Posts
Anyone who knows me will know about my opinions on carbonated drinks and coke in particular (the phosphorous helps to leach calcium out of your bones and leads to osteoporosis). But, even though you are mad to stick coke and pepsi down your throats don’t worry if you have a fridge full of the stuff and don’t want to pour it away as a waste of money! Here are some really useful things to do with the stuff (written from a bloke’s perspective of course.) other than poisoning yourself.
Clean Car Battery Terminals.There's acid in almost all carbonated drinks. And that helps strip corrosion from car battery terminals. Pour some coke/pepsi over the battery terminals and let it sit for a while. Wipe off the residue with a wet cloth.
Clean Your Dirty Toilet Bowl. Got bad stains, a date coming over in an hour and no toilet cleaner? Pour a can of coke/pepsi into the bowl. Let it sit for an hour to let the phosphoric acid work on the stains, then brush to loosen the dirt and flush clean.
Remove Rust Spots From Chrome.If you have an older car that has real chrome trim, chances are there are some small, and some not so small, rust spots developing on the chrome. Take some crumpled aluminum foil, dip it in some cola and rub the rust off the affected area.
Remove Rust Stains in Your Bathtub. Remember how the phosphoric acid worked to clean the toilet bowl? The same acid will remove rust stains in your bathtub. Soak a sponge (preferably one with an abrasive side), in some cola and go to work on the stain.
Clean Grout. Is mould and mildew ruining the look of your shower? Soak a sponge with Coke and work it into the grout. Rinse with water.
Remove Grease From Clothes. Been working on the car all weekend and greased up more than just the engine? Pouring a can of cola into your washer, along with your regular soap powder, is said to help loosen and wash away those grease stains.
Remove Milk Stains From Clothes. Soak the stain with Coke for about five minutes and then wash normally. It should get the stain out.
Remove Blood Stains From Clothes. If you soak the stain with coke/pepsi for five minutes then wash in your machine, the blood should come out, even dried blood that's been there for a while.
Clean Grease From Glass.
That same handy phosphoric acid removes grease and grime from glass, even dried hairspray from mirrors. Just rinse thoroughly with water afterwards.
Clean Oil Stains From Garage Floor or Driveway.
Pour coke/pepsi over the stain, let it soak in for a while, then scrub and rinse off with a hose.
Clean Burnt Pans.Ruined you favourite pan? Forget to take it off the stove? If scrubbing won't get it off, try this: boil some coke in the pan and the burnt-on mess should lift right out.
Clear Clogged Drains.If your sink is draining slowly and you don't have any drain cleaner in the house, pour a 2-litre bottle of cola down the drain and let the acids go to work on the clog. Cheaper than drain cleaner!
Loosen Rusted Nuts and Bolts.Soak a rag in cola and wrap it around the rusted-on bolt for a few minutes. The acids and carbonation will help loosen it.
Make Flowers Last Longer.Got your girl some flowers and you want them to survive through the week? Pour about 1/4 cup of clear soda like Sprite or 7-Up into a vase full of water. The sugar helps them to last longer.
Relieve Nausea or an Upset Stomach. I can think of better things to put in my stomach but evidently just leave the can or bottle open for about 30 minutes first, until the coke/pepsi goes flat. The carbonation could have an adverse effect on your stomach symptoms.
Help Prevent Diarrhoea. When you’re desperate for SAFE fluid (i.e. free from bugs) and you're traveling through a country with an iffy water and/or food supply, drinking coke could keep you from making constant trips to the bathroom. The acids in the coke/pepsi help reduce the amount of E. Coli bacteria in your intestines. This inhibits the production of toxins that can cause diarrhoea.
Ease a Sore Throat. By gargling with coke/pepsi you can loosen the phlegm causing the irritation. Remember it’s poison – spit don’t swallow.
Stop a Jellyfish Sting From Stinging. Just pour it on, the acids in cola seem to neutralize the venom in the sting.
Get Chewing Gum Out of a Child’s Hair.
Fancy your chances with that single mum struggling to get gum out of her screaming kid's hair? Come to the rescue with your can of Coke. Soak the kid's hair for a few minutes, then rinse. The gum should come right out.
Strip Dye From Hair.
If your girl comes home crying that her new dye job turned her hair green, wash her hair with Diet Coke. Apparently Diet Coke has the ability to strip and/or fade bad dye jobs.
Use as a Moisturizer.
Mixing a capful of cola with unscented lotion is said to enhance the moisturising
effects.
Keep People From Slipping on Slippy Floors.
If you're having an outdoor get together and you're worried about guests slipping on your back patio, try this trick: use a mop to spread a thin layer of Coke on the slippery surface. It'll dry slightly sticky and tacky.
Any more?
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
Monday, 23 June 2008
Paw Paw (the history of - relates to previous post)
History behind Paw Paw Cell Reg:
Dr Jerry L. McLaughlin, an Emeritus Professor of Pharmacognosy from Purdue University, extensively studied cancer & related treatments. Dr. McLaughlin has made over 300 scientific presentations and his work is chronicled in over 330-refereed publications, supported by nearly 80 different grants and contracts. For 20 years he obtained and screened more than 3,500 species of plants during a study supported by the National Cancer Institute. During this time he discovered remarkable active ingredients in the twigs of a species of Paw Paw called Asimina Triloba which had powerful anticancer benefits. Dr. McLaughlin soon discovered that the twigs needed to be harvested seasonally to obtain the potency of the active ingredients. Dr. McLaughlin tracked more than 100 cancer patients who used the Paw Paw active ingredients during a one-year period. These patients had tumours representing many different kinds of cancer. The results showed significant reductions in tumour sizes and a significant reduction in tumour antigen levels. Many patients reported “increased energy” as a result of using paw paw. Of those patients who were undergoing chemotherapy, some reported no hair loss, no bone marrow depression and no GI bleeding. Interestingly additional health benefits were noted with patients suffering from cold sores, shingles, toenail fungus, acne, athlete’s foot, eczema and psoriasis. The Scientific research on Paw Paw was being conducted to make a pharmaceutical drug however by the time the research on Paw Paw had been concluded the pharmaceutical company had already invested millions in another anti-cancer drug and decided it would not be financially viable to invest further money in another new drug simultaneously. Nature’s Sunshine were very interested in Dr McLaughlin’s lifetime research and the results of the clinical trial believing it would be better for people to use this remedy in itsnatural form rather than a synthetic drug. Nature’s Sunshine commissioned Dr McLaughlin to work with the company to use his research to develop Paw Paw Cell Reg. Oncologist recommends Paw PawSome of the most encouraging paw paw results are coming from doctors who suggest thatpatients add paw paw to their current health regimens. One of these doctors is Dr. JamesForsythe (oncologist). Dr. Forsythe shares case studies of three patients who haveexperienced improvement while using paw paw.“One participant named Anna has stage four breast cancer. Within just six weeks of taking the paw paw she saw a 50 percent reduction in tumour markers as measured by blood tests.Also, the size of the tumour was reduced significantly. Since she did not change any other treatment protocol, I was convinced that the paw paw was instrumental in improving the condition of her cancer. A second participant named Ed has stage four lung cancer. He went through two years of chemotherapy, but the lung cancer was resistant. Within two months of taking paw paw Ed’s tumour markers also improved, and he experienced a weight gain of five pounds. Before taking the paw paw he was bedridden or was in a wheelchair. Ed’s health has improved to the point that he is now able to walk on his own.The last participant, Byron, has stage four prostate cancer, which spread to other parts of his body. Within six weeks of using paw paw there was a distinct reduction in the tumour masses. A CT scan showed a 25 percent reduction in the tumours. Byron is now in stable condition.”
Ref The Wellness Report40/1
Dr Jerry L. McLaughlin, an Emeritus Professor of Pharmacognosy from Purdue University, extensively studied cancer & related treatments. Dr. McLaughlin has made over 300 scientific presentations and his work is chronicled in over 330-refereed publications, supported by nearly 80 different grants and contracts. For 20 years he obtained and screened more than 3,500 species of plants during a study supported by the National Cancer Institute. During this time he discovered remarkable active ingredients in the twigs of a species of Paw Paw called Asimina Triloba which had powerful anticancer benefits. Dr. McLaughlin soon discovered that the twigs needed to be harvested seasonally to obtain the potency of the active ingredients. Dr. McLaughlin tracked more than 100 cancer patients who used the Paw Paw active ingredients during a one-year period. These patients had tumours representing many different kinds of cancer. The results showed significant reductions in tumour sizes and a significant reduction in tumour antigen levels. Many patients reported “increased energy” as a result of using paw paw. Of those patients who were undergoing chemotherapy, some reported no hair loss, no bone marrow depression and no GI bleeding. Interestingly additional health benefits were noted with patients suffering from cold sores, shingles, toenail fungus, acne, athlete’s foot, eczema and psoriasis. The Scientific research on Paw Paw was being conducted to make a pharmaceutical drug however by the time the research on Paw Paw had been concluded the pharmaceutical company had already invested millions in another anti-cancer drug and decided it would not be financially viable to invest further money in another new drug simultaneously. Nature’s Sunshine were very interested in Dr McLaughlin’s lifetime research and the results of the clinical trial believing it would be better for people to use this remedy in itsnatural form rather than a synthetic drug. Nature’s Sunshine commissioned Dr McLaughlin to work with the company to use his research to develop Paw Paw Cell Reg. Oncologist recommends Paw PawSome of the most encouraging paw paw results are coming from doctors who suggest thatpatients add paw paw to their current health regimens. One of these doctors is Dr. JamesForsythe (oncologist). Dr. Forsythe shares case studies of three patients who haveexperienced improvement while using paw paw.“One participant named Anna has stage four breast cancer. Within just six weeks of taking the paw paw she saw a 50 percent reduction in tumour markers as measured by blood tests.Also, the size of the tumour was reduced significantly. Since she did not change any other treatment protocol, I was convinced that the paw paw was instrumental in improving the condition of her cancer. A second participant named Ed has stage four lung cancer. He went through two years of chemotherapy, but the lung cancer was resistant. Within two months of taking paw paw Ed’s tumour markers also improved, and he experienced a weight gain of five pounds. Before taking the paw paw he was bedridden or was in a wheelchair. Ed’s health has improved to the point that he is now able to walk on his own.The last participant, Byron, has stage four prostate cancer, which spread to other parts of his body. Within six weeks of using paw paw there was a distinct reduction in the tumour masses. A CT scan showed a 25 percent reduction in the tumours. Byron is now in stable condition.”
Ref The Wellness Report40/1
Nature's Sunshine Cancer Programme
Cancer Programme
During the last four years, numerous people across the world have achieved remarkable results using Nature’s Sunshine Cancer Programme. The programme is an arsenal of four products attacking cancer cells by different means and at the same time strengthening the body’s immune ability to defend itself. This programme has been
used for a large variety of different types of cancer. After using the programme for only a few days, many people start to see noticeable benefits including having more energy and skin colour improvement. The four products consist of Paw Paw Cell Reg, Immune Formula, Zambroza and Hi Potency Protease.
Paw Paw Cell Reg
Whilst each product in the programme plays an important role, the key product is Paw Paw Cell Reg which disrupts the energy cycle of cancerous and abnormal cells. The high metabolic rate of these cells stimulates a reaction with the active ingredients in Paw Paw Cell Reg, resulting in inhibiting the cells energy.
Abnormal cells reacting to these active ingredients are then less able to grow and develop. Many cells in this new state become dormant or destroy themselves (apoptosis).
Immune Formula
This combination product effectively increases the white blood count in the
body, helping the body defend itself against abnormal cells and pathogens.
Zambroza
Independently clinically proven to be the most powerful antioxidant product
on the market, Zambroza protects the body against free radical damage which
is the root causes of many health problems including many types of cancer.
Hi Potency Protease
In large concentration Protease (a digestive enzyme) is able to progress from
the stomach into the blood stream and helps break down the structure of the
abnormal cells which are being effectively attacked by the rest of the regimen.
‘Continue with this regimen as long as necessary until 6 months after you
have been given the all clear.’
Q & A
Can you take this regimen during Chemotherapy?
When someone has chemotherapy they will need to stop antioxidant
supplements including Zambroza as antioxidants make chemotherapy (excess
free radical causing drug) less effective. Zambroza should be taken however
leading up to chemotherapy treatment and immediately after the course of
chemotherapy treatment has finished. The other three products in this regimen
are not only safe to take during conventional treatment but they will also enhance
the results.
Enhancing conventional treatment
Sometimes cancerous cells can recognize and reject familiar conventional treatments.
When the chemical enters the cell, the cell pumps the chemical back out before it delivers its desired effect (chemo resistant cancer cells). This pumping mechanism is dependent upon the energy of the cell (ATP). The pump will stop when its supply of energy dwindles. If the chemical can stay in the cell, the treatment will be more effective.
As mentioned above, Paw Paw Cell Reg stops the energy cycle of the cell therefore
making the resistant pumping mechanism redundant and the treatment more effective.
Conventional treatment also results in a low immune system and Immune Formula helps
combat this by encouraging white blood cell production.
Testimonial by Marilyn Navarro - My daughter-in-law, Eva, was diagnosed with cancer in her brain near the pituitary gland. She quickly started on a regimen that included paw paw and we are so thankful she did! Just before starting chemotherapy, Eva had an MRI that showed a secondary tumour near the pineal gland. However, the primary tumour had shrunk notably. The last MRI she had shows no tumour near the pineal and the original tumour continuing to shrink.
During the last four years, numerous people across the world have achieved remarkable results using Nature’s Sunshine Cancer Programme. The programme is an arsenal of four products attacking cancer cells by different means and at the same time strengthening the body’s immune ability to defend itself. This programme has been
used for a large variety of different types of cancer. After using the programme for only a few days, many people start to see noticeable benefits including having more energy and skin colour improvement. The four products consist of Paw Paw Cell Reg, Immune Formula, Zambroza and Hi Potency Protease.
Paw Paw Cell Reg
Whilst each product in the programme plays an important role, the key product is Paw Paw Cell Reg which disrupts the energy cycle of cancerous and abnormal cells. The high metabolic rate of these cells stimulates a reaction with the active ingredients in Paw Paw Cell Reg, resulting in inhibiting the cells energy.
Abnormal cells reacting to these active ingredients are then less able to grow and develop. Many cells in this new state become dormant or destroy themselves (apoptosis).
Immune Formula
This combination product effectively increases the white blood count in the
body, helping the body defend itself against abnormal cells and pathogens.
Zambroza
Independently clinically proven to be the most powerful antioxidant product
on the market, Zambroza protects the body against free radical damage which
is the root causes of many health problems including many types of cancer.
Hi Potency Protease
In large concentration Protease (a digestive enzyme) is able to progress from
the stomach into the blood stream and helps break down the structure of the
abnormal cells which are being effectively attacked by the rest of the regimen.
‘Continue with this regimen as long as necessary until 6 months after you
have been given the all clear.’
Q & A
Can you take this regimen during Chemotherapy?
When someone has chemotherapy they will need to stop antioxidant
supplements including Zambroza as antioxidants make chemotherapy (excess
free radical causing drug) less effective. Zambroza should be taken however
leading up to chemotherapy treatment and immediately after the course of
chemotherapy treatment has finished. The other three products in this regimen
are not only safe to take during conventional treatment but they will also enhance
the results.
Enhancing conventional treatment
Sometimes cancerous cells can recognize and reject familiar conventional treatments.
When the chemical enters the cell, the cell pumps the chemical back out before it delivers its desired effect (chemo resistant cancer cells). This pumping mechanism is dependent upon the energy of the cell (ATP). The pump will stop when its supply of energy dwindles. If the chemical can stay in the cell, the treatment will be more effective.
As mentioned above, Paw Paw Cell Reg stops the energy cycle of the cell therefore
making the resistant pumping mechanism redundant and the treatment more effective.
Conventional treatment also results in a low immune system and Immune Formula helps
combat this by encouraging white blood cell production.
Testimonial by Marilyn Navarro - My daughter-in-law, Eva, was diagnosed with cancer in her brain near the pituitary gland. She quickly started on a regimen that included paw paw and we are so thankful she did! Just before starting chemotherapy, Eva had an MRI that showed a secondary tumour near the pineal gland. However, the primary tumour had shrunk notably. The last MRI she had shows no tumour near the pineal and the original tumour continuing to shrink.
Thursday, 19 June 2008
Using Sucralose (sugar replacement)
See my previous post : What are they trying to hide? Dec 2006
Looks like the ban on UK users accessing articles to do with Sucralose via Dr Mercola's website have been taken down.
Read and be afraid!
Or just stop using artificial, synthetic, sugar substitutes.
Link on the left.
Looks like the ban on UK users accessing articles to do with Sucralose via Dr Mercola's website have been taken down.
Read and be afraid!
Or just stop using artificial, synthetic, sugar substitutes.
Link on the left.
Still think multinational drug companies are on your side?
So how many people in Canada, or anywhere for that matter, have died through taking Vitamin C? Come up with any figures yet greater than 0? Thought not. So you couldn't make the following up could you?
What if, just for taking vitamin C, you could be thrown in jail for up to 2 years and fined up to $5,000,000?
That scenario could very well soon become a reality in Canada. The Canadian Government is trying to pass a bill known as Bill C51. According to some interpretations of the bill, it would remove all supplements from over-the-counter availability, by only allowing MD’s to prescribe them as they see fit.
This would mean that if you wanted to take a multivitamin, you would have to book an appointment with your doctor and try to convince your doctor that you are in need of these supplements. If your doctor decides a certain drug would be better for you, then you won't have access to your supplements anymore.
Consequences of the bill could include:
No more supplement stores
Supplements made illegal unless obtained through a prescription; 70 percent of all current supplements on the market could be removed
Fines of up to $5,000,000.00 and/or 2 years in jail per incident of being caught breaking this law
Sources: Dr Mercola's Website. See RSS link on the left.
What if, just for taking vitamin C, you could be thrown in jail for up to 2 years and fined up to $5,000,000?
That scenario could very well soon become a reality in Canada. The Canadian Government is trying to pass a bill known as Bill C51. According to some interpretations of the bill, it would remove all supplements from over-the-counter availability, by only allowing MD’s to prescribe them as they see fit.
This would mean that if you wanted to take a multivitamin, you would have to book an appointment with your doctor and try to convince your doctor that you are in need of these supplements. If your doctor decides a certain drug would be better for you, then you won't have access to your supplements anymore.
Consequences of the bill could include:
No more supplement stores
Supplements made illegal unless obtained through a prescription; 70 percent of all current supplements on the market could be removed
Fines of up to $5,000,000.00 and/or 2 years in jail per incident of being caught breaking this law
Sources: Dr Mercola's Website. See RSS link on the left.
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Adverse Drug Reactions - Previous posts part 3
Found the following on the WDDTY website - the figures relate to the USA but for rough UK numbers divide by six - wouldn't you rather look after your health with vitamins, herbs and minerals?
Drug Reactions: Deaths and serious problems triple in 8 years
13 September 2007
The annual rates of serious adverse reactions and deaths from a prescribed drug have almost tripled since 1998.Just 51 drugs – including painkillers and immune system-modifying agents – were responsible for the vast majority of reactions, new figures reveal.In 2005 – the most recent year when figures have been made available - 15,107 people in America died as the result of taking a prescription drug, while 89,842 people suffered a serious adverse reaction, which resulted in disability, hospital care or a birth defect.These reactions – all reported to America’s drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration – represent an increase of 2.7 times on figures produced in 1998.Overall, the FDA received reports of 467,809 deaths and serious adverse reactions between 1998 and 2005.(Source: Archives of Internal Medicine, 2007; 167: 1752-9).
Drug Reactions: Deaths and serious problems triple in 8 years
13 September 2007
The annual rates of serious adverse reactions and deaths from a prescribed drug have almost tripled since 1998.Just 51 drugs – including painkillers and immune system-modifying agents – were responsible for the vast majority of reactions, new figures reveal.In 2005 – the most recent year when figures have been made available - 15,107 people in America died as the result of taking a prescription drug, while 89,842 people suffered a serious adverse reaction, which resulted in disability, hospital care or a birth defect.These reactions – all reported to America’s drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration – represent an increase of 2.7 times on figures produced in 1998.Overall, the FDA received reports of 467,809 deaths and serious adverse reactions between 1998 and 2005.(Source: Archives of Internal Medicine, 2007; 167: 1752-9).
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
Previous Post Part 2
Hmmmm........ woke up today to hear the radio full of 'anti-oxidants are bad for you' and the papers full of it as well. Can't help thinking that too many people are taking responsibility for their own health and this worries the multinational drug companies i.e. if you look after yourself you will need less drugs - less drugs sold means less profits so: lets publish a flawed report (see below) frighten the masses and as your food is so processed and polluted and there is no chance you can get all the nutrition you need from food alone then in time you will become sick and need expensive drugs to make you well again........ or am I just seeing another conspiracy?
Anyway the best ripost to all this nonsense can be found in Patrick Holfords latest news letter which I hav e reproduced below complete with all his links and references.
And my final word. How many people have actually died from antioxidant overdose? think we might be talking about the figure ZERO again. Now read my previous post on adverse drug reactions to prescribed drugs - didn't that item on the radio......
Here's Patrick's newsletter...
Headlines in today's papers such as 'Vitamin Pills "Increase Risk of Early Death"' claim that anti-oxidants are not good for you and could even do you harm. But, don't believe everything you read!
What's this review about?
This is the fourth time Bjekalovic and his group have reviewed the effects on selected studies on antioxidants. Anyone following the science of antioxidants over the past 20 years will be aware of a vast number of studies reporting positive results. So, how do you end up with a headline that implies antioxidants increase mortality?
In this review, which is a rehash of their paper published last year in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), they first excluded over 400 trials, that had no deaths. They then decided which trials they liked (low risk bias) and did not like (high risk bias), a factor that has received criticism in mainstream medical journals.
What the experts say
One of the world's leading experts in this field, Dr Balz Frei said "This is a flawed analysis of flawed data, and it does little to help us understand the real health effects of antioxidants, whether beneficial or otherwise," (1)
Dr Bernadine Healey, former director of the National Institute of Health said, "Blenderizing these diverse trials into one giant 232,606-patient-strong study to come up with a seductively simple proclamation is just silly. When the researchers tallied up the mortality from the 68 trials, there was no difference based on vitamin intake. The headlines that these supplements significantly increase the risk of death by 5 percent overall came only when the researchers pulled out the 47 trials they deemed to have been the best executed. Actually, in the 21 randomized trials they peeled off, mortality was decreased by 9 percent among those taking the vitamins." (2)
How did they come up with the reported results?
Not surprisingly, the selection process in today's review excluded many of the most positive studies. For example, quoting the review itself, 'In secondary prevention trials (meaning people with disease) with high-bias risk, mortality was significantly reduced by supplements.' In those they called 'low-bias risk' there was no significant change in mortality.
To report an even more negative result, which is what newspapers often home in on, they also excluded all trials on selenium, which actually reduced mortality the most of all the antioxidants considered.
Beta-carotene
As an example, let's look at beta-carotene, which is given the worst rating. The review states 'Beta-carotene used singly or in combination with other antioxidants had no significant effect on mortality when including all 24 trials' BUT 'After exclusion of high-bias risk and selenium trials, however, beta-carotene singly or combined significantly increased mortality in 12 trials.'
Antioxidants and cancer
Even if we were to accept the exclusion of the so-called high-bias risk trials let's look more closely at the apparently negative studies. A graph of all these trials shows five that skew the results towards a negative (p.167). I thought I'd look closer at these trials. The first was by Dr Correa from the pathology department at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Centre, and showed a clear protective effective of antioxidant supplements against gastrointestinal cancer. (3)
I decided to contact Dr Correa and he was "amazed", he said, because his research, "far from being negative, had shown clear benefit from taking vitamins". Correa told us there was no way the study could show anything about mortality. "Our study was designed for evaluation of the progress of pre-cancerous lesions", he said. "It did not intend, and did not have the power, to study mortality and has no value to examine mortality of cancer."
Vitamin E and statins
The next, called the DATOR trial, gave people with high cholesterol, high dose vitamin E (750iu) and statins. (4) As nutritionists we caution against this because statins stop you making CoQ10 which results in vitamin E becoming a potentially harmful oxidant. That's exactly what this trial reported, "These results indicate that the antioxidant effect of Vitamin E is attenuated (reduced) when given in conjunction with this statin." So these negative effects of vitamin E might actually be because it's taken with a drug that makes it harmful! Given that the majority of the trials included in this review were on sick people, presumably taking medication, this kind of confounding variable really should be taken into account. It is not.
Selenium's protective effects
The next trial, published on the Mayo Clinic's journal, that skewed the results to a negative reported a positive outcome. (5) It investigated the effect of selenium of oesophageal cancer. It found that 'among subjects with mild esophageal squamous dysplasia (early stage) at baseline, selenomethionine did have a protective effect.' For those with more advanced cancer it did not.
In January this year the authors published a paper 'Efficacy of antioxidant supplementation in reducing primary cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis.'(6) Their conclusion was that 'beta carotene supplementation appeared to increase cancer incidence and cancer mortality among smokers, whereas vitamin E supplementation had no effect. Selenium supplementation might have anticarcinogenic effects in men and thus requires further research.'
So, what does all this mean?
Well, if you look at all the studies reviewed, strictly for reducing mortality, not for other benefits, Bjekalovic concludes 'Beta-carotene, vitamin A and vitamin C, used singly or in combination with other antioxidants had no significant effect' although a number of vitamin C studies did report reduced mortality. 'Selenium used singly or in combination with other antioxidants significantly decreased mortality.' (7). Beta-carotene, as we know, is best not taken singly by smokers. Vitamin E in high dose, as we know, should not be taken by those on statins without additional CoQ10. Selenium and vitamin C are most likely to be beneficial.
So, should we throw away our antioxidants?
Certainly not. Personally, I haven't recommended isolated antioxidant supplementation for 20 years and doubt they would produce much effect in sick people with advanced disease states, except for vitamin C at high doses - a subject not examined in this review. Antioxidants are team players. I take a combination of vitamin E, CoQ10, vitamin C, glutathione, anthocyanidins, resveratrol, beta-carotene, alpha lipoic acid and selenium. There's good reason to do so if you look at what's known about their effects in reducing markers of ageing. But these are as well as eating loads of fruit and veg, nuts and seeds.
Wishing you the best of health, and don't forget - if you want to stay ahead of the pack on health and nutrition news then join my 100%health Club.
Join the 100%health Club
To stay informed about health and nutritional issues join our 100%health Club which includes benefits such as a bi-monthly newsletter with detailed reports on the latest health issues as well as discounts on events, books and health products. With 100%health Club you get information you can trust. click here for more information.
References
1. http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2007/Feb07/vitaminstudy.html
2. http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/070304/12healy_print.htm
3. P Correa et al, 'Chemoprevention of gastric dysplasia: Randomized trial of antioxidant supplements and anti-Helicobacter pylori therapy', Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2000), vol 92, pp1881-8.
4. Manuel-Y-Keenoy B et al Impact of Vitamin E supplementation on lipoprotein peroxidation and composition in Type 1 diabetic patients treated with Atorvastatin. Atherosclerosis. 2004 Aug;175(2):369-76]
5. Bardia et al Randomized, placebo-controlled, esophageal squamous cell cancer chemoprevention trial of selenomethionine and celecoxib.Gastroenterology. 2005 Sep;129(3):863-73
6. Bardia A et al Efficacy of antioxidant supplementation in reducing primary cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Jan;83(1):23-34.
7. Bjelakovic et al, Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases (Review), Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2008
Anyway the best ripost to all this nonsense can be found in Patrick Holfords latest news letter which I hav e reproduced below complete with all his links and references.
And my final word. How many people have actually died from antioxidant overdose? think we might be talking about the figure ZERO again. Now read my previous post on adverse drug reactions to prescribed drugs - didn't that item on the radio......
Here's Patrick's newsletter...
Headlines in today's papers such as 'Vitamin Pills "Increase Risk of Early Death"' claim that anti-oxidants are not good for you and could even do you harm. But, don't believe everything you read!
What's this review about?
This is the fourth time Bjekalovic and his group have reviewed the effects on selected studies on antioxidants. Anyone following the science of antioxidants over the past 20 years will be aware of a vast number of studies reporting positive results. So, how do you end up with a headline that implies antioxidants increase mortality?
In this review, which is a rehash of their paper published last year in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), they first excluded over 400 trials, that had no deaths. They then decided which trials they liked (low risk bias) and did not like (high risk bias), a factor that has received criticism in mainstream medical journals.
What the experts say
One of the world's leading experts in this field, Dr Balz Frei said "This is a flawed analysis of flawed data, and it does little to help us understand the real health effects of antioxidants, whether beneficial or otherwise," (1)
Dr Bernadine Healey, former director of the National Institute of Health said, "Blenderizing these diverse trials into one giant 232,606-patient-strong study to come up with a seductively simple proclamation is just silly. When the researchers tallied up the mortality from the 68 trials, there was no difference based on vitamin intake. The headlines that these supplements significantly increase the risk of death by 5 percent overall came only when the researchers pulled out the 47 trials they deemed to have been the best executed. Actually, in the 21 randomized trials they peeled off, mortality was decreased by 9 percent among those taking the vitamins." (2)
How did they come up with the reported results?
Not surprisingly, the selection process in today's review excluded many of the most positive studies. For example, quoting the review itself, 'In secondary prevention trials (meaning people with disease) with high-bias risk, mortality was significantly reduced by supplements.' In those they called 'low-bias risk' there was no significant change in mortality.
To report an even more negative result, which is what newspapers often home in on, they also excluded all trials on selenium, which actually reduced mortality the most of all the antioxidants considered.
Beta-carotene
As an example, let's look at beta-carotene, which is given the worst rating. The review states 'Beta-carotene used singly or in combination with other antioxidants had no significant effect on mortality when including all 24 trials' BUT 'After exclusion of high-bias risk and selenium trials, however, beta-carotene singly or combined significantly increased mortality in 12 trials.'
Antioxidants and cancer
Even if we were to accept the exclusion of the so-called high-bias risk trials let's look more closely at the apparently negative studies. A graph of all these trials shows five that skew the results towards a negative (p.167). I thought I'd look closer at these trials. The first was by Dr Correa from the pathology department at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Centre, and showed a clear protective effective of antioxidant supplements against gastrointestinal cancer. (3)
I decided to contact Dr Correa and he was "amazed", he said, because his research, "far from being negative, had shown clear benefit from taking vitamins". Correa told us there was no way the study could show anything about mortality. "Our study was designed for evaluation of the progress of pre-cancerous lesions", he said. "It did not intend, and did not have the power, to study mortality and has no value to examine mortality of cancer."
Vitamin E and statins
The next, called the DATOR trial, gave people with high cholesterol, high dose vitamin E (750iu) and statins. (4) As nutritionists we caution against this because statins stop you making CoQ10 which results in vitamin E becoming a potentially harmful oxidant. That's exactly what this trial reported, "These results indicate that the antioxidant effect of Vitamin E is attenuated (reduced) when given in conjunction with this statin." So these negative effects of vitamin E might actually be because it's taken with a drug that makes it harmful! Given that the majority of the trials included in this review were on sick people, presumably taking medication, this kind of confounding variable really should be taken into account. It is not.
Selenium's protective effects
The next trial, published on the Mayo Clinic's journal, that skewed the results to a negative reported a positive outcome. (5) It investigated the effect of selenium of oesophageal cancer. It found that 'among subjects with mild esophageal squamous dysplasia (early stage) at baseline, selenomethionine did have a protective effect.' For those with more advanced cancer it did not.
In January this year the authors published a paper 'Efficacy of antioxidant supplementation in reducing primary cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis.'(6) Their conclusion was that 'beta carotene supplementation appeared to increase cancer incidence and cancer mortality among smokers, whereas vitamin E supplementation had no effect. Selenium supplementation might have anticarcinogenic effects in men and thus requires further research.'
So, what does all this mean?
Well, if you look at all the studies reviewed, strictly for reducing mortality, not for other benefits, Bjekalovic concludes 'Beta-carotene, vitamin A and vitamin C, used singly or in combination with other antioxidants had no significant effect' although a number of vitamin C studies did report reduced mortality. 'Selenium used singly or in combination with other antioxidants significantly decreased mortality.' (7). Beta-carotene, as we know, is best not taken singly by smokers. Vitamin E in high dose, as we know, should not be taken by those on statins without additional CoQ10. Selenium and vitamin C are most likely to be beneficial.
So, should we throw away our antioxidants?
Certainly not. Personally, I haven't recommended isolated antioxidant supplementation for 20 years and doubt they would produce much effect in sick people with advanced disease states, except for vitamin C at high doses - a subject not examined in this review. Antioxidants are team players. I take a combination of vitamin E, CoQ10, vitamin C, glutathione, anthocyanidins, resveratrol, beta-carotene, alpha lipoic acid and selenium. There's good reason to do so if you look at what's known about their effects in reducing markers of ageing. But these are as well as eating loads of fruit and veg, nuts and seeds.
Wishing you the best of health, and don't forget - if you want to stay ahead of the pack on health and nutrition news then join my 100%health Club.
Join the 100%health Club
To stay informed about health and nutritional issues join our 100%health Club which includes benefits such as a bi-monthly newsletter with detailed reports on the latest health issues as well as discounts on events, books and health products. With 100%health Club you get information you can trust. click here for more information.
References
1. http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2007/Feb07/vitaminstudy.html
2. http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/070304/12healy_print.htm
3. P Correa et al, 'Chemoprevention of gastric dysplasia: Randomized trial of antioxidant supplements and anti-Helicobacter pylori therapy', Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2000), vol 92, pp1881-8.
4. Manuel-Y-Keenoy B et al Impact of Vitamin E supplementation on lipoprotein peroxidation and composition in Type 1 diabetic patients treated with Atorvastatin. Atherosclerosis. 2004 Aug;175(2):369-76]
5. Bardia et al Randomized, placebo-controlled, esophageal squamous cell cancer chemoprevention trial of selenomethionine and celecoxib.Gastroenterology. 2005 Sep;129(3):863-73
6. Bardia A et al Efficacy of antioxidant supplementation in reducing primary cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Jan;83(1):23-34.
7. Bjelakovic et al, Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases (Review), Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2008
Thursday, 10 April 2008
Still think the Multinational drug companies are on your side?
It struck me recently that there seems to be a lot of articles in the press attacking complementary therapies, especially homeopathy. And then I read that the BBC had removed information about complementary therapies from its website - so what's going on? Are the multinational drug companies worried about something?
Last year I remember an article about someone self-medicating chinese herbal medicine which resulted in kidney failure: naturally there was a big hoo ha in the press. But consider this; apart from the case above how many people died last year from; reiki, hypnotherapy, acupuncure, homeopathy or any holistic therapy you might care to mention? 500? 100? 50? keeping going down and stop when you get to a big fat zero. Can you imagine the fuss if just one person had died, it doesn't bare thinking about.
Now, if you are in North Bucks and want to win a free session (offer ends April 30th 2008) of Reiki, Hypnotherapy or eft what's your educated guess for how many people, on average, die each year due to adverse reactions to prescribed or over the counter medication?
10? more...........100 no keep going............. 1000, that's a lot isn't it but keep going some more....... 2500, still better keep going. The figure that will win you the treatment is a round figure, higher than 4000 but less than 6000.
If you really want to blow your mind then have a read of the following article, printed in the Guardian recently on how much the NHS has to spend because of adverse drug reaction: give me a good herbalist and a dose of reiki anyday...........
The NHS is spending nearly £2bn a year treating patients who have had an adverse reaction to drugs prescribed for them by doctors, according to new figures from the centre-left thinktank Compass.
The amount of money spent on hospital care for those given the wrong medicine or who have reacted badly to a drug could pay for 10,000 new midwives or easily cover the estimated cost of combating MRSA infections, says Compass.
The health minister Dawn Primarolo confirmed to the organisation that 6.5% of hospital admissions are a result of an adverse reaction. Total admissions in 2006 were 16 million, which means that 1,040,000 patients were there as a result of the drugs they were prescribed.
Compass bases its calculation on an average stay of eight days in hospital at a cost of £228 a day. That puts the annual NHS bill at £1,896,960,000 just for those admitted with ill-effects. It does not include those patients who had a bad reaction to their medicines while they were in hospital. If that cost were added in, the bill would top £2bn.
The new figures, which are substantially higher than any previous estimates, have been compiled as part of an investigation into the pharmaceutical industry, its relationship to public health and regulation. "It is increasingly apparent that the lack of effective regulation is costing the taxpayer, and in some cases is causing unnecessary suffering," said Zoe Gannon, who is leading the Compass investigation.
Scandals such as that over the arthritis painkiller Vioxx, which caused heart attacks, and the antidepressant Seroxat, which was found to increase the risk of suicidal thinking in young people, suggest that industry could do more, she said.
"The industry knew about these adverse drug reactions and chose not to accept the responsibility because its ultimate goal is to make a profit," she said. "From our perspective this £1.9bn figure is not completely reducible - we are going to have to accept some adverse drug reactions - but the sheer size of this figure is enormous. It is all about getting a balance between risk and benefit and we feel that the balance is wrong."
Drug companies have huge profit margins, she said - in excess of 14.3% against a business average of 4.6%. Yet the number of genuinely innovative medicines - as opposed to copies of those already on the market - is decreasing.
"The pharmaceutical industry has the upper hand in terms of research and development investment and is always promising the latest miracle drug but too often failing to deliver,"she added.
"Now is the time for a debate about costs and policies about which drugs the healthcare service can afford as people are paying infinitely higher prices - the drugs bill to the NHS now stands at £11bn - for increasingly marginal rewards and higher risk from adverse drug reactions."
Compass's investigation will question whether it is appropriate for the Department of Health to take the lead in relations with the pharmaceutical industry. It will also be calling for a review of progress since the 2005 report of the health select committee. Compass aims to publish its own report in the autumn.
Last year I remember an article about someone self-medicating chinese herbal medicine which resulted in kidney failure: naturally there was a big hoo ha in the press. But consider this; apart from the case above how many people died last year from; reiki, hypnotherapy, acupuncure, homeopathy or any holistic therapy you might care to mention? 500? 100? 50? keeping going down and stop when you get to a big fat zero. Can you imagine the fuss if just one person had died, it doesn't bare thinking about.
Now, if you are in North Bucks and want to win a free session (offer ends April 30th 2008) of Reiki, Hypnotherapy or eft what's your educated guess for how many people, on average, die each year due to adverse reactions to prescribed or over the counter medication?
10? more...........100 no keep going............. 1000, that's a lot isn't it but keep going some more....... 2500, still better keep going. The figure that will win you the treatment is a round figure, higher than 4000 but less than 6000.
If you really want to blow your mind then have a read of the following article, printed in the Guardian recently on how much the NHS has to spend because of adverse drug reaction: give me a good herbalist and a dose of reiki anyday...........
The NHS is spending nearly £2bn a year treating patients who have had an adverse reaction to drugs prescribed for them by doctors, according to new figures from the centre-left thinktank Compass.
The amount of money spent on hospital care for those given the wrong medicine or who have reacted badly to a drug could pay for 10,000 new midwives or easily cover the estimated cost of combating MRSA infections, says Compass.
The health minister Dawn Primarolo confirmed to the organisation that 6.5% of hospital admissions are a result of an adverse reaction. Total admissions in 2006 were 16 million, which means that 1,040,000 patients were there as a result of the drugs they were prescribed.
Compass bases its calculation on an average stay of eight days in hospital at a cost of £228 a day. That puts the annual NHS bill at £1,896,960,000 just for those admitted with ill-effects. It does not include those patients who had a bad reaction to their medicines while they were in hospital. If that cost were added in, the bill would top £2bn.
The new figures, which are substantially higher than any previous estimates, have been compiled as part of an investigation into the pharmaceutical industry, its relationship to public health and regulation. "It is increasingly apparent that the lack of effective regulation is costing the taxpayer, and in some cases is causing unnecessary suffering," said Zoe Gannon, who is leading the Compass investigation.
Scandals such as that over the arthritis painkiller Vioxx, which caused heart attacks, and the antidepressant Seroxat, which was found to increase the risk of suicidal thinking in young people, suggest that industry could do more, she said.
"The industry knew about these adverse drug reactions and chose not to accept the responsibility because its ultimate goal is to make a profit," she said. "From our perspective this £1.9bn figure is not completely reducible - we are going to have to accept some adverse drug reactions - but the sheer size of this figure is enormous. It is all about getting a balance between risk and benefit and we feel that the balance is wrong."
Drug companies have huge profit margins, she said - in excess of 14.3% against a business average of 4.6%. Yet the number of genuinely innovative medicines - as opposed to copies of those already on the market - is decreasing.
"The pharmaceutical industry has the upper hand in terms of research and development investment and is always promising the latest miracle drug but too often failing to deliver,"she added.
"Now is the time for a debate about costs and policies about which drugs the healthcare service can afford as people are paying infinitely higher prices - the drugs bill to the NHS now stands at £11bn - for increasingly marginal rewards and higher risk from adverse drug reactions."
Compass's investigation will question whether it is appropriate for the Department of Health to take the lead in relations with the pharmaceutical industry. It will also be calling for a review of progress since the 2005 report of the health select committee. Compass aims to publish its own report in the autumn.
Sunday, 9 September 2007
Natural Programme to Help MS
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS PROGRAMME
I thought sufferers of MS might find the following regime useful - all the herbs and vitamins are availiable from Natures Sunshine Products (NSP). The products are organically or naturally sourced and are of the highest quality. We are very proud of our business and the excellent name we have around North Bucks for the concept of quality and customer service: Nature's Sunshine Products are the only herbal products we endorse.
Any comments or suggestions, gratefully recieved.
M.S. a Progressive disease characterised by the degeneration of nerve fibres of the brain and spinal cord.
Suggested M.S.PROGRAMME from NSP:-
Essential-
ZAMBROZA - 30mls morning and night
OMEGA 3 or FLAXSEED - 3-6 daily
EVENING PRIMROSE OIL - 2 daily
CoENZYME Q10 - 1x 30mgs daily
SUPERSUPPLEMENTAL - 2 daily
Highly Recommended:-
MSM - 2 with a meal 3 times daily (helps keep cell walls permeable)
Nutri-Calm or B Complex - 2-3 daily
If Immune System still low - Defence Maintenance
Urinary Problems? URY and BIFIDOPHOLUS
BREAKFAST - SYNERPROTEINTNTCOLLOIDAL MINERALS
Mix above into a daily smoothie (can add fruit eg banana)
Avoid ALL saturated fat and sweeteners eg. Aspartame and stick to a whole food diet. Maintain healthy weight.
Reading - Anything by Professor Swank
I thought sufferers of MS might find the following regime useful - all the herbs and vitamins are availiable from Natures Sunshine Products (NSP). The products are organically or naturally sourced and are of the highest quality. We are very proud of our business and the excellent name we have around North Bucks for the concept of quality and customer service: Nature's Sunshine Products are the only herbal products we endorse.
Any comments or suggestions, gratefully recieved.
M.S. a Progressive disease characterised by the degeneration of nerve fibres of the brain and spinal cord.
Suggested M.S.PROGRAMME from NSP:-
Essential-
ZAMBROZA - 30mls morning and night
OMEGA 3 or FLAXSEED - 3-6 daily
EVENING PRIMROSE OIL - 2 daily
CoENZYME Q10 - 1x 30mgs daily
SUPERSUPPLEMENTAL - 2 daily
Highly Recommended:-
MSM - 2 with a meal 3 times daily (helps keep cell walls permeable)
Nutri-Calm or B Complex - 2-3 daily
If Immune System still low - Defence Maintenance
Urinary Problems? URY and BIFIDOPHOLUS
BREAKFAST - SYNERPROTEINTNTCOLLOIDAL MINERALS
Mix above into a daily smoothie (can add fruit eg banana)
Avoid ALL saturated fat and sweeteners eg. Aspartame and stick to a whole food diet. Maintain healthy weight.
Reading - Anything by Professor Swank
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)