Day: 09/30/2016

Your household dust probably contains these chemicals

Posted by

0



Young children are more likely to ingest dust and are more vulnerable to the hazards of chemical exposure.  

Do you know what’s in your household dust? Chances are, an array of potentially harmful chemicals, according to new research published Wednesday.

Researchers analyzed dozens of studies from coast to coast and found that the vast majority of dust samples contain the same types of chemicals, many of which come from household items. Among them: Flame retardants commonly found in furniture, highly fluorinated chemicals used in such items  as non-stick cookware, and phthalates, which exist in everything from cosmetics to toys to food packaging and which some research on animals has suggested could affect the reproductive system and disrupt hormones.

The findings suggest that each day, household dust exposes most Americans — particularly children, who face heightened risks because of their still-developing bodies — to chemicals that have been associated with potential health risks, especially when ingested over long periods of time.

“The number and levels of toxic chemicals that are likely in every one of our living rooms was shocking to me,” Veena Singla, a co-author of the study and a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an announcement about the findings.

Ami Zota, another co-author and a professor at George Washington University’s School of Public Health, said researchers examined 26 peer-reviewed studies on chemicals in dust, including one unpublished data set, across 14 different states. They identified 45 chemicals from five chemical classes. In particular, they found 10 potentially harmful chemicals in 90 percent of all dust samples. The details of those are here:

The dangers of many of these chemicals in humans, for the most part, remain poorly understood. In addition, it can be extremely difficult to associate specific health problems with a specific chemical exposure. And the researchers behind Wednesday’s dust study acknowledged the limitations they faced, including the fact that there is scant research on some of the chemicals they found. They also said that because the data came mostly from dust samples gathered on the East and West coasts, the findings might not be nationally representative.

But part of the value of Wednesday’s study is in how it details that a person’s exposure to chemicals can come from a wide variety of sources — and that small amounts can add up over time. People understandably think of chemical exposures coming mainly through soil, water and the air we breathe. But the universe of exposure could be wider than that, and the implications can be especially critical for young children.

“I don’t think we’ve really appreciated the exposure route of dust as much. It’s not often the first thing we think of,” said Tracey Woodruff, 
director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California at San Francisco. She was not involved in Wednesday’s study but said it underscores that when it comes to household dust, “there’s an exposure occurring that’s not insignificant.”

That, Woodruff said, should cause policymakers and regulators to take notice.

While it might seem nearly impossible to avoid encountering dust, given that we spend much of our time indoors, researchers said there are simple steps people can take to limit their exposure.

“Individual consumers do have some power to make healthier homes and to reduce individual exposures,” said Zota.

Strategies include frequent handwashing, using a strong vacuum with a HEPA filter, and avoiding personal care and household products that contain potentially harmful chemicals. Earlier this year, the Silent Spring Institute, which contributed to Wednesday’s study, released a mobile app that helps individual consumers find ways to reduce their exposure to toxic chemicals.

It’s name? Detox Me.

FDA approves VisuMax Femtosecond Laser to surgically treat nearsightedness

Posted by

0


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved the VisuMax Femtosecond Laser for the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure to reduce or eliminate nearsightedness in certain patients 22 years of age or older.

Not all patients are candidates for SMILE, and individuals should carefully review the patient labeling and discuss their expectations with their eye care professional.

“This approval expands the surgical treatment options available to patients for correcting nearsightedness,” said Malvina Eydelman, M.D., director of Ophthalmic and Ear, Nose and Throat Devices, in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

Nearsightedness, or myopia, is a common vision condition in which close objects are seen clearly, but objects farther away are blurred. It occurs when the eye focuses light in front of the retina. This can be due to the shape of the cornea being too steep and/or the length of the eyeball being too long.

The VisuMax Femtosecond Laser removes a small amount of eye tissue to permanently reshape the cornea. A femtosecond (very fast, short-pulsed) laser makes cuts within the cornea, creating a disc-shaped piece of tissue that is removed by the surgeon through a small incision in the surface of the cornea. This tissue removal causes the shape of the cornea to change, which corrects the nearsightedness.

A clinical study of the safety and effectiveness of the device to correct nearsightedness found the procedure resulted in stable vision correction at six months. Of the 328 participants evaluated at six months, all but one had uncorrected (without glasses or contacts) visual acuity of 20/40 or better, and 88 percent had uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better.

Common complications during surgery included difficulty removing the corneal tissue and loss of suction that keeps the laser aligned with your eye. Common complications after surgery included debris at the site of tissue removal, dry eye, moderate to severe glare and moderate to severe halos.

The VisuMax Femtosecond Laser is manufactured by Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc., of Dublin, California.

Breast Cancer Cover-Up Continues

Posted by

0


Breast cancer is one of the major killers of women in the United States. It is also one of the most overdiagnosed and overtreated conditions. Sadly, most women have no idea that simply not wearing a bra can have a major impact on the likelihood of developing breast cancer. 

You probably didn’t hear about a recent study from Brazil, published in May, 2016 in the journal Advances in Oncology Research and Treatments.

Entitled, “Wearing a Tight Bra for Many Hours a Day is Associated with Increased Risk of Breast Cancer”, the study echoes another recent study, done in 2015 in Kenya, which also confirmed the bra-cancer link.

“This study demonstrated the existence of a relationship between the use of a tight bra when associated with an increased number of hours wearing it and the risk of breast cancer among pre- and post-menopausal women.”

Studies from Venezuela, Scotland and numerous studies out of China also agree. Wearing tight bras for long hours each day is a leading cause of breast cancer.

But you probably haven’t heard about any of this. That’s because the multi-billion dollar cancer industry doesn’t want you to know about it, and they control mainstream media’s coverage of cancer.

And with Pink October just around the corner, they want you to open up your purses, not your minds.

Cancer is big business, and Pink charities rake in the dough donated by hard working women who walk and run for a cure – while wearing cancer-causing bras!

Fortunately, more women are questioning the need for a bra, and that leads to questioning the need to accept the discomforts and diseases bras cause. Headaches, backaches, nerve damage to the hands, deep shoulder grooves, droopy breasts, breast pain, cysts and lumps, and breast cancer are some of the problems bras cause.

Like the corset, bras are harmful garments that constrict and shape the body through pressure, which impairs circulation, especially the circulation of the immune system’s lymphatic pathways. This results in fluid accumulation in the breasts, causing cysts, pain, and tissue toxification.

As the new study from Brazil explains, breast cancer most likely has to do with the compression and impairment of the lymphatic system by tightly worn bras. “Bras and other external tight clothing can impede flow cutting off lymphatic drainage so that toxic chemicals are trapped in the breast.”

From our research and our U.S. 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, which is described in our book, Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, we found that bra-free women have about the same incidence of breast cancer as a man, while the tighter and longer the bra is worn the higher the incidence rises, to over 100 times higher for a 24/7 bra user compared to bra-free.

The cancer industry has been covering up the bra-cancer link. It doesn’t fit into their world of mammograms, chemotherapy, surgery, and lifetime drug treatments.

It takes the wind out of the cancer sales pitch when the public knows how to prevent breast cancer by simply no longer wearing constricting bras for long hours each day of their lives.

It should sound obvious that tight bras are a health hazard. As studies continue to be published around the world proving bras are causing breast cancer, and women experience the health benefits of being bra-free, the cancer industry will somehow have to find a way to accept a bra-cancer link that it has been denying for over 20 years.

In the meantime, if the Susan G. Komen Foundation or American Cancer Society or any other cancer charity asks for your money for a cancer cure while denying the bra-cancer cause, I suggest you send them your bra instead of your money. They may get the message.

Black Seed – ‘The Remedy For Everything But Death’

Posted by

0


Black Seed - 'The Remedy For Everything But Death'

This humble, but immensely powerful seed, kills MRSA, heals the chemical weapon poisoned body, stimulates regeneration of the dying beta cells within the diabetic’s pancreas, and yet too few even know it exists.

Benefits of Black Seed

The seeds of the annual flowering plant, Nigella Sativa, have been prized for their healing properties since time immemorial.  While frequently referred to among English-speaking cultures as Roman coriander, black sesame, black cumin, black caraway and onion seed, it is known today primarily as black seed, which is at the very least an accurate description of its physical appearance. The earliest record of its cultivation and use come from ancient Egypt.

Black seed oil, in fact, was found in Egyptian pharoah Tutankhamun’s tomb, dating back to approximately 3,300 years  ago.[i]  In Arabic cultures, black cumin is known as Habbatul barakah, meaning the “seed of blessing.” It is also believed that the Islamic prophet Mohammed said of it that it is “a remedy for all diseases except death.”

Benefits of Black Seed

egyptian tomb - benefits of black seed

Many of black cumin’s traditionally ascribed health benefits have been thoroughly confirmed in the biomedical literature. In fact, since 1964, there have been 656 published,  peer-reviewed studies referencing it.

We have indexed salient research, available to view on GreenMedInfo.com on our Black Seed (Nigella Sativa) page, on well over 40 health conditions that may be benefited from the use of the herb, including over 20 distinct pharmacological actions it expresses, such as:

  • Analgesic (Pain-Killing)
  • Anti-Bacterial
  • Anti-Inflammatory
  • Anti-Ulcer
  • Anti-Cholinergic
  • Anti-Fungal
  • Ant-Hypertensive
  • Antioxidant
  • Antispasmodic
  • Antiviral
  • Bronchodilator
  • Gluconeogenesis Inhibitor (Anti-Diabetic)
  • Hepatoprotective (Liver Protecting)
  • Hypotensive
  • Insulin Sensitizing
  • Interferon Inducer
  • Leukotriene Antagonist
  • Renoprotective (Kidney Protecting)
  • Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitor

These 30 pharmacological actions are only a subset of a far wider number of beneficial properties intrinsic to the black seed. While it is remarkable that this seed has the ability to positively modulate so many different biological pathways, this is actually a rather common occurrence among traditional plant medicines.

Natural RX: Greenmedinfo

Our project has identified over 1600 natural compounds with a wide range of health benefits, and we are only in our first 5 years of casual indexing. There are tens of thousands of other substances that have already been researched, with hundreds of thousands of studies supporting their medicinal value (MEDLINE, whence our study abstracts come, has over 600,000 studies classified as related to Complementary and Alternative Medicine).

Take turmeric, for example. We have identified research indicating its value in over 600 health conditions, while also expressing over 160 different potentially beneficial pharmacological actions. You can view the quick summary of over 1500 studies we have summarized on our Turmeric Research page, which includes an explorative video on turmeric. Professional database members are further empowered to manipulate the results according to their search criteria, i.e. pull up and print to PDF the 61 studies on turmeric and breast cancer.  This, of course, should help folks realize how voluminous the supportive literature indicating the medicinal value of natural substances, such as turmeric and black seed, really is.

Black seed has been researched for very specific health conditions. Some of the most compelling applications include:

  • Type 2 Diabetes: Two grams of black seed a day resulted in reduced fasting glucose, decreased insulin resistance, increased beta-cell function, and reduced glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in human subjects.[ii]
  • Helicobacter Pylori Infection: Black seeds possess clinically useful anti-H. pylori activity, comparable to triple eradication therapy.[iii]
  • Epilepsy: Black seeds were traditionally known to have anticonvulsive properties. A 2007 study with epileptic children, whose condition was refractory to conventional drug treatment, found that a water extract significantly reduced seizure activity.[iv]
  • High Blood pressure: The daily use of 100 and 200 mg of black seed extract, twice daily, for 2 months, was found to have a blood pressure-lowering effect in patients with mild hypertension.[v]
  • Asthma: Thymoquinone, one of the main active constituents within Nigella sativa (black cumin), is superior to the drug fluticasone in an animal model of asthma.[vi] Another study, this time in human subjects, found that boiled water extracts of black seed have relatively potent anti-asthmatic effect on asthmatic airways.[vii]
  • Acute tonsillopharyngitis: characterized by tonsil or pharyngeal inflammation (i.e. sore throat), mostly viral in origin, black seed capsules (in combination with Phyllanthus niruri) have been found to significantly alleviate throat pain, and reduce the need for pain-killers, in human subjects.[viii]
  • Chemical Weapons Injury: A randomized, placebo-controlled human study of chemical weapons injured patients found that boiled water extracts of black seed reduced respiratory symptoms, chest wheezing, and pulmonary function test values, as well as reduced the need for drug treatment.[ix]
  • Colon Cancer: Cell studies have found that black seed extract compares favorably to the chemoagent 5-fluoruracil in the suppression of colon cancer growth, but with a far higher safety profile.[x] Animal research has found that black seed oil has significant inhibitory effects against colon cancer in rats, without observable side effects.[xi]
  • MRSA: Black seed has anti-bacterial activity against clinical isolates of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus.[xii]
  • Opiate Addiction/Withdrawal: A study on 35 opiate addicts found black seed as an effective therapy in long-term treatment of opioid dependence.

Sometimes the biblical reference to ‘faith the size of a mustard seed moving mountains’ comes to mind in connection with natural substances like black seeds. After all, do seeds not contain within them the very hope for continuance of the entire species that bore it?  This super-saturated state of the seed, where life condenses itself down into an intensely miniaturized holographic fragment of itself, promising the formation of future worlds within itself, is the very emblem of life’s immense and immortal power.

If we understand the true nature of the seed, how much life (past, present and future) is contained within it, it will not seem so far-fetched that it is capable of conquering antibiotic resistant bacteria, healing the body from chemical weapons poisoning, or stimulate the regeneration of dying insulin-producing beta cells in the diabetic, to name but only a fraction of black seed’s experimentally-confirmed powers.

black seeds

Moving the mountain of inertia and falsity associated with the conventional concept of disease, is a task well-suited for seeds and not chemicals. The greatest difference, of course, between a seed and a patented synthetic chemical (i.e. pharmaceutical drug), is that Nature (God) made the former, and men with profit-motives and a deranged understanding of the nature of the body made the latter.

The time, no doubt, has come for food, seeds, herbs, plants, sunlight, air, clean water, and yes, love, to assume once again their central place in medicine, which is to say, the art and science of facilitating self-healing within the human body. Failing this, the conventional medical system will crumble under the growing weight of its own corruption, ineptitude, and iatrogenic suffering (and subsequent financial liability) it causes. To the degree that it reforms itself, utilizing non-patented and non-patentable natural compounds with actual healing properties, a brighter future awaits on the horizon. To the degree that it fails, folks will learn to take back control over their health themselves, which is why black seed, and other food-medicines, hold the key to self-empowerment.

Ozone Therapy Is Powerful Medicine

Posted by

0


Ozone Therapy Is Powerful Medicine

This little-known therapy is being used by 40,000 physicians and dentists in more than 50 countries for everything from herniated disks to endodontic infections to Lyme disease, with no virtually adverse effects.

Until the turn of the century, ozone therapy has remained somewhat of a “best kept medical secret” in North America. This is a shame because it can be a safe, cost effective and powerful boost to your health, providing relief from a variety of painful and disabling illnesses.

The widespread medical use of ozone first appeared in Germany in the early 1950s and has been used extensively across Europe ever since. During World War I, it was used to treat infected wounds, but ozone was subsequently swept under the rug by the pharmaceutical industry in their push toward antibiotics. With growing numbers of bacteria now becoming resistant to antibiotics, we now have an urgent need for anti-infectives that will kill these superbugs before they can kill us.

Because of ozone’s remarkable antiseptic power, its most common technological application is water purification. As a disinfectant, ozone is 1,000 times more powerful than chlorine, which is why more than 600 US cities use it in water treatment facilities.

Like hyperbaric oxygen therapy, ozone therapy harnesses the healing power of oxygen. Today, 40,000 physicians and dentists in more than 50 countries use ozone therapy for everything from endodontic infections to relieving the pain of herniated disks, to reducing arterial plaque. Ozone is extraordinary in that it is simple to generate and has virtually no toxicity, making it a viable option for both treatment and prevention of illness.

But Wait—Isn’t Ozone Dangerous?

Yes, and no. It depends on how much you’re exposed to and what it’s allowed to mix with. Allopathic physicians often caution against treatments with which they’re unfamiliar, and many warnings can be found about the “dangers” of ozone, largely arising from a lack of understanding and a good amount of recycled misinformation.

Medical ozone is different from atmospheric ozone. At ground level, atmospheric ozone reacts with natural and industrial emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) in the presence of heat and sunlight, and these reactive products are unhealthy to breathe. It is not the ozone that’s hard on the lungs, but the toxic agents that form in these reactions.[1]

Fortunately, you have a natural mechanism to alert you that you’re breathing in too much ozone—it’s called coughing. You will cough long before any damage occurs to your lungs.

Similar to exercise, ozone is an oxidant. Ozone therapy is similar to exercise in how it creates health benefits by delivering measured doses of oxidative stress that force your body to activate its own internal antioxidant systems. The same is true for vitamin C therapy, which acts as an oxidant or antioxidant depending on the dose.

Exercise strengthens your muscles by inflicting oxidative “damage,” which causes them to come back stronger in response. Similarly, blood exposed to ozone undergoes transitory oxidative stress, which is necessary to activate important biological functions without detrimental effects. Just as with exercise and high-dose vitamin C, there is a Goldilocks zone—you need enough stress to produce the effect, but not so much that it overwhelms your natural antioxidant systems.

The main enzyme at play in ozone therapy is superoxide dismutase (SOD). SOD stimulates another enzyme called telomerase, responsible for keeping your DNA young by maintaining the telomere at the end of each DNA strand. A study involving individuals with herniated discs found that ozone therapy provided oxidative protection, as well as relieving pain.

The truth is that therapeutic ozone has an excellent safety record and no toxic effects have been observed from proper clinical use. In fact, experienced practitioners report that ozone is much safer than prescription drugs, which kill 290 people in the US alone each day—and that’s a conservative estimate.[2] Side effects seldom occur with ozone therapy, but patients occasionally report slight weakness, dizziness or sleepiness that lasts for a short time during or after the treatment. Allergic skin reactions (like nettle rash) are possible with local applications of ozone, although these occurrences are rare, mild and quick to resolve.

Where infections are involved, there is always the possibility of a die-off reaction (Herxheimer reaction), although some experts report less herxing with ozone than with other anti-infective agents.

There are some contraindications. In low concentrations, ozone has a moderate hypo-coagulation effect, so drugs that decrease blood coagulation (anticoagulants, aspirin, etc.) should be discontinued during the course of ozone therapy. Ozone is probably not the best modality for those with blood coagulation failure, thrombocytopenia, or hemorrhagic or apoplectic stroke.

Ozone Relieves Pain, Kills Viruses, and Is a Powerful Detox Agent

The list of ozone’s therapeutic applications has grown far beyond the antiseptic properties for which it was first recognized. To date, science has suggested that ozone offers the following therapeutic benefits:[3] [4]

1.Increases circulation

2.Improves uptake and utilization of oxygen and activation of oxygen-dependent processes; maximizes oxidative and anti-oxidative processes; upregulates mitochondrial respiration and generates greater cellular energy

3.Powerful detoxification is a primary function of ozone; removal of toxins (petrochemicals included) that impair cellular respiration, energy production and nutrient absorption; stimulates metabolic processes in the liver and kidneys

4.Increases efficiency of the body’s antioxidant enzyme system

5.Immune system modulation; increases production of white blood cells, interferon, and interleukin-2; activates cellular and humoral immunity, corrects autoimmune processes

6.Fast acting anti-inflammatory: oxidizes compounds that drive the inflammatory process, regulates metabolic reactions and improves pH

7.Analgesia: oxidizes the agents that irritate nerve endings in damaged tissue, thereby mitigating the pain response

8.Anti-microbial (antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal); kills bacteria by rupturing their cell membranes

9.Anti-cancer: stimulates production of tumor necrosis factor

10.Anti-aging effects (increased production of telomerase)

These properties make medical ozone therapy a safe and effective treatment for all sorts of infections, including areas of the body typically receiving poor circulation. Ozone has been shown effective for sinus and endodontic infections,[5]osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), ear infections, hepatitis,[6] cystitis, HIV, intestinal and blood infections, and Lyme disease.

Ozone is also being used to relieve arthritis, neuropathy, degenerative joint and disk disease, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue. One of the most impressive evidence-based applications is relief from the pain of herniated disks, particularly lumbar. More than one meta-analysis found ozone treatment an effective and “extremely safe” procedure with pain and functional outcomes equal to or better than surgery, but with much lower complication rates (less than 0.1 percent) and significantly shorter recovery times.[7] [8]

Dr. Robert Rowen, a leading expert in oxidative therapy, reports that ozone is about 85 percent effective for osteoarthritic knees and nearly that effective for arthritic hips when administered via injection.[9]

For neuropathy, one study found a single subcutaneous injection of ozone reduced neuropathic pain and inflammation in mice.[10] Ozone therapy offers new hope for fibromyalgia sufferers—a pilot study saw improvement from the physical symptoms and depressive symptoms of fibromyalgia.

Properly administered ozone therapy also benefits your heart by improving circulation and oxygen delivery. Blood viscosity is reduced for easier cardiac pumping and improved capillary perfusion. Red blood cells are better able to deliver their oxygen into tissues, a benefit that seems to persist long after treatment is completed. Inflammation is also reduced, leading to better nitric oxide formation, which dilates and relaxes vessels and further improves blood flow. Ozone is also reported to trim down arterial plaque through oxidation.[12] [13]

There are potential benefits for macular degeneration as well, with authors writing that ozone therapy is a “safe and effective therapeutic option for high-risk patients with dry AMD.”[14] [15] For a comprehensive list of clinical studies related to the medical uses of ozone, refer to this database on Zotero.[16]

Ozone Therapy is a Gas

When you think of an enema, liquid probably comes to mind, but ozone can be delivered into any body orifice—as a gas. Ozone is actually compatible with a number of delivery vehicles:

·      mAHT (Minor Autohemotherapy): Blood is drawn into a syringe, mixed with a blend of ozone and oxygen, then returned to the body via intramuscular injection

·      MAHT (Major Autohemotherapy): Blood is withdrawn intravenously from the patient, mixed with ozone and a small amount of anticoagulant, then returned to the body intravenously

·      Prolozone Therapy: Ozone is injected directly into tissues; proponents claim it can produce an immediate and permanent fix for problems such as back pain and herniated disks, plantar fasciitis, TMJ, sciatica, osteoarthritis, tennis elbow and other sports injuries[17]

·      Gas Irrigation for Wound Treatment: Affected body parts, such as limbs, can be wrapped in plastic bags for sustained exposure to ozone gas

·      Rectal or Vaginal Insufflation (Gas Irrigation): Similar to an enema, a gaseous mixture of oxygen and ozone is infused

·      Nasal or Ear Insufflation

·      Ozonated Water: Studies point to potential anti-inflammatory effects from drinking ozonated water[18]

·      Ozonated Oils: Ozone can be stabilized and trapped between the double bonds of a PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acid), and then the oil applied topically[19] [20]

·      Ozone Sauna: Steam saunas that include ozone promote deep detoxification of all the major organs and tissues of the body, including the lymphatic system

Dr. Rowen recommends MAHT for acute infections and for resistant chronic infections such as Lyme and its coconspirators. However, for many chronic conditions rectal insufflation is highly effective and less invasive. Because it’s a gas, ozone can migrate through tissues, making it possible for it to diffuse into less accessible areas of the body when injected into nearby tissues that are easier to access.

Some physicians are combining ozone therapy with its “sister” oxidative therapy, UBI (ultraviolet blood irradiation) in a method similar to MAHT. UBI has a very powerful study behind it, published in the prestigious American Journal of Surgery way back in 1947. The study details 445 cases of acute pyogenic (bacterial) infection with virtually 100 percent cure. Even those who were gravely ill and facing imminent death had a 50 percent cure rate.[21] Dr. Rowen recently published an article about UBI in which he writes:[22]

With the recent emergence of bacteria that are resistant to all known antibiotics, UBI should be more investigated as an alternative approach to infections, and as an immune-modulating therapy.

For More Information

Ozone is an underutilized therapy that is useful both as a treatment and as a preventative due to its powerful detoxification and healing properties, with negligible risk. It’s generally less expensive than other treatments, although accessibility remains somewhat limited in certain geographic areas.

Further information about ozone is available from the American Academy of Ozonotherapy (AAOT). The practitioner-finder on their site can help you locate a qualified practitioner in your area.

‘Hidden Dangers’ of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know About

Posted by

2


Study Finds Women Still Suffering 3 Years After Breast Cancer False-Positive

Millions of women undergo them annually, but few are even remotely aware of just how many dangers they are exposing themselves to in the name of prevention, not the least of which are misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and the promotion of breast cancer itself. 

A new study published in the Annals of Family Medicine titled, Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography, brings to the forefront a major underreported harm of breast screening programs: the very real and lasting trauma associated with a false-positive diagnosis of breast cancer.[1]

The study found that women with false-positive diagnoses of breast cancer, even three years after being declared free of cancer, “consistently reported greater negative psychosocial consequences compared with women who had normal findings in all 12 psychosocial outcomes.”

The psychosocial and existential parameters adversely affected were:

  • Sense of dejection
  • Anxiety
  • Negative impact on behavior
  • Negative impact on sleep
  • Degree of breast self-examination
  • Negative impact on sexuality
  • Feeling of attractiveness
  • Ability to keep ‘mind off things’
  • Worries about breast cancer
  • Inner calm
  • Social network
  • Existential values

What is even more concerning is that “[S]ix months after final diagnosis, women with false-positive findings reported changes in existential values and inner calmness as great as those reported by women with a diagnosis of breast cancer.”

In other words, even after being “cleared of cancer,” the measurable adverse psychospiritual effects of the trauma of diagnosis were equivalent to actually having breast cancer.

Given that the cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography is at least 50%,[2] this is an issue that will affect the health of millions of women undergoing routine breast screening.

The Curse of False Diagnosis and ‘Bone-Pointing’

Also, we must be cognizant of the fact that these observed ‘psychosocial’ and ‘existential’ adverse effects don’t just cause some vaguely defined ‘mental anguish,’ but translate into objectively quantifiable physiological consequences of a dire nature.

For instance, last year, a groundbreaking study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that, based on data on more than 6 million Swedes aged 30 and older, the risk of suicide was found to be up to 16 times higher and the risk of heart-related death up to 26.9 times higher during the first week following a positive versus a negative cancer diagnosis.[3]

This was the first study of its kind to confirm that the trauma of diagnosis can result in, as the etymology of the Greek word trauma reveals, a “physical wound.” In the same way as Aborigonal cultures had a ‘ritual executioner’ or ‘bone pointer’ known as a Kurdaitcha who by pointing a bone at a victim with the intention of cursing him to death, resulting in the actual self-willed death of the accursed, so too does the modern ritual of medicine reenact ancient belief systems and power differentials, with the modern physician, whether he likes it or not, a ‘priest of the body.’; we must only look to the well-known dialectic of the placebo and nocebo effects to see these powerful, “irrational” processes still operative.

Millions Harmed by Breast Screening Despite Assurances to the Contrary

Research of this kind clearly indicates that the conventional screening process carries health risks, both to body and mind, which may outstrip the very dangers the medical surveillance believes itself responsible for, and effective at, mitigating.  For instance, according to a groundbreaking study published last November in New England Journal of Medicine, 1.3 million US women were overdiagnosed and overtreated over the past 30 years.[4] These are the ‘false positives’ that were never caught, resulting in the unnecessary irradiation, chemotherapy poisoning and surgery of approximately 43,000 women each year.  Now, when you add to this dismal statistic the millions of ‘false positives’ that while being caught nevertheless resulted in producing traumas within those women, breast screening begins to look like a veritable nightmare of iatrogenesis.

And this does not even account for the radiobiological dangers of the x-ray mammography screening process itself, which may be causing an epidemic of mostly unackowledged radiation-induced breast cancers in exposed populations.

For instance, in 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, titled “Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme,” revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed:

Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times – but possibly as much as six times – more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.[5]

Even the breast cancer treatment protocols themselves have recently been found to contribute to enhancing cancer malignancy and increasing mortality. Chemotherapy and radiation both appear to enrich the cancer stem cell populations, which are at the root of breast cancer malignancy and invasiveness. Last year, in fact, the prestigious journal Cancer, a publication of the American Cancer Society, published a study performed by researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center showing that even when radiation kills half of the tumor cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form tumors than the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.[6]

What we are increasingly bearing witness to in the biomedical literature itself is that the conventional breast cancer prevention and treatment strategy and protocols are bankrupt.  Or, from the perspective of the more cynical observer, it is immensely successful, owing to the fact that it is driving billions of dollars or revenue by producing more of what it claims to be fighting.

The time has come for a radical transformation in the way that we understand, screen for, prevent and treat cancer. It used to be that natural medical advocates didn’t have the so-called peer-reviewed ‘evidence’ to back up their intuitive and/or anecdotal understanding of how to keep the human body in health and balance. That time has passed. GreenMedInfo.com, for instance, has over 20,000 abstracts indexed in support of a return to a medical model where the ‘alternative’ is synthetic, invasive, emergency-modeled medicine, and the norm is using food, herbs, minerals, vitamins and lifestyle changes to maintain, promote and regain optimal health.

[1]John Brodersen, Volkert Dirk Siersma. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med. 2013 Mar-Apr;11(2):106-15. PMID: 23508596

[2] Rebecca A Hubbard, Karla Kerlikowske, Chris I Flowers, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Weiwei Zhu, Diana L Miglioretti. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18 ;155(8):481-92. PMID: 22007042

[3]Research: Come Diagnoses Kill You Quicker Than The Cancer, April 2012

[4]30 Years of Breast Screening: 1.3 Million Women Wrongly Treated, Nov. 2012

[5]GreenMedInfo.com, How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating the Epidemic of Breast Cancer, June 2012

[6]GreenMedInfo.com, Study: Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x More Malignant, June 2012

How Sweet: Sugar Industry Made Fat the Villain

Posted by

0


Newly uncovered documents reveal that 50 years ago the sugar industry gave secret support to prominent Harvard researchers to write an influential series of articles in the New England Journal of Medicine that downplayed the negative effects of sugar.
Instead, the articles shifted the blame from sugar to fat as the “dietary culprit” behind heart disease.

In recent years there has been growing awareness that decades of dietary policy demonized fat and ignored or played down the dangers of increased consumption of carbohydrates and sugars. Many believe this policy had a significant adverse effect on public health, contributing to the obesity and diabetes epidemics.
In the new paper, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Cristin Kearns, DDS, MBA, of U.C. San Francisco and colleagues examined archives containing letters between the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), the predecessor to today’s Sugar Association, and prominent Harvard researchers, including the late Fredrick Stare, chair of Harvard’s School of Public Health Nutrition Department, and D. Mark Hegsted, a professor in Stare’s department. Hegsted died in 2009.
In the mid-1960s the SRF sought to counter research suggesting that sugar was a more important cause of atherosclerosis than dietary fat. The SRF invited Stare to join its scientific advisory board and approved funds — eventually amounting to nearly $50,000 in 2016 dollars — to support a review article that would respond to the research showing the danger of sucrose. In a letter to Hegsted the SRF gave a clear indication of its agenda:
“Our particular interest had to do with that part of nutrition in which there are claims that carbohydrates in the form of sucrose make an inordinate contribution to the metabolic condition, hitherto ascribed to aberrations called fat metabolism. I will be disappointed if this aspect is drowned out in a cascade of review and general interpretation.”
Hegsted reassured the SRF: “We are well aware of your particular interest in carbohydrate and will cover this as well as we can.” As the paper was being written the authors shared drafts with and gave progress updates to the SRF. But, the authors acknowledge, there is no direct evidence that the SRF directly influenced the content of the article.

In 1967 NEJM published a two-part review article, “Dietary Fats, Carbohydrates and Atherosclerotic Disease” with no mention of the SRF’s support and participation. The authors state that there is “only one avenue by which diet may affect the development and progression of atherosclerosis” and that this can be done “by influencing the levels of serum lipids, especially serum cholesterol.”
They go on to “conclude, on the basis of epidemiologic, experimental and clinical evidence, that a lowering of the proportion of dietary saturated fatty acids, increasing the proportion of polyunsaturated acids and reducing the level of dietary cholesterol are the dietary changes most likely to be of benefit.” By contrast, they “conclude that the practical significance of differences in dietary carbohydrate is minimal in comparison to those related to dietary fat and cholesterol.”
Kearns and colleagues show that the Harvard authors applied different levels of rigor in their assessment of the literature examining dietary fats and carbohydrates. Evidence suggesting that dietary fat was not important was heavily discounted.
Like nearly all other medical journals NEJM now requires authors to disclose all relevant conflicts of interest, but this has not put an end to industry influence. In recent years, for instance, the role of Coca Cola in supporting research emphasizing the importance of exercise over nutrition in weight control became a public scandal.
In a statement the Sugar Association said it acknowledged that it “should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities, however, when the studies in question were published funding disclosures and transparency standards were not the norm they are today.” But the Association continues to defend sugar, stating that “the last several decades of research have concluded that sugar does not have a unique role in heart disease.”
An article in STAT quotes Walter Willett, MD. DrPH. who is the current chair of the department of nutrition and the Fredrick John Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. Willett told STAT he knew Hegsted and “defended him as a principled scientist.” Willett said that “I very much doubt that he changed what he believed or would conclude based on industry funding.” But Willett conceded that “it is also possible that these relationships could induce some subtle bias, even if unconscious.”
Nina Teicholz, author of The Big Fat Surprise, said that the article “shows how the food industry manipulates nutrition science — something that still goes on today and has largely been given a pass. Most nutrition news is reported without scrutinizing conflicts of interest, and researchers themselves often try to obscure their industry funding. Yet this has been the state of the field in nutrition science in the US from its start — going back to the 1940s, when food manufacturers realized that they could influence nutrition science by funding the trusted academic experts who produce it (as I document in my book).”
Teicholz said that the paper “doesn’t produce a smoking gun,” since it “doesn’t connect the dots to show that this effort had an effect on national policy.” But, she said, the paper does show “that early on, in the 1950s, the sugar industry was alert to the idea that if Americans adopted the low-fat diet, they’d shift their calories over to eat more carbs — and that those carbs would include sugar. This is exactly what happened when the American Heart Association adopted the low-fat diet in 1970 and when the U.S. Dietary Guidelines adopted the low-fat diet in 1980. Now we know that this low-fat, high-carb diet has clearly been a disaster for American health, which is why the Guidelines, just last year, dropped it. Hopefully the harm caused by the food industry can now start to be undone.”

Stem Cell Tx for Heart Failure Not Ready Yet

Posted by

0


Heterogeneity in methods for trials of stem cell therapies for heart failure are a big reason for the inconsistent results seen to date, a review article suggested.
“In the past 2 decades, researchers have achieved significant milestones toward their goal of bringing stem cell regenerative medicine to the bedside,” according to Joseph C. Wu, MD, PhD, of Stanford University School of Medicine, Calif., and colleagues online in JAMA Cardiology.

“First, evidence suggests the benefit of adult stem cell therapy is likely mediated by the release of cardioprotective factors that activate endogenous pathways to repair the myocardium rather than de novo cardiomyocyte regeneration. Second, safe delivery of cells has been demonstrated in both preclinical and clinical trials.”
However, the latest randomized clinical trials have found a modest clinical benefit at best among patients receiving stem cell therapy, and in some cases no effect, which the authors suggested may be due to variations in trial methods, discrepancies in reporting, and excessive reliance on surrogate endpoints.
Across 29 randomized clinical trials and 7 meta-analysis, Wu’s group observed major differences in the types of heart disease and patients studied since 2000. What’s more, the variety in stem cells — derived from bone marrow, adipose tissue, umbilical cord, or cardiac tissue — as well as cell dosage and delivery route fell far short of a standardized protocol.
“Additional studies are needed to identify the optimal strategy for clinical application,” the authors concluded.
They also pointed out the common use of surrogate endpoints such as left ventricular ejection fraction, infarct size, and perfusion defects to evaluate stem cell therapy. Better yet, more definitive endpoints such as death and myocardial infarction rates should be assessed, they urged.

“Most stem cell therapy [studies] have been plagued by not being precise about the kind of cells used, the appropriate end points and picking the right population of patients to include in the trial,” agreed Vijay S. Iyer, MD, PhD, of University at Buffalo, N.Y., when asked for comment by MedPage Today.
“The question is how it will help heart failure patients. Is it by promoting positive remodeling or reducing sudden cardiac death?”
“I believe that the advances will come from better understanding the biology of stem cells,” Iyer said. “There is a great need to perform translational studies in large animal models of heart failure to better understand the mechanisms before we can predict success in humans.”

Antibiotic Shows No Benefit in Asthma Exacerbation

Posted by

0


AZALEA trial highlights overuse of antibiotics in asthma attacks

Adding the antibiotic azithromycin to standard treatment for asthma exacerbations in adults had no significant therapeutic benefit in the AZALEA randomized clinical trial.
Findings were consistently negative across different symptom and quality-of-life scores, and treatment with the antibiotic also had no measurable impact on lung function, including FEV1, wrote researcher Sebastian L. Johnston, PhD, of the Imperial College London, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine, published online Sept. 19.

The negative findings contrast with the TELICAST study, also reported by Johnston and colleagues, which demonstrated a positive clinical benefit for another macrolide antibiotic — telithromycin — for asthma exacerbations. Severe adverse reactions — especially liver toxicity — limit the use of this drug to patients with life-threatening infections.
Treatment guidelines, included those recently published by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), do not recommend routine antibiotic use for asthma exacerbations. Yet, in the current trial, the investigators had to exclude nearly half of those screened because they had recently received antibiotics.
The Azithromycin Against Placebo in Exacerbations of Asthma (AZALEA) study was conducted to examine the activity of the semisynthetic macrolide antibiotic azithromycin on asthma exacerbations.
“Macrolide antibiotics might benefit asthma exacerbations through antimicrobial activity and/or anti-inflammatory properties; and azithromycin, but not telithromycin, has been shown to have antiviral properties, augmenting production of interferons that are deficiency in patients with asthma,” the researchers wrote.
The study, conducted in the United Kingdom, included adults with a history of asthma for more than six months who were recruited within 48 hours of presenting at one of 31 treatment centers for an asthma exacerbation requiring a course of oral and/or systemic corticosteroids.

Of 4,582 patients screened, just 199 were eligible for randomization, barely half of the 380 the investigators had hoped to enroll. More than 2,000 were excluded because of antibiotic use within the previous 4 weeks.
In addition to usual treatment, for exacerbations, the patients were randomized 1:1 to receive azithromycin at 500 mg daily for three days, or a matched placebo.
Median time from presentation to drug administration was 22 hours (interquartile range 14-28 hours) and exacerbation characteristics were similar in the two treatment groups.
Among the main study findings:
Primary outcome asthma symptom scores averaged 4.14 (SD 1.38) at exacerbation and 2.09 (SD 1.71) at 10 days for the azithromycin group and 4.18 (SD 1.48) and 2.20 (SD 1.51) for the placebo group, respectively
Using multilevel modeling, there was no significant difference in symptom scores between azithromycin and placebo at day 10 (difference −0.166; 95% CI −0.670 to 0.337). No difference was seen on any day between exacerbation and day 10
No significant between-group differences were shown in quality-of-life questionnaire responses or lung function between exacerbation and day 10, or in time to 50% reduction in symptom score
The researchers noted that recruitment was a major challenge, and that this might have influenced the findings.

“A remarkable finding of this study was the number of patients (n=2,044) excluded because they were already receiving antibiotic therapy for their asthma exacerbation despite treatment guidelines recommending that such therapy not be routinely given,” they wrote.
“This important finding has obvious and worrying implications regarding antibiotic stewardship; in addition, such high antibiotic use rates may also have directly influenced the study outcome because it is possible that patients who might potentially have benefitted from antibiotic therapy for their asthma exacerbations were excluded from the study through already having received them,” the researchers wrote.
In an editorial published with the study, Guy Brusselle, MD, PhD, and Eva Van Braeckel, MD, PhD, of Ghent University Hospital in Belgium, called the overuse of antibiotics in adult patients with acute asthma exacerbations a “striking finding,” given that treatment guidelines recommend against the practice and several Cochrane reviews, including one published last year, have been negative.
Strategies recommended by the authors to reduce antibiotic use in this population included:
Raising awareness among both prescribers and patients
Implementing asthma guideline recommendations against the routine use of antibiotics in asthma exacerbations
Performing studies in primary and secondary care to examine if a subset of patients with asthma exacerbations might benefit from antibiotics.
Validating known biomarkers such as C-reactive protein and procalcitonin; and developing novel biomarkers for guiding targeted antibiotic treatments
“Further study of azithromycin treatment in acute exacerbations of asthma in adults and children in settings of low rates of antibiotic use and stratifying on blood and/or sputum cell counts seems justified,” they concluded.

E-Cig Flavoring, Battery Voltage Linked to Cellular Toxicity

Posted by

0


Strawberry flavoring most toxic of five tested flavors.

There is more evidence that the flavorings used in e-cigarettes and other vaping products induce acute inhalation toxicity at a cellular level, and that some flavorings are more toxic than others.
In the study, published online in the BMJ journal Tobacco Control, strawberry flavoring was found to be the most toxic to bronchial cells of the five flavors tested. As has been previously reported, higher battery output voltage was also associated with higher toxicity in a dose-dependent manner.

In addition, the researchers, from Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y., found that menthol, coffee, and strawberry flavors all showed a significant acute impact on overall cytotoxicity, while piña colada and tobacco flavorings were associated with less cytotoxicity. The chemical compounds that made up the flavorings were not studied.
“Our data indicate that combinations of product, voltages, and flavorings exist that are cytotoxic to airway epithelial cells,” wrote Maciej L. Goniewicz, PhD, PharmD, and colleagues. “Since our study focused on the acute effects of flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) products, our observations require verification in chronic exposure models, more relevant to regular use of ENDS products.”
In an email exchange with MedPage Today, Goniewicz called for flavoring compounds in e-cigarettes to be evaluated and tested for potential toxicity and safety: “Many of these flavorings have been widely used in foods and cosmetics, but they have never been tested when inhaled. With the rise of e-cigarette popularity, we need to be cautious and develop accurate and fast screening methods for inhalation effects of such flavorings.”
In the newly reported study, the researchers used a novel testing method known as air-liquid interface culture (ALI), which enabled direct exposure of cells to ENDS aerosol generated using a smoking machine.
The team tested different ENDS products or a tank system pre-filled with liquids of different flavors and nicotine concentrations, as well as different battery output voltages. Flavoring chemicals were identified using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.

Specifically, six types of ENDS were purchased from gas stations, convenience stores, online retailers, and local vape shops in Buffalo, N.Y. and Daly City, Calif. Refill solutions for tank systems in five flavors (tobacco, piña colada, menthol, coffee, and strawberry) were also purchased from a vape shop in Buffalo.
H292 human bronchial epithelial cells were directly exposed to 55 puffs of freshly generated ENDS aerosol, tobacco smoke, or air (controls) using the ALI system; in vitro cell viability, metabolic activity, and release of cytokines were all assessed.
Among the main study findings:
Exposure to ENDS aerosol resulted in decreased metabolic activity and cell viability and increased release of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-10, CXCL1, CXCL2, and CXCL10 compared with air controls;
Conventional cigarettes had a greater adverse impact on cell viability and metabolic activity than most of the ENDS products tested;
ENDS product type, battery output voltage, and flavors significantly affected the toxicity of ENDS aerosol, with a strawberry-flavored product exhibiting the highest cytotoxicity; and
Five nicotine concentrations were examined (0, 6, 12, 18, and 24 mg/mL), but no significant differences were observed between the concentrations and the air control for metabolic activity and viability.
“Interestingly, it was not nicotine or nicotine solvents, but other additives in e-cigarettes that affected respiratory cells used in our study,” Goniewicz said.
He and his co-researchers noted that the examination of flavors rather than specific flavoring compounds was a significant study limitation.
“Further studies are needed to investigate the cytotoxic effect of single flavoring chemicals in ENDS liquids, combinations of these ingredients, and the effects of alternate ENDS liquid products with the same flavor name. Our study indicates that testing toxicity of ENDS products should not be limited to individual flavoring chemicals, since the ENDS liquids are complex mixtures, and other product features (e.g., voltage) contribute to overall toxicity of ENDS aerosol.”