 20 in The Case Against Fluoride, by Connett, Beck and Micklem (Chelsea Green, 2010)

Sunday, December 08, 2013

Necessary Niacinamide


We all know that for about the past 50 years antibiotics have been greatly overused in people and animals. This abuse of oft needed antibiotics has created a period of difficulty wherein most antibiotics no longer are effective when necessary. If you're a regular reader of Natural Health News, the internet's first natural news site, you recognize that we have informed readers on the many helpful uses of niacin, niacinamide, or as it is commonly known, vitamin B3. Now a new study shows us what may be another valuable use -
Vitamin B3 offers superbug protection The September, 2012 issue of The Journal of Clinical Investigation reported the discovery of Cedars-Sinai researchers of a protective effect for vitamin B3 against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a type of staph infection that is resistant to antibiotic treatment. The finding is the result of research concerning a rare disorder known as neutrophil-specific granule deficiency, which involves a mutation in the gene CEBPE that regulates some of the body's antimicrobial factors. Afflicted individuals have weakened immune systems that render them vulnerable to infections such as staph. "Our goal in studying a rare disorder is that it may give us broad insight into the immune mechanisms that protect healthy individuals against staph infections," noted first author Pierre Kyme, PhD, who is a researcher at Cedars-Sinai's Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases in the Maxine Dunitz Children's Health Center and the Immunobiology Research Institute. "We found that if you over-express the gene in normal individuals, the body's immune cells do a better job of fighting off infection." The team determined that a high dose of a form of vitamin B3 known as nicotinamide or niacinamide stimulates CEBPE, which enhances white blood cells' ability to combat staph infections. When the vitamin was tested in human blood, it boosted the immune system's staph-killing ability up to 1,000-fold in a matter of hours compared to treatment with saline. And in mice that received injections of 250 milligrams nicotinamide per kilogram body weight prior to staph infection, bacterial counts in the animals' spleens and kidneys were 100-fold lower after 48 hours compared with animals injected with saline. The researchers suggest that targeting CEBPE with other compounds than nicotinamide could also help treat staph infections. Senior coauthor and Cedars-Sinai professor of medicine Phillip Koeffler, MD remarked that "There's more research to be done, but we believe that vitamin B3, and other compounds that are able to increase the activity of this particular gene, have the potential to be effective against other antibiotic-resistant bacteria in addition to strains of staph." "It's critical that we find novel antimicrobial approaches to treat infection and not rely so heavily on antibiotics," stated pediatric infectious disease physician and coauthor George Liu, MD, PhD, of Cedars-Sinai's Maxine Dunitz Children's Health Center. "That's why this discovery is so exciting. Our research indicates this common vitamin is potentially effective in fighting off and protecting against one of today's most concerning public health threats." SOURCE

Selections from Natural Health News

Cholesterol, Dementia, Schizophrenia, Detoxification,

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Calculating Cholesterol

Natural Health News has over eight (8) pages of articles addressing the cholesterol charade.  I am posting the top four (4) in light of the new push to get more people on a very dangerous drug that in reality has no real benefit to protect you from cardiovascular disease.
What statin drugs and other anticholesterol pharmaceuticals do is harm your health in so many other ways it is almost unfathomable that doctors them selves do not do more deep research on the concept.
You are at risk of muscle damage and kidney failure, heart failure, liver failure, diabetes, dementia, cancer and many more health derangements should you fall into this drug deception.
There are many safer and more natural ways to keep cholesterol in balance.  It is something you need not something to be depleted.
If you are interested in balancing cholesterol please contact us for more information and natural suggestions that do work with a lack of serious adverse effects.
And consider this -  Misled over the benefits of statins

Natural Health News: Cholesterol: Another Wrong Conclusion
Feb 21, 2011
I don't know where people's heads have been since the cholesterol bonanza began, but my stand is that these pundits overlooked a known fact, which now seems to be getting press after some 30 years. It's triglycerides!
Dec 23, 2008
UPDATE: Women in Government have a new ad campaign to push you to get cholesterol testing. This same organization has been behind the Gardasil propaganda campaign. For women especially, it is very important to get ...
Feb 23, 2008
Some studies have linked low cholesterol levels to higher death rates from cancer in general, Dr. Kouichi Asano, of Kyushu University, Fukuoka, and colleagues explain in the International Journal of Cancer. "With respect to ...
Nov 14, 2008
It's been going this way for a while: even healthy people should be on the cholesterol-reducing drugs known as statins. That, in a nutshell, is the verdict of a study published over the weekend which found that even in people ...


Can we please hear both sides

Another pertussis cluster has led to the banning of non-vaccinated children from a school district in the Tucson area.  In all the news reports the issue of "non-vaccinated children" is the target or emphasized catch phrase.

I recall writing an article in the mid 90s after interviewing a California (MD) pediatrician who also included homeopathy in his practice.  His emphasis was that it is the non vaccinated child who is always the healthiest and has the most resistance to disease.

From NHN 2008: New Focus: Responding to Specific Queries

Now the idea today is that it is the non-vaccinated adult whose childhood vaccine has worn off and has not gotten a booster shot may be the new target.  Or it could be a combined attack.

A funny way to approach public health if you ask me, after spending the bulk of my work over decades with a strong public health focus.

Sadly little has changes at WA DOH since Selecky's departure.  Inslee replaced her with another non- responsive bureaucratic hack.

Maybe, prhaps, this article will get some courageous health care providers thinking outside the box and give this a shot.

But alas, "here we are."***

While it is a tragedy that people are dying from the current pertussis outbreak, I believe it is important for facts rather than propaganda be provided to the community at large.
The AMA (American Medical Association) knew in the late 1920s that pertussis vaccine caused neurological problems.
Now we know that the pertussis vaccine is often associated with whooping cough outbreaks and many who have had the vaccine contract the disease.
And of course the friendly people at WA DOH are announcing everywhere that the only thing that will help this is to get the jab.
New Article re: WA DOH Vaccines and Fluoride
I encourage people to get the facts before you get the shot because the government or anyone giving out these vaccines is required by law to explain it to you, and give you the risk and benefit data as well.  Usually you are not provided with this information in my experience.
You are probably not told that for whooping cough especially, that vitamin C is a valid and effective help.  Vitamin A in the oil form (not single beta carotene) in short runs of high doses will help fight off pneumonia, and it works well with vitamin C.  Usually I use liposomal vitamin C and Hanna Kroeger’s Sunny A.

Babies Sleep Better If They Are Drugged And Vaccinated In The Afternoon

Here is some information from a 1937 medical journal addressing this concern -
“Ascorbic acid has a definite effect in shortening the period of paroxysms from a matter of weeks to a matter of days. We have not checked by cough plates or otherwise in this preliminary work to see whether the infectivity subsides simultaneously with the spasmodic symptoms, but are continuing with a larger series of cases in which these and other tests will be employed.

TABLE

Case
Age
(years)
Sez
Contact
Duration of
Symptoms
Treatment
Results
1
R.T.
6
M
School
6 weeks—typical
150 mg. per day
7 days—cough reduced markedly
10 days—cough disappeared
2
C.H.
1�
M
Unknown
Temperature 102 F.
Bronchopneumonia
when men
3 weeks—typical
10 days “fever”
at home
inhalations
sinapisms
expectorants
}3 days No effect
7 days—temperature normal, cough reduced
14 days—cough disappeared
175 mg. daily—11 dys
3
M.C.
12
M
School
10 days—typical
200 mg. daily
6 days—cough reduced
13 days—only occasional night coughs
15 days—all cough absent
4
J.P.
6
F
School
over 4 weeks—
typical
200 mg. daily
3 days—cough less, no vomiting
7 days—occasional cough
5
B.O.
2�
M
Known case
2 weeks—typical
250 mg. daily
5 days—cough disappeared
6
H.F.
7
M
School
2 weeks—typical
375 mg. daily
4 days—cough less
9 days—night cough only
11 days—all cough absent
7
E.H.
22

Maid
Child in house had
whooping cough
4dys., paroxysmal
cough, vomited
once, no whooping
500 mg. daily—3 days
125 mg. daily.
4 days—cough less, no vomiting
6 days—coughed only once in 2 days
11 days—cough absent
8
B.P.
4
M
Known case
10 days—typical
500 mg. daily—4 days
250 mg. daily—4 days
5 days—cough disappeared
9
M.W.
6�
F
School
2 weeks—typical
500 mg. daily—4 days
250 mg. daily—5 days
4 days—cough reduced
7 days—coughed once in 24 hours
9 days—cough disappeared
10
W.C.
4�
F
Sister (Case 9)
1 week—typical
500 mg. daily—4 days
250 mg. daily—5 days
Same as for Case 9
The dosages used have been empirical with a tendency to use larger doses early in the disease as our experience of its effects progressed. The acid is available at reasonable prices, and the danger of overdosage seems negligible. Animals have received 2,000 times their estimated requirements without any deleterious effects. Any excess is excreted by the kidneys.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. A method has been described for the treatment of whooping cough by ascorbic acid (vitamin C).
  2. Ascorbic acid definitely shortens the paroxysmal stage of the disease, particularly if relatively large doses are used early in the disease.
The ascorbic acid used by us was the Hoffmann-LaRoche product sold under the trade name of “Redoxon”. Grootton and Beszonoff 4 have shown that the product is identical chemically, physically and biologically with the original product prepared by Szent-Gy�rgi.

REFERENCES

  1. , T.: Vaccination against whooping cough, J. Am. M. Ass., 1933, 101: 137.
  2. , F.: Internat. Med. Digest, 1936, 29: 121.
  3. , H. H.: Whooping cough. Clin. J., 1936, 65: 246.
  4. , O. and Beszonoff, N.: Action de la vitamine C sur la toxine diphth�rique, et sensibilit� du bacille de la coqueluche vis-a-vis de l’hydroquinol et de le vitamine C. Ann. de l’Inst Pasteur, 1936, 56: 413.
  5. , P. and Sala, T.: Rev. fran�. De P�d., 1921. 4: 509. (Quoted by Grootton and Beszonoff).
  6. , J. and Niederberger, W.: Vitamin C In der Pneumonie-Behandlung., M�nch. med. Wochschr.. 1936, 83: 2074.
  7. , A.: Beobachtungen �ber Ascorbins�urewirkung bei der krupp�sen Pneumonie, Wien. Arch. f. inn. Med., (in press). (Quoted by Gander and Niederberger).
  8. , G. J. and Daniels, A. L: Vitamin C studies with children of pre-school age, J. Nutrit., 1936. 12: 15.
  9. , O. A. and King, C. G.: The distribution of vitamin C in plant and animal tissues and its determination, J. Biol. Chem., 1933. 103: 687.
  10. , M. Almaden, P. and King, C.G.: Vitamin content of human tissues, J. Biol. Chem., 1934, 106: 525.

From The Canadian Medical Association Journal, Volume 37, August 1937, Number 2, pp. 134-136″
This article was originally entered here in April 2012: 
http://blog.seattlepi.com/naturalnotes/2012/04/04/can-we-please-hear-both-sides/

*** with thanks to Baba Ram Das and Bill Greenberg, MD (Harvard)

Saturday, November 09, 2013

FLU FOR YOU? or Prevention

The fact is the practice of flu vaccination in the elderly is not based on evidence, but an article of faith.
Should the Elderly Get the FLU jab? 

Use the search window in the right column to find our numerous posts on vaccines, flu, vitamin D, vitamin C, and more Natural Health News to keep you healthy and well...

From Dr Eisenstein
 

The risk of children suffering from flu can be reduced by 50% if they take vitamin D, doctors in
Japan have found. The finding has implications for flu epidemics since vitamin D, which is
naturally produced by the human body when exposed to direct sunlight , has no significant side effects, costs little and can be several times more effective than antiviral drugs or vaccines according to research in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Only one in ten children, aged six to 15 years, taking the sun shine vitamin in a clinical trial came down with flu compared with one in five given a dummy tablet. Mitsuyoshi Urashima, the Japanese doctor who led the trial, told The Times that vitamin D was more effective than
vaccines in preventing flu.

Vitamin D was found to be even more effective when the comparison left out children who were already given extra vitamin D by their parents, outside the trial. Taking the sunshine vitamin was then shown to reduce the risk of flu to a third of what it would otherwise be.

Dr. Damien Downing, a doctor and medical consultant has publicly stated that governments "do like" epidemics as a chance to impose their will. The London based doctor has been advising patients to increase their vitamin D intake rather than get the vaccine.

You might be shocked to know that there are many physicians in both Canada and the United
States who prescribe as much as 50,000 IU of vitamin D daily as a treatment for a long list of
chronic diseases.

Dr. John Cannell, MD, suggests high dose vitamin D (50,000 IU) be consumed for three days at the first sign of a cold or the flu. If you have an infection, the truth is you need more vitamin D. In other words, vitamin D acts as a natural antibiotic. It works against every type of microbe (viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites).

Vitamin D deficiency is common during the winter months, especially in countries far north of
the equator. Vitamin D acts as an immune system modulator, preventing excessive production of inflammatory cytokines and increasing macrophage (a type of white cell) activity. Vitamin D
also stimulates the production of potent antimicrobial peptides in other white blood cells and in epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract, protecting the lungs from infection.

50 Percent Reduction In Flu Infections Using Vitamin D

Altogether 354 children took part in the trial. Vitamin D was found to protect against influenza A but not against the less common influenza B.

The trial, which was double blind, randomised , and fully controlled scientifically, was conducted by doctors and scientists from Jikei University School of Medicine in Tokyo, Japan.
The children were given a daily dose of 1200 IUs (international units) of vitamin D over a period of three months. In the first month children in the group taking the vitamin became ill just as often as those taking the dummy tablet. But by the second month, when the vitamin level in the children’s blood was higher, the advantage of the vitamin was clear.

The Japanese scientists, writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, say that the anti-
viral drugs zanamivir and oseltamivir reduce risk of flu infection by 8 percent in children who
have been exposed to infection, compared with a 50 percent or greater reduction with vitamin D.

Antivirals are typically more effective than vaccines for the influenza virus which suggests that
both forms of medical intervention would consistently fail in similar studies when pitted against
vitamin D.

Antivirals are expensive, and possibly toxic. Vitamin D additionally supports bone health but is believed to reduce risks of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other illness, including various bacterial and viral infections.

The Japanese finding supports a theory that low blood levels of the sunshine vitamin occurring in winter explain why flu epidemics generally peak between December and March.

1. Get a Vitamin D blood test25(OH)D
2. Make sure your whole family has adequate blood levels of Vitamin D this flu season (>50 to 80ng/ml). Most children and adults Vitamin D blood level is <30ng font="" ml.="">
3. Adults .................................. 5,000 IU daily.
4. Children ............................... 1,000 IU/25lbs.
5. Chronic conditions....................... 10,000IU daily 
6. At the first symptoms of a cold or flu 1,000IU/ lb. daily for 7 days.
 
Examples:
 50 lb daily         50,000IU daily.   
 
100 lb daily       100,000IU daily.
150 lb daily       150,000IU daily.
200 lb daily       200,000 IU daily.

NB from Natural Health News: 

Vitamin A will assist in protecting lung health and against pneumonia. Vitamin E is also helpful to carry oxygen across the alveolar membrane in the lungs into the blood.

Healthy fat in your diet is required to absorb Vitamins A-D-E-K.

Add adequate daily vitamin C and probiotics. Always stay hydrated.

Monday, September 02, 2013

More reason to skip skim

UPDATE:  Crazy to see all the frenzy over the news that the FDA is going to stop allowing trans-fats in food. What you aren't hearing is exactly how the oils suggested to be substituted are in fact trans-fats with low smoke points and damaging to the heart.

Here are a few articles to help you consider the finer facts, and accurate ones as well.


~~~~~~~~~

In the 80s when the trend went to no fat and low fat diets we advised our clients and students to keep healthy fats alive in their diets. 

FAT FACTS written in 2002

This quote is from May 2013
"Skim milk is not helpful for losing weight, as numerous studies have revealed, and in a recent study of 10,500 school-age children, it was actually harmful in terms of weight gain and loss of calcium absorption as a result of the “skimming” process. The fat content in whole milk slows sugar absorption and improves calcium uptake."
UPDATE: 4 Nov, 2013 - Now it seems everyone is again jumping on my wagon when it comes to sound nutrition information regarding healthy fat.

Oscar Will lll wrote this in 2011
Cut to the present, and the idea that corn, soy and other vegetable oils are preferred for optimal health continues to be dominant, yet the United States still has high rates of cardiovascular disease. We are overweight and unhealthy despite five decades of low-fat and no-fat health advice and faddism. How could the medical community, our Food and Drug Administration and so many others be so wrong about dietary fats? Read his full article here.
But even more apropos is a recent piece by UK doctor John Briffa, MD.

Briffa calls mainstream medicine to task on this faulty fat fiasco, and I am with him 100%.  He too combines the faulty fat fiasco right along with a great new expose on the great cholesterol caper.  Yes there is fallacy in the drug dictate that you all need cholesterol drugs and low cholesterol (NOT).
Last Saturday, The Times newspaper here in the UK carried a piece I wrote about the relative merits of butter, margarine and cholesterol-reducing spreads. I think it’s great we have got to the point where a major, ‘serious’ newspaper is commissioning and publishing pieces that challenge nutritional orthodoxy and do not swallow food industry misinformation […] Complete article
And he says more of what he has already said about cholesterol, as have I for many years, (use the search box for my cholesterol posts).  

So, won't you agree, it is now about time for the about face.

Selections from more than 30 articles at Natural Health News
 
Jul 08, 2006
Review finds current vitamin D recommendations insufficient to achieve healthy blood levels. A review published in the July, 2006 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which sought to determine the optimal ...
Dec 22, 2011
It's no longer enough for top-line chefs and adventurous home cooks to eat grass-fed steaks; those steaks need to be finished with duck fat or real butter. ... Nutrition science is beginning to turn the idea that all fat is bad for you on its head, with high-profile nutritionists like Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health and a professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School, working to debunk the idea that low-fat diets are ...
Feb 21, 2011
The comes the low-fat/non-fat diet and all kinds of health problems reach new, high levels. More drugs, less benefit, more cases, no recovery, lack of prevention too! High levels of cholesterol do not predict the risk of stroke.
Aug 10, 2006
The along came the no-fat and low-fat diet schemes, so along came behavioral and glandular problems because we had not fat to feed the brain, hormone production and strong healthy cell walls (yes indeed, these are made ...

Tuesday, August 06, 2013

More on Cell Phone and EMF Health Risks

For almost twenty years I have been writing about the risk of EMF and cell phone use to your health. This new study is of concern because we do know of the real impact of oxidation stress on the body.  Perhaps it is time to rethink your reliance on cell phones, tablets,and all microwave devices.
Cellphones cause oxidative stress, may up cancer risk
TEL AVIV, Israel, Aug. 6 (UPI) -- There  is considerable oxidative stress on the tissue and glands close to a cellphone when in use and this may increase cancer risk, Israeli
researchers say.

Dr. Yaniv Hamzany of Tel Aviv University's Sackler Faculty of  Medicine and the Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Department at the  Rabin Medical Center looked for clues in the saliva of cellphone users.

Since the cellphone is placed close to the salivary gland when in use, he and fellow researchers Raphael Feinmesser, Thomas Shpitzer, Dr. Gideon Bahar and Rafi Nagler of Tel Aviv University and Dr. Moshe Gavish  of the Technion in Haifa examined the saliva content of 20 heavy-user patients, defined as speaking on their phones for a minimum of 8 hours a  month.

Most participants speak much more, Hamzany said, as much as 30-40 hours a month. Their salivary content was compared to that of a control group, which consisted of deaf patients who either do not use a cellphone or use the device exclusively for sending text messages and other non-verbal functions.

The study, published in the journal Antioxidants and Redox Signaling,  found compared to the control group, the saliva of heavy users showed indications of higher oxidative stress -- a process that damages all aspects of a human cell, including DNA -- through the development of toxic peroxide and free radicals -- a major risk factor for cancer.

Although the study didn't uncover a conclusive "cause and effect" relationship between cellular phone use and cancer, the research adds to  the building evidence cellphone use might be harmful in the long term, the researchers said.

SOURCE:  UPI http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2013/08/06/Study-Cellphones-cause-oxidative-stress-may-up-cancer-risk/UPI-40681375764470/#ixzz2bCzYApRt
Selections from more than 30 posts on Natural Health News 
Jun 26, 2010
A user should avoid use of mobile in rural areas or a car where the cell phone uses more power and the SAR value can be ten or hundred times higher than the normal," they suggest. This group of scientists is also planning to ...
Sep 27, 2012
Recently, Congress tasked its investigative arm, the General Accountability Office (GAO), to consider the health risks of mobile phones and to report back to Congress. While a previous report published in May 2010 by the US ...
Jul 20, 2011
San Francisco supervisors on Tuesday unanimously approved legislation aimed at helping consumers reduce their exposure to cellphone radiation, a move that industry groups denounced but that Supervisor John Avalos ...
Dec 21, 2009
Congratulations to those legislators who take an interest in the health of thier constiuents. San Francisco is working on a similar regulation as Maine. Cell phone and EMF links to cancer has clearly been established in ...

Saturday, July 27, 2013

CHILDREN RUN BETTER UNLEADED


In the nation’s largest lead Superfund site, Bunker Hill, a 1500 square mile, an EPA designated NPL area stretching from the Idaho, Montana border on into Washington State, children are not running very well.

The lead testing of children is being compromised. Not only are thousands of children not being tested by a multitude of government agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency there are serious repercussions for anyone speaking out about lead and the health problems exposure can cause.

In desperation the Silver Valley Community Resource Center a 25 year old non-profit organization
whose board and members represent six generations of families living in the area with chronic
lead poisoned health conditions reached out to begin a Community Lead Health Project in the summer of 2012. The project began on a small scale with 3 families and five children. Out of the five children tested two were found with elevated lead levels. SVCRC and its outside networking support followed up with Medicaid EPSTD, Early Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment case management recommendations that have never been extended to anyone in the area.

The organization is reaching out to find funds to begin a community supported Lead Health Clinic
designed with the help of international and national lead experts including the late Dr. John Rosen, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, who spent considerable time testing and educating families over many years.

SVCRC is currently seeking funds to extend the critical need of testing children for lead exposure.

If you would like to contribute, please send contributions fully tax deductible to SVCRC, PO BOX 362, Kellogg, ID 83837
Website: www.silvervalleyaction.com

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

More Fish Oil Folly from Mainstream Medicine

Recently I sent out a message about this study, pointing out the use of fractionated omega 3 in the DHA only form, and a low dose, les than therapeutic recommendations.

Now another of many commentaries has been published.

Before you believe the talking heads on your TV station or the internet aggregator sites, do a bit of your own investigation.  We hope this helps.
Several scientific studies have found a reduction in prostate cancer associated with increased omega-3 intake.1-11 A recent report purportedly showed the opposite.12
This report was based on a single blood test of plasma fatty acids in a group of 834 men who were followed up to six years to assess prostate cancer risk (low- and high-grade disease). A smaller group of 75 men was followed up to nine years to assess only high-grade prostate cancer risk.
The results showed that slightly higher omega-3 plasma percentages from this single blood test were associated with a greater risk of low-grade (44%) and high-grade (71%) prostate cancers over the multi-year follow-up.
This report was turned into news stories with headlines blaring “Omega-3 fatty acids may raise prostate cancer risk.”
Omitted from the media frenzy was the fact that this study was not about fish oil supplement users. The authors admitted they did not know how the study participants achieved what turned out to be very low omega-3 plasma percentages in all groups.
In fact, omega-3 plasma levels were only about 40% of what would be expected in health conscious people taking the proper dose of fish oil.12 ,13 The insufficient levels of plasma omega-3s in all the study subjects were overlooked by the media. Had these very low plasma levels of omega-3s been recognized, it would have been apparent that this report had no meaning for those who boost their omega-3 consumption through diet and supplements.
Also absent from the reporting was that more men with slightly higher omega-3 plasma levels had confounding risk factors for greater risk of contracting prostate cancer at baseline, such as having higher PSA scores and a positive family history. Although the authors attempted to statistically control (through a statistical model called multivariate analysis) for some of these risk factors in their analysis, the concern remains that the baseline data was confounded and therefore the statistical analysis invalid, and that the reported results are compromised by higher rates of preexisting disease along with a genetic predisposition, not because of the miniscule variance in the amount of their plasma omega-3.
Prostate cancer sharply increases by 120% to 180% in men who have a first-degree relative who had contracted prostate cancer. Nearly double the men who contracted prostate cancer in this study had a positive family history, and although the researchers attempted to statistically control for this confounding factor, this fact was conveniently overlooked by the mainstream media as omega-3s were instead labeled the culprit.
Associating a one-time plasma omega-3 reading with long term prostate cancer risk is ludicrous. That’s because plasma omega-3 changes rapidly with short-term dietary changes. It does not reflect long-term incorporation of omega-3 into cells and tissues. In this report, differences in baseline omega-3 blood measures were so trivial that if a man had just one salmon meal the night before, he could have wound up in the “higher” omega-3 group even if he never ingested another omega-3 again.14
Numerous flaws in this report render its findings useless for those who supplement with purified fish oils and follow healthy dietary patterns. This article represents Life Extension®’s initial rebuttal to this spurious attack on omega-3s that was blown out of proportion by the media.

Prostate cancer is a slow developing malignancy that can take decades to manifest as clinically-relevant disease. Commonly recognized risk factors for contracting prostate cancer are diet, body mass, race, family history, hormone status, and age.15,16
An under-recognized risk factor associated with developing prostate cancer is coronary artery disease.17 We at Life Extension long ago observed that men with clogged coronary arteries often developed prostate cancer (and vice versa). A renowned prostate oncologist named Stephen Strum, M.D., made a similar observation and established a common factor behind coronary heart disease and prostate cancer, i.e., bone loss.
Coronary artery disease is clearly linked with osteoporosis,18 as lack of vitamin K prevents calcium from binding to bone and instead allows it to infiltrate and harden the arteries. The ensuing bone loss results in the excessive release of bone-derived growth factors that fuel prostate cancer propagation and metastasis.
Long after Dr. Strum published his elaborate correlation, a 2012 study of 6,729 men showed coronary artery disease to be associated with a 35% increased risk of prostate cancer.17
The reason we bring up the connection of heart disease and prostate cancer is that the authors of the controversial study apparently failed to assess overall baseline health status of the study subjects. We initially suspected that men in the higher group of plasma omega-3 (which turned out to be low by our standards) were more likely to have coronary heart disease. That’s because men with heart disease are told by their cardiologists to eat less red meat and more cold-water fish. So it would not be surprising if the plasma percentage of omega-3 was higher in men with prostate cancer as they may have been trying to eat healthier to avoid bypass surgery or a sudden heart attack.
When we asked the authors of the report if they assessed the baseline cardiovascular status of the subjects, their reply was, “No, I don't believe this to be the case.”
Read the rest of the story here

Big Government Plan for Your Supplements

Here's the latest CODEX update from National Health Federation


The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) celebrated its 50th year of existence the first week of July while also conducting its 36th session, with several hundreds of member-state delegates and non-governmental organizations in attendance.  Chairman Sanjay Dave was re-elected as CAC Chairman and presided over the meeting in a fair and business-like manner.
          But fair and business-like did not compensate for the Commission’s gross nutritional ignorance that resulted in certain Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) being approved for vitamins and minerals over the repeated and strong objections of the National Health Federation (NHF), a Codex-accredited non-governmental organization.
          As Scott Tips – the NHF’s delegate at that meeting – remarked afterwards, “Of course we spoke up in opposition to approval of these NRVs, because they will reduce by 20% to 66% all but one of the already-low B vitamin NRVs, increase Calcium NRVs while reducing Magnesium NRVs (the exactopposite of what modern nutrition tells us should be done), and promote, at best, subsistence nutrition when optimal nutrition is called for here. These are standards that would only allow consumers to put one foot before the other, barely avoiding slipping into the grave, as they shuffle through life.  Consumers deserve better, they deserve optimal nutrition that allows them to maximize their potential and quality of life.”
          To continue reading the full report of what happened at this most recent meeting, CLICK HERE. The fight over these NRVs is not over and will continue in November in Germany at the Nutrition Committee meeting to be held there.
          Another detailed critique of the proposed Codex recommendations has been written by health journalist Bill Sardi, as commissioned by the NHF.  The entire critique can be read online.  Sardi has written the U.S. delegate to Codex in the past, opposing passage of similar guidelines. He has been an outspoken critic of Codex.
          Codex has drawn the similar ire of other health-freedom advocates.  There is a concern that Codex solely serves the needs of big business and that it is a conduit for disease mongering by establishment of nutrient recommendations that lock in in a certain level of disease in human populations that then requires more doctoring and drugs.
          For more information, contact the National Health Federation, the only health-freedom organization with standing to participate at Codex meetings.

Proposed Changes In Recommended Daily Dietary Intake
Of Essential Vitamins & Minerals

CODEX (World Health Organization/ Food & Agriculture Organization
of The United Nations) versus Daily Value/Reference Daily Intake
NUTRIENT Proposed
Recommended Nutrient Intake (RNI) -CODEX
100% Daily Value(what is listed on dietary supplement labels)
based on RDI
(Reference Daily Intake)
Difference
Thiamin (Vitamin B1) 1.2 mg 1.5 mg -20%
Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) 1.2 mg 1.7 mg -30%
Niacin (Vitamin B3) 15 mg 20 mg -25%
Pyridoxine (Vitamin B6) 1.3 mg 2.0 mg -35%
Folic acid (Vitamin B9) 400 mcg 400 mcg No change
Cobalamin (Vitamin B12) 2.0 mcg 6.0 mcg -66%
Vitamin A 550 mcg (1833 IU) 1500 mcg (5000 IU) -64%
Vitamin C 45 mg 60 mg -25%
Vitamin D 200 IU (5 mcg) 400 IU (10 mcg) -50%
Calcium 1000 mg 1000 mg No change
Iodine 150 mcg 150 mcg No change
Iron 14 mg 18 mg -22%
Magnesium 240 mg 400   mg -40%
Zinc 12 mg 15 mg -20%
IU = international units
Mg = milligrams
Mcg = micrograms
Source: CODEX NRVs CCNFSDU PWG Discussion Paper RDI -Reference Daily Intake
Source: Nutribase.com


          Minneapolis, Minnesota will be the hosting city for Codex Alimentarius’ next Committee meeting on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (August 24-30, 2013). NHF will be there participating not only at the plenary session but also at the working group session on the Guidelines on Risk Management Recommendations for Residues of Veterinary Drugs, with the intent and goal of keeping as many drug residues out of our foods as possible.

Monday, July 08, 2013

Malnutrition Equals Obesity

While this article from Gary Scattergood is written about the issue of malnutrition in the UK it is certainly appropriate to raise the same question in the US.

In the late 60s when I was in college earning my NP degrees I studied nutrition as an integrated part of the the curriculum.  Certainly we knew then that malnutrition was an issue directly related to health, not some obscure thought.  Even then we knew cancer for instance was a nutritional disease as were many hospital related deaths.

Disease now is just thought of as a deficiency of some pharmaceutical drug and the problem is not addressed from all possible and interrelated issues.
 
Shame on health providers, shame on dietitians, government, and big business along with seemingly ignorant legislators.
Put the spotlight on malnutrition instead of obesity

The UK is in dire need of a national strategy to tackle malnutrition, which is at least as big a problem to public health and the public purse as obesity.

According to Dr Elizabeth Weekes, from the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, widespread attention on the so-called obesity epidemic was overshadowing the fact that 3M people in the UK were either malnourished, or at severe risk of malnutrition, at any time.

One million of those are over 65 years old and 400,000 of them live in London. The problem is more likely to be experienced in deprived areas and it is likely that “far more people are malnourished now than they were 10 years ago” due to the economic climate and government welfare cuts.

Don’t recognise a problem

“The problem we have in the UK is that people don’t recognise we have a problem [with nutrition] or, if they do think we have a problem, they think it is about obesity.

“Malnutrition costs at least as much to health and social care costs as obesity,” said Weekes at the Government Knowledge conference ‘Beating the Nutrition Recession: Tackling Food Poverty’ in London last month.

She added there were “millions of reasons” why malnutrition occurs including physical, psychological and social factors. The consequences, she said, however, were clear.

“Malnourished people are more prone to illness, less likely to recover from illness and the cost of treating someone who is malnourished in hospital is twice that of someone who is well-nourished.”

Weekes said she was particularly alarmed by the results of a recent survey, which showed that 60% of carers in the community were concerned about the nutritional intake of a patient. Furthermore, 16% of recipients reported fears  that a patient was underweight or had a very small appetite and yet had no sources of nutritional support or advice.

“Another figure that staggered me was that 55% of people being cared for use nutritional supplements,” she added.
 
Another stark figure she revealed was that 70% of malnourished people who were admitted to hospital were more malnourished when they left.

She told delegates it was essential a national malnutrition strategy was formulated.

“The Malnutrition Taskforce (an independent group of experts across health, social care and local government) is calling for a national strategy, particularly for the elderly, but I feel quite strongly it should be for everyone,” she added.