Author Topic: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc)  (Read 352733 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: bleeding out break among some cannabinoid users
« Reply #500 on: April 25, 2018, 10:30:16 AM »
https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1/messages/ABbxbcJupuTfWuCHmA1SKOi5QRc

Pls doublcheck the link.

All stories I find searching the title refer to 'synthetic pot', whatever that is.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Chagas disease
« Reply #502 on: August 22, 2018, 07:36:26 PM »
being reported more in the US

this has previously been a South American disease :

https://www.businessinsider.com/chagas-disease-spreading-and-causing-heart-problems-2018-8?yptr=yahoo

I don't suppose the people walking in here from S of the border are possibly bringing this with them and making the prevalence rates skyrocket.

PS to my knowledge there is no cure .



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Health Thread - Marijuana health risk
« Reply #507 on: January 07, 2019, 09:57:55 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/opinion/marijuana-pot-health-risks-legalization.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion

Opinion, What Advocates of Legalizing Pot Don’t Want You to Know

"large studies in peer-reviewed journals showing that marijuana increases the risk of psychosis and schizophrenia"


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: sorting truth regarding marijuana, "three times as likely"
« Reply #509 on: January 22, 2019, 06:21:43 AM »
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/marijuana-mental-illness-violence/

Very well researched and constructed article, does a nice job of presenting the best real data mathematically and let you draw your own cause and effect conclusions.

Typical user does not turn to violence.  Typical user does not have a psychotic break.  Very few do but three times as likely for something a vulnerable teenager is not told is alarming:

"Teenagers who smoke marijuana regularly are about three times as likely to develop schizophrenia, the most devastating psychotic disorder."

Most users don't turn from pot to hard and deadly drugs, but three times as likely is a significant correlation:

"people who used cannabis in 2001 were almost three times as likely to use opiates three years later, even after adjusting for other potential risks."
...

"In the 1970s, the last time this many Americans used cannabis, most marijuana contained less than two percent THC. Today, marijuana routinely contains 20 to 25 percent THC"

More than 10 times stronger now than some may remember - and it was a plenty psychoactive drug then.

"The first four states to legalize marijuana for recreational use were Colorado and Washington in 2014 and Alaska and Oregon in 2015. Combined, those four states had about 450 murders and 30,300 aggravated assaults in 2013. Last year, they had almost 620 murders and 38,000 aggravated assaults—an increase of 37 percent for murders and 25 percent for aggravated assaults, far greater than the national increase, even after accounting for differences in population growth."

I'm not as convinced on this.  They adjust for population growth but perhaps not for the demographics of the population, young males moving in for the novelty, coolness, culture of legalization.  The increases were not in retiring couples, families with children, etc.

The crime rate is up in oil boom areas too, not from the oil but from the demographic that moves there:
https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/crime-and-courts/north-dakota-s-crime-rate-sees-biggest-spike-of-the/article_6d4a48d7-137a-5583-adf4-8e56ad90ddef.html
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 06:35:20 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: sorting truth regarding marijuana, "three times as likely"
« Reply #510 on: January 22, 2019, 06:44:53 AM »
The potency of today's mj creates a lot of 911 calls, meaning a police/fire/ems response and a trip to the ER. Not cheap, and we get to fund that.


https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/marijuana-mental-illness-violence/

Very well researched and constructed article, does a nice job of presenting the best real data mathematically and let you draw your own cause and effect conclusions.

Typical user does not turn to violence.  Typical user does not have a psychotic break.  Very few do but three times as likely for something a vulnerable teenager is not told is alarming:

"Teenagers who smoke marijuana regularly are about three times as likely to develop schizophrenia, the most devastating psychotic disorder."

Most users don't turn from pot to hard and deadly drugs, but three times as likely is a significant correlation:

"people who used cannabis in 2001 were almost three times as likely to use opiates three years later, even after adjusting for other potential risks."
...

"In the 1970s, the last time this many Americans used cannabis, most marijuana contained less than two percent THC. Today, marijuana routinely contains 20 to 25 percent THC"

More than 10 times stronger now than some may remember - and it was a plenty psychoactive drug then.

"The first four states to legalize marijuana for recreational use were Colorado and Washington in 2014 and Alaska and Oregon in 2015. Combined, those four states had about 450 murders and 30,300 aggravated assaults in 2013. Last year, they had almost 620 murders and 38,000 aggravated assaults—an increase of 37 percent for murders and 25 percent for aggravated assaults, far greater than the national increase, even after accounting for differences in population growth."

I'm not as convinced on this.  They adjust for population growth but perhaps not for the demographics of the population, young males moving in for the novelty, coolness, culture of legalization.  The increases were not in retiring couples, families with children, etc.

The crime rate is up in oil boom areas too, not from the oil but from the demographic that moves there:
https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/crime-and-courts/north-dakota-s-crime-rate-sees-biggest-spike-of-the/article_6d4a48d7-137a-5583-adf4-8e56ad90ddef.html

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: sorting truth regarding marijuana, "three times as likely"
« Reply #511 on: January 22, 2019, 07:13:56 AM »
quote author=G M:
"The potency of today's mj creates a lot of 911 calls, meaning a police/fire/ems response and a trip to the ER. Not cheap, and we get to fund that."

Right.  

The switch to edibles, thought to be a more healthy choice, completely screws up dosage.  Packages of legal edibles are marked in numbers that make no sense to most users.  The edibles out of the package are not labeled. A person might knowingly or unknowingly eat a whole package of cookies when the dosage they should have had was zero for a teenager or maybe a quarter of a cookie for a responsible adult. Not many drugs are literally distributed as candy.  The delay to take effect also tempts people to take more than a light, recreational dosage.

I have long preferred decriminalization to legalization, recognizing that small personal use is a choice of vice for a responsible adult, a mostly victimless sin usually deserving little of no punishment or record if not occurring in conjunction with a crime or accident.  But sponsorship and promotion by society without facts and warnings is creating its own problems.  

Information and misinformation in Colorado is mostly distributed by young, enthusiastic salespeople in the 'dispensaries', high on the job, with an interest in selling the product and filling their own tip jar.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 07:16:09 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc)
« Reply #512 on: January 25, 2019, 12:19:21 PM »
"The switch to edibles, thought to be a more healthy choice, completely screws up dosage.  Packages of legal edibles are marked in numbers that make no sense to most users.  The edibles out of the package are not labeled. A person might knowingly or unknowingly eat a whole package of cookies when the dosage they should have had was zero for a teenager or maybe a quarter of a cookie for a responsible adult. Not many drugs are literally distributed as candy.  The delay to take effect also tempts people to take more than a light, recreational dosage."

THIS.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Cancer cure
« Reply #514 on: February 09, 2019, 11:55:16 AM »
Hi Doug,

I read about the Israeli company's claims , and

while no expert on cancer research thought  if it is too good to be true ....

I found this reaction to the announcement just now:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-an-israeli-company-about-to-cure-cancer/

Overall this may well turn out to a new approach to treatment but it could not possibly be something that could prove to work and be safe for a long time.

Sounds like this company is looking for investors. 

(I wish it were true)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
drug cartels selling cheap pot
« Reply #516 on: June 15, 2019, 10:25:26 AM »
so buyers don't have to pay tax.

uh oh . this will make the tax and spend crats to go nuts.  less money to pay off all the pension debts:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/legal-marijuana-a-boon-to-illegal-cartels/

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: drug cartels selling cheap pot
« Reply #517 on: June 15, 2019, 12:15:29 PM »
so buyers don't have to pay tax.

uh oh . this will make the tax and spend crats to go nuts.  less money to pay off all the pension debts:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/legal-marijuana-a-boon-to-illegal-cartels/

City Journal notes that it's not just mom and pop scofflaws that are problematic:

Legal-pot states are attracting international criminal cartels. Mexican drug gangs have smuggled illegals into Colorado to set up growing operations, former U.S. prosecutor Bob Troyer  wrote last September, explaining why his office was stepping up enforcement. Rather than smuggle pot from Mexico, the cartels grow it in Colorado and smuggle it elsewhere—spurring violence. In 2017, seven homicides in Denver were directly connected to marijuana growers. “I would love to be able to shift some of my resources away from marijuana to other things,” Denver lieutenant Andrew Howard said last year. “But right now, the violence is marijuana or marijuana-related.”

**I was told this was IMPOSSIBLE!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
racquetball
« Reply #518 on: June 26, 2019, 06:15:35 AM »
I played this in college 40 + yrs ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXvyNKaFkaU

These guys make it look easy.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc)
« Reply #519 on: June 26, 2019, 10:06:03 AM »
As a boy my step father took me to the City Athletic Club for squash and this.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Plant based meat alternatives PBMA
« Reply #520 on: October 26, 2019, 08:38:55 AM »
Good article in Jama but I can't post due to blocking as subscription

I don't subscribe to the journal but for some reason they always send it to me for free

Bottom line is PBMA production is very environmentally sound.
Due to being produced in a lab and production center not need cows
saves on deforestation making way for grasslands , methane gas from cow flatulence , cow waste products from contaminating water, less energy usage to produce, cheaper and not having to raise animals just to slaughter.  Efforts are underway to produce similar products that taste like pork and chicken and fish.
At this time some of the protein is soy or from peas.

What is NOT know is are the products healthier , less healthy , or neutral to real animal protein.

There are additives which may not be healthy.
IF one looks at the total calories in PBMA from what I have seen from the ingredient label on the some of the products is the total calories is about the same of maybe a bit less .

I tried Beyond Meat sausages and was pleasantly surprised .  To me they do taste "real"
Ate a hamburger last night and it was good though not quite as close to real beef to me .
I would buy both products again .

Not al all like "veggie" burgers which to me are very distasteful.

Bottom line, 

environmentally sound but health wise unclear at this time.

And as is true with nearly every single publication in any medical journal . - MORE study is needed!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Health Thread longevity, Prostate test - urine
« Reply #522 on: January 21, 2021, 07:08:21 AM »
The Korea Institute of Science and Technology announced that a collaborative research team led by Dr. Kwan Hyi Lee from the Biomaterials Research Center and Professor In Gab Jeong from Asan Medical Center have developed a technique for diagnosing prostate cancer from urine within only twenty minutes with almost 100% accuracy. The research team developed this technique by introducing a smart AI analysis method to an electrical-signal-based ultra-sensitive biosensor. As a noninvasive method, a diagnostic test utilizing urine is convenient for patients and does not need invasive biopsy, thereby diagnosing cancer without side effects.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c06946

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc)
« Reply #523 on: January 23, 2021, 10:58:37 AM »
Far out.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Health Thread, lockdowns are killing us
« Reply #524 on: January 29, 2021, 06:50:25 AM »
Smoking’s Long Decline Is Over (partly due to lockdowns)

Wall Street Journal ^ | January 28, 2021 | Jennifer Maloney
The decades long decline in U.S. cigarette sales halted last year as people in lockdown lit up more frequently and health concerns around e-cigarettes caused some vapers to switch back to cigarettes. Before the pandemic, U.S. cigarette unit sales had been falling at an accelerating rate, hitting 5.5% in 2019, as smokers quit or switched to alternatives like e-cigarettes. The pandemic put the brakes on that slide. In 2020, the U.S. cigarette industry’s unit sales were flat compared to the previous year, according to data released Thursday by Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc. People had more opportunities to smoke

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Health Thread, lockdowns are killing us, Cancer screenings plummeted
« Reply #525 on: May 09, 2021, 05:32:13 AM »
Smoking’s Long Decline Is Over (partly due to lockdowns)

Wall Street Journal ^ | January 28, 2021 | Jennifer Maloney
The decades long decline in U.S. cigarette sales halted last year as people in lockdown lit up more frequently and health concerns around e-cigarettes caused some vapers to switch back to cigarettes. Before the pandemic, U.S. cigarette unit sales had been falling at an accelerating rate, hitting 5.5% in 2019, as smokers quit or switched to alternatives like e-cigarettes. The pandemic put the brakes on that slide. In 2020, the U.S. cigarette industry’s unit sales were flat compared to the previous year, according to data released Thursday by Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc. People had more opportunities to smoke


More lockdown damage, cancer screenings plummeted:

https://fee.org/articles/cancer-screenings-plummeted-in-2020-the-results-are-grim/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
science or corruption
« Reply #526 on: June 20, 2021, 07:41:50 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/western-pa-doctors-saying-controversial-100400824.html

every single advisory committee member voted against approving this drug
yet the FDA approved

something fishy in Denmark?

lot of money involved

we need a real Alzheimer's drug(s) that work
  apparently this one does not (unless more time is needed to show a benefit)
   like all those that went down before it.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Health, nutrition, medical, Ibuprofen, testosterone, testicles, 2018
« Reply #529 on: December 02, 2021, 03:00:16 PM »
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5789927/

I knew Ibuprofen was poison but I didn't know this link.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2021, 07:29:28 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc)
« Reply #530 on: December 02, 2021, 08:05:15 PM »
Whoa!!!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Pompeo's weight loss
« Reply #531 on: January 07, 2022, 06:42:18 AM »
https://nypost.com/2022/01/06/mike-pompeos-weight-loss-story-down-90-pounds-in-6-months/

seeing Newt on Laura last night , he appeared thinner too

wonder if they hit the weights together?   :-D

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc)
« Reply #532 on: January 07, 2022, 12:25:51 PM »
Huge fan of Pompeo.  Very glad to see this!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Neanderthal DNA
« Reply #533 on: January 07, 2022, 01:06:51 PM »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
From "Women's Health"
« Reply #535 on: March 10, 2022, 01:21:47 PM »
I am not against heavy set people being encouraged to exercise

but this does not seem logical :

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/a39382727/lizzo-bikini-instagram-photos/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
ET: Key to universal cancer treatment?
« Reply #539 on: June 14, 2022, 05:15:51 AM »
https://www.theepochtimes.com/universal-cancer_4530249.html?utm_source=Health&utm_campaign=health-2022-06-14&utm_medium=email&est=ilWSPdw1nJf13l%2BwW2%2FbfqH6CTCq5vjwx9C7YU3Q8zxYz6J0EYtMK3E1FYwbTAAynPjO

Did Scientists Stumble Upon a Universal Cancer Treatment Innate to the Human Body?
BY HEALTH 1+1 TIMEJUNE 13, 2022 PRINT
Conventional cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy, come with the drawback where they might also suppress or weaken our immune system by lowering the number of white blood cells and other immune system cells.

Immunotherapy is a relatively new type of cancer treatment that seeks to strengthen our immune system to fight cancer. But it is only effective in treating certain types of cancer.


Over two years ago, researchers in the UK accidentally discovered a type of immune cell that appears to have the power to detect and kill many kinds of cancer cells—at least all  the cancers the team had tested. This discovery makes the outlook of finding a universal treatment for cancer ever more promising.

T Cells: The ‘Trained Assassins’ in Our Immune System
Before going into the discovery, we should first introduce an important immune cell.

As an important part of the immune system, T-cells are a type of white blood cell that originate in the bone marrow and mature in the thymus. They travel to different parts of the body to hunt down foreign substances deemed harmful to the body.

Professor Gillian Griffiths from the Cambridge Institute for Medical Research describes T cells as “trained assassins that are sent on their deadly missions by the immune system. There are billions of them in our blood, each engaged in a ferocious and unrelenting battle to keep us healthy. Once a T cell has found its target, it binds to it and releases its toxic cargo.”

How do T cells find their targets?

On the surface of a T cell is a type of protein called a receptor. When the T cells travel around in the body, the receptors sniff the surface of other cells looking for clues that might signal an abnormality or a foreign invasion. There are many different types of T cell receptors, each has a specific target. Take the cancer-targeting receptors, for example: they can sniff out proteins or other molecules (antigens) that are found only on cancer cells.

Following this method, the scientists have found ways to produce specific receptors that target different kinds of cancer. The “CAR T cell therapy” is the latest cutting-edge cancer treatment using this method, which we will go into detail about.

This is what we currently know about T cells, but there seems to be more to the T cell that we have yet to understand.

Epoch Times Photo
The Discovery of a Ubiquitous T-cell
Researchers at Cardiff University in the UK have discovered a special type of T cell that can kill many different types of cancer cells. Their paper was published in Natural Immunology in January 2020.

The Cardiff researchers were originally looking for a kind of T cell that can kill a bunch of bacteria. They happened to use cancer cells as the hosts of the bacteria, since cancer cells can be easily infected with different bacteria.

To their astonishment, they discovered a special type of T cell that not only killed the bacteria (as expected), but also killed ALL the cancer cells–with or without bacteria inside them–used in the experiment.

This discovery sparked their curiosity–is this new hope for universal cure for cancer?

Then they tested other types of cancer in mice who were given human cancers. Lung cancer, colon cancer, bone cancer, breast cancer, blood cancer, skin cancer–all cancer cells used by the researchers were killed by this one type of T cell. What was even more surprising is that this T-cell left the normal cells untouched.

Take melanoma as an example:

Epoch Times Photo
The ‘Smoking Gun’ Protein–MR1
Established research tells us that T cells are highly specialized in detecting a certain type of protein on the surface of a cell.

How can this new T cell detect so many different types of cancer cells? Perhaps there is one “smoking gun” antigen that is common among many different cancer cells?

To test this hypothesis, the Cardiff researchers deleted the proteins from the surface of cancer cells one at a time (using CRISPR-Cas 9 gene editing). If the T cell stops working after a protein is deleted, then that protein is the smoking gun.

They did find a protein called MR1. However, MR1 is found on all cells, not just cancerous cells. So, the scientists do not know exactly what information inside MR1 that enables the new T cell to differentiate cancer cells from normal cells.

In their own words, the Cardiff researchers wrote, the receptor “does not recognize MR1 by known mechanisms.”

More research is underway to determine the communication mechanism between MR1 protein and the receptor on the new T cell.

Engineering T Cells to Treat Cancer: CAR T Cell Therapy
The CAR T-cell therapy strengthens a cancer patient’s immune system by adding a lab-produced receptor to the patient’s T cells. This lab-made receptor, called Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR), can sniff out the specific type of cancer cells in the patient. In other words, the CARs can recognize and bind to the specific antigens on the surface of cancer cells.

CARs don’t exist naturally, but once they are infused back into the patient’s body, they can continue to multiply in the patient’s blood.

Since 2017, six CAR T-cell therapies have been approved for the treatment of certain blood cancers by the Food and Drug Administration.

Because the CARs must be produced in the lab tailored to each patient, cost is a huge factor. The recently approved CAR T-cell therapy is more than $450,000.

Professor Awen Gallimore, Co-Director of Systems Immunity Research Institute at Cardiff University, told EurekAlert.org in January 2020, “If this transformative new finding holds up, it will lay the foundation for a ‘universal’ T-cell medicine, mitigating against the tremendous costs associated with the identification, generation and manufacture of personalized T-cells.”

The Epoch Times reached out to researchers at Cardiff University.



Health 1+1 is the most authoritative Chinese medical and health information platform overseas. Every Tuesday to Saturday from 9:00 am to 10:00 am EST on TV and online, the program covers the latest on the coronavirus, prevention, treatment, scientific research and policy, as well as cancer, chronic illness, emotional and spiritual health, immunity, health insurance, and other aspects to provide people with reliable and considerate care and help. Online: EpochTimes.com/Health TV: NTDTV.com/live

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Big Pharma and Big Govt working to block Vitamins and supplements
« Reply #540 on: July 23, 2022, 10:11:10 AM »
Big Pharma Wants to Put an End to Vitamins and Supplements
BY JOSEPH MERCOLA TIMEJULY 19, 2022 PRINT
The pharmaceutical industry wants nothing more than to put an end to one of its biggest competitors – vitamins and supplements. They’ve been trying for years to do it, but now they’re pulling out the stops to make it happen. Take action now to safeguard your access to supplements.


STORY AT-A-GLANCE
One of the latest attempts to thwart your ability to access nutritional supplements comes in the form of draft legislation that would require premarket approval for dietary supplements. In short, it would require supplements — which are food — to undergo the same approval process as drugs
In the past, the drug industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tried to ban certain supplements, including vitamin B6 and N-acetylcysteine (NAC), by reclassifying them as new drugs
Another strategy the drug industry has been using to gain a monopoly over the supplement industry is to buy up supplement brands. Just 14 mega corporations — many of them drug companies — now own more than 100 of the most popular supplement brands on the market
This monopoly over the supplement industry gives drug companies enormous regulatory influence, and that’s a way by which they could eliminate independent supplement makers who can’t afford to put their products through the drug approval process. Indeed, it seems that’s what the Durbin-Braun premarket approval proposal is trying to accomplish
Take action to protect widespread access to dietary supplements. Contact your Senators and urge them to oppose the Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2022, and its inclusion in the FDA Safety Landmark Advancements Act
In the video above Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), interviews Gretchen DuBeau, the executive and legal director for the Alliance for Natural Health, who in addition to being a lawyer also has a master’s degree in applied healing arts, talk about Big Pharma’s efforts to eliminate one of its greatest competitors, namely nutritional supplements.

One of the latest attempts to thwart your ability to access nutritional supplements comes in the form of draft legislation that would require premarket approval for dietary supplements. In short, it would require supplements to undergo the same approval process as drugs.

The Durbin-Braun Premarket Approval Proposal
A discussion draft of the legislation was released by the United States Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP) in mid-May 2022. As reported by Vitamin Retailer:1

“On May 17 [2022], the United States Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP) released a discussion draft of its legislation to reauthorize FDA user fees for drugs, biologics and medical devices package, which includes the controversial and divisive Durbin-Braun premarket approval concept and more that would be damaging to the industry, according to the Natural Products Association (NPA).2

‘The NPA is significantly concerned with Chair Murray and Republican Leader Burr who failed to reject the radical and dangerous legislation from Senators Durbin and Braun that would require premarket approval for dietary supplements and weaken key privacy protections of the Bioterrorism Act, which protects the dietary supplement supply chain,’ said Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D. president and CEO of the NPA.

‘Last time I checked, dietary supplements are not drugs, biologics or medical devices, so why Congress or anyone supporting nongermane legislation that will only add costs to consumers who are doing all they can to stay healthy is extremely troubling.

Groups who [sic] have supported this legislation, have stated there are protections for technical disagreements with the FDA like those with hemp, CBD, NAC, and several other products. However, if this legislation were to pass, it is abundantly clear these products would be eliminated from the market.'”

For years, the drug industry, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s support, has tried to get nutritional supplements off the market. One of the most often used tactics has been to try to reclassify them as drugs.

Usually, they would target specific nutrients that stood in their way of profits, but legislation such as the Durbin-Braun premarket proposal would allow the drug industry to monopolize the market in one fell swoop.

Big Pharma Tried to Ban Vitamin B6
The fight over vitamin B6 (pyroxidine) is one example of how Big Pharma tried to eliminate a natural substance that stood in the way of a drug patent. In 2007, Medicure Pharma submitted a citizen’s petition to the FDA in which it argued that any dietary supplement containing pyridoxal 5′-phosphate — vitamin B6 — were “adulterated” under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, article 402(f).3

In essence, Medicure wanted all vitamin B6 products banned, because they undermined the company’s incentive to continue development of it’s drug version of B6.

Medicure had gotten wise to vitamin B6’s effectiveness against ischemia (inadequate blood flow), and decided to make a drug out of it by simply renaming the vitamin “MC-1.” They entered it into the drug bank and then argued that B6 supplements contained “their” MC-1. The drug bank even admits the renamed vitamin B6, i.e., MC-1, is:4

“… a biologically active natural product which can be regarded as a chemical entity that has been evolutionarily selected and validated for binding to particular protein domains.”

The main reason why drug companies engage in this kind of sleight of hand is because once a substance is classified as a drug, you can jack up the price by 1,000% over the supplement’s typical retail.5

FDA Cracking Down on NAC
Perhaps the most recent example of the FDA trying to shut down easy access to nutritional supplements was its 2020 attack on N-acetylcysteine (NAC). NAC has been a widely-used dietary supplement for six decades, yet the FDA suddenly decided to crack down on it in late July 2020 — right after it was discovered how useful it was for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.6

According to the FDA, NAC was excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement because it had been approved as a new drug in 1963.7 But if that was the case, why did they wait until 2020 to take action?

As reported by NPI at the time,8 there were more than 1,170 NAC-containing products in the National Institutes of Health’s Dietary Supplement Label Database when the FDA started sending out warning letters9 to companies that marketed NAC as a remedy for hangovers.

Members of the Council for Responsible Nutrition also worried the FDA might start to target NAC more widely. So far, that hasn’t happened, but Amazon immediately stopped selling all NAC products after those warning letters went out, whether the sellers marketed it as a hangover remedy or not.

Also, the selection of “hangover” for those warning letters seemed arbitrary at best. The fact is that several scientists had called attention to NAC’s benefits against COVID, and shortly afterward, the FDA came up with this ridiculous excuse to limit the availability of it. It just smacked of conflict of interest.

Another Way Big Pharma Is Seeking to Take Over
Another strategy the drug industry has been using to gain a monopoly over the supplement industry is by simply buying up supplement brands. Nestlé Health Science, for example, has acquired Garden of Life, Vital Proteins, Nuun, Pure Encapsulations, Wobenzym, Douglas Laboratories, Persona Nutrition, Genestra, Orthica, Minami, AOV, Klean Athlete and Bountiful.10

Bountiful, in turn, owns brands like Solgar, Osteo Bi-Flex, Puritan’s Pride, Ester-C and Sundown, all of which are now under Nestlé’s control. The Bountiful brands alone generated net sales of $1.87 billion in the 12 months ending March 31, 2021, so the $5.75 billion agreement to acquire a majority stake, signed in August 2021, didn’t necessarily burn a big hole in Nestlé’s pocket. According to J.P. Morgan analyst Celine Pannuti, quoted by Natural Products Insider:11

“Through the acquisition of The Bountiful Co., Nestlé can build a ‘leading position’ in the ‘fragmented category’ for vitamins, minerals and supplements, which ‘has delivered the highest and most consistent growth in consumer health care over the past 10 years.'”

The ‘Free Market Competition’ Lie
In all, a mere 14 mega corporations — many of them drug companies — now own more than 100 of the most popular supplement brands on the market. The graphic below is from Neal Smoller, PharmD, the holistic pharmacist’s website.12

It doesn’t show the ownership of all available brands, but it gives you an idea of just how small the ownership circle has become. As noted by Smoller, many competing brands are even owned by the same corporation, rendering the notion of free market competition null and void.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
PFAS-- forever toxins and how to avoid
« Reply #542 on: August 30, 2022, 06:54:09 AM »


A Ubiquitous ‘Forever Toxin’ Can Cause Liver Cancer—4 Ways to Avoid It
BY FLORA ZHAO AND HEALTH 1+1 TIMEAUGUST 28, 2022 PRINT
A ubiquitous substance that can cause liver cancer can be found in water, food wraps, shampoo, and non-stick pans. It is the toxin known as “forever chemicals”—per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

 

Not long ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reduced the recommended standard limits for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)—members of PFAS—in drinking water by more than a thousandfold. Its 2016 health advisories for PFOA and PFOS were both 70 parts per trillion (or 70 ppt), and the recently updated health advisories for PFOA and PFOS are 0.004 ppt and 0.02 ppt, respectively.

An increasing number of studies show that PFAS are very toxic. The latest research in August 2022 further discovered that such substances can cause liver cancer.

 

The PFAS are a group of man-made organofluorine chemical compounds that contain multiple fluorine atoms attached to an alkyl chain to form stable strong carbon-fluorine bonds. This structure has high thermal and chemical stability, making these substances incredibly hard to break down both in body and in the environment.

PFAS substances break down very slowly and accumulate continuously in the environment, humans, and animals. PFAS are among the most environmentally persistent substances among organic chemicals, and they are thus called “forever chemicals.”

PauseUnmute
Fullscreen

PFAS were invented in the late 1930s and have been in widespread use since the 1940s due to their unique properties of hydrophobicity and oleophobicity. PFAS can enter the human body through food and drinks, breathing, and skin contact. They are found throughout the body, accumulating mainly in the kidneys, liver, and blood. As some of them are readily absorbed by the body and cannot always be filtered by the kidneys, they eventually accumulate in organs such as the liver.

People are worried about the impact of PFAS on the human body, and researchers have also conducted many animal experiments. However, it is not easy to study the toxicity and effects of such substances on the human body due to its long term nature.

Nevertheless, a breakthrough has been made in the studies: American scientists published an epoch-making study in the Journal of Hepatology in August 2022, which is the first practical proof that PFAS substances can cause hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in humans.

HCC is a primary liver cancer, accounting for 75 percent to 85 percent of all cases. With a five year survival rate of less than 20 percent, it is one of the deadliest cancers.

Scientists have identified 50 people with HCC from among 200,000 U.S. residents. They obtained the blood samples of these people before they were diagnosed with liver cancer. The results showed that several PFAS substances were prevalent in their blood. Ultimately, the researchers focused on PFOS.

Epoch Times Photo
They found that the top 10 percent of people with the highest levels of PFOS in their blood were associated with a 4.5 fold increased risk of HCC over those with low levels of PFOS in their blood.

The researchers further found that PFOS affected the normal function of the liver by altering the metabolism of four substances in the liver, including glucose, a bile acid, an amino acid, and a keto acid.

In addition, PFAS substances may cause cardiovascular diseases, thyroid problems, immune system problems, liver damage, and kidney and prostate cancers.

Common Sources of PFAS
The EPA has currently identified more than 8,000 types of PFAS compounds. Aside from the non-stick cookware coating that everyone knows, PFAS are everywhere around us:

Drinking water
Fish and livestock exposed to PFAS
Food packaging (grease-resistant paper, food containers/wrappers)
Personal care products (certain shampoos, dental floss, and cosmetics)
Household products (waterproof and stain-resistant carpets, waterproof clothing, non-stick cookware, cleaning products, paints, varnishes, and sealants)
Scientists have tested 2,094 serum samples collected from the general U.S. population older than 12 years of age to assess exposure to a dozen types of PFAS. Four types of PFAS were detected in the blood of at least 98 percent of the people, among which PFOS (99.9 percent) and PFOA (99.7 percent) were the most common.

Epoch Times Photo
PFOA and PFOS are the two most widely used PFAS substances. In recent years, these two substances have been replaced by other PFAS substances in the United States: GenX as a replacement for PFOA, and perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) as a replacement for PFOS. However, the EPA acknowledges that GenX can affect the liver, kidneys, immune system, and has developmental effects, and it is also linked to cancer; and that PFBS can affect the health of the thyroid, reproductive system, and kidneys and people’s development.

4 Ways to Avoid PFAS
Although PFAS substances are pervasive around us and in the environment, we can adjust certain lifestyles and habits to minimize our exposure to these substances.

Replace non-stick cookware with stainless steel cookware
PFAS substances in non-stick cookware can be transferred to food during the cooking process. Scientists tested this with salted tomato paste and found that PFOS and PFAS substances in non-stick cookware are gradually transferred into food.

You can replace non-stick cookware with stainless steel cookware. If you are worried that the food might stick to the stainless steel cookware while cooking, you can pour a little oil, heat the cookware, let it cool naturally, and then put it aside. Then when you start cooking, add oil into the cookware, and this can prevent food from sticking to it.

Epoch Times Photo
If using non-stick cookware, pay attention to the following to reduce the amount of PFAS and other toxic substances in your food:

Do not heat empty cookware. Cook on medium-low heat. Turn on the ventilation fan or open the windows when cooking on high heat.
Avoid using utensils that can scratch the surface of the cookware.
Do not use abrasive cleaning products.
Replace the cookware if they become damaged or worn.
Replace potentially health-threatening carpets in your home
Some oil- and stain-resistant carpets contain PFAS.

Modern people spend 90 percent of their time at home or in other indoor environments. A study published in Environmental Science and Technology Letters shows that the concentrations of volatile PFAS in indoor air, carpets, and dust are closely related to one another, indicating that carpets and dust are major sources of these substances in air.

Rainer Lohmann, the study’s co-author and a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island, said that PFAS-treated carpets are an important exposure pathway and can be replaced with PFAS-free carpet.

Cook your own food
A wide variety of food packaging can contain PFAS. The best solution is to buy raw food and cook at home.

Researchers have found that people who regularly ate at home had significantly lower levels of PFAS in their body. For every 100 kcal of food eaten at home, the concentrations of PFAS substances would be decreased by 0.5 percent. In contrast, people who ate a lot of fast food or frequently ate at restaurants tended to have higher PFAS serum levels.

This means that foods from fast food and other restaurants contain more PFAS, as foods in these places are more likely to have been in contact with PFAS-containing food packaging.

Be careful when buying waterproofing and antifouling clothes
In outdoor clothes and protective workwear, water- and oil-resistant materials that contain PFAS substances are usually used. These garments gradually degrade and release these substances during their use and washing.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc)
« Reply #543 on: August 30, 2022, 08:31:32 AM »
above CD article concerning

but lets try to regulate
and not start in  with the endless law suits

the trillion dollar funds with endless TV commercials

if you have hepatocellular carcinoma
or anything related we can make you (and us rich) stuff

so every alcoholic person with fatty liver and viral induced cirrhosis can now get rich
because we can argue 100% of people exposed and there fore there is a theoretical risk
it was from this.

 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc)
« Reply #544 on: August 30, 2022, 08:41:21 AM »
"but lets try to regulate and not start in  with the endless law suits"

I like that the article focuses on what we can do for ourselves.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Efficacy of Flu Vaccine and others
« Reply #545 on: October 15, 2022, 07:01:17 AM »
ET

‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ Is 1 of WHO’s Top 10 Global Threats—but Flu Shot Data Tells a Different Story
By Dr. Sean Lin and Health 1+1 October 12, 2022 Updated: October 14, 2022biggersmaller Print
In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed 10 threats to global health, such as air pollution, non-communicable diseases, global influenza pandemic, Ebola and other high-threat pathogens, weak primary health care, and HIV. Among them, vaccine hesitancy was also mentioned, which many people might find surprising.

The elevation of this issue to a global health threat is a rather political approach. From this perspective, it should not be acceptable to the public. Just as consumers evaluate the quality of the products they purchase, people want to know the vaccines they are getting are good in quality and effective.  If a vaccine is proven to be effective while there are minimal side effects, most people wouldn’t hesitate to get vaccinated.

Furthermore, vaccination is just one of the preventive measures aimed at protecting the vaccine recipients against certain diseases. And vaccine’s protection effects depend on the functional immune system in the vaccinated people’s bodies. There are many other ways to achieve the same outcomes, such as boosting the individuals’ innate immunity. Also, for some diseases, there are effective medications to cure the patients, alleviate their symptoms, or prevent critical illness.

The term “vaccine hesitancy” is not scientific per se. Rather, it is a political term. In fact, it has become a label that can be used to attack people. In many cases, people who are described as “vaccine hesitant” are also labeled as “anti-science.” This is irrational and shouldn’t be promoted, especially by such an authoritative international health organization as the WHO. This is because the qualities of different vaccines vary greatly. Labeling people “vaccine hesitant” is a practice to violate their right to self-determination.  Therefore, people should question whether there are political operations or interest groups behind the campaigns to attack people for “vaccine hesitancy.”

One such example is the WHO’s promotion of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, in the name of eliminating cervical cancer on a global scale. However, prior to the development of cervical cancer, there are already pre-cancerous cells in many females, which can be caused by various internal mechanisms of the human body. Vaccination alone cannot prevent the development of all cervical cancer cases. Therefore, the WHO’s proposal to eliminate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination is unscientific and sounds like a marketing campaign for the vaccine products. The HPV vaccines would reduce the occurrence of cervical cancer, but cannot eliminate it.

Flu Vaccines Have Varying Effects on the Immune Responses of Different Age Groups
Currently, the most commonly used production method of influenza vaccines is the egg-based approach, in which flu viruses grow and replicate themselves. They are then isolated, purified, and inactivated, before being added to the formulation to produce vaccines. Although cost-effective, this method is prone to mutations, which can lower the vaccines’ effectiveness and cause potential problems, such as weakening the vaccine recipients’ immune system.

Epoch Times Photo
When implementing flu vaccines, the more responses from T cells and B cells, the better. From the graph below, we can see that among children aged 5 to 9, in terms of T-cell response stimulation, inactivated flu vaccines are less effective than live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) (pdf).

Epoch Times Photo
Furthermore, vaccines are not a panacea that works for everyone or every age group. This graph shows the changes in the T cells of children and adults after their immunization with one dose of LAIV. We can see that although the same type of flu vaccines were administered, in terms of T cell response, the vaccines are more effective in children aged 5 to 9 years than in adults. In addition, different vaccine platforms also have different effects on vaccine recipients.

Therefore, we can conclude that these flu vaccines have varying effects on different age groups. The same vaccines may not have the same protection for everyone, as individual factors such as age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and response to vaccines are also involved, and they may vary greatly among different populations. So, when designing vaccination policies, there should be some adjustment for different age groups. This also further illustrates our points earlier that people should have the self-determination for vaccinations based on their own individual factors, such as the age factor here.

New Generation of Flu Vaccines Will Also Have Mutations and Challenges
Although LAIVs are more effective than inactivated flu vaccines when providing protection, they are not as widely promoted as inactivated vaccines, due to their side effects. Therefore, the next generation vaccines are expected to have better stimulation of T cell responses through new technologies, such as the DNA recombinant technology. One example of a next generation flu vaccine is Wyeth/IL-15/5Flu, which is a T cell-activating vaccine based on the H5N1 flu strain and produced by the pharmaceutical company Wyeth.

However, this T cell-activating vaccine induces a higher incidence and degree of mutation on the influenza A virus genome. That is, even if the virus strains used in the production of the vaccine are not grown from eggs, there will still be mutations at important hemagglutinin-receptor binding sites. For example, in the flu virus strain used in Wyeth/IL-15/5Flu vaccine production, it was found that the mutation at position 34 (involved in receptor binding) in HA protein is 10 times higher than virus strains used for inactivated vaccines.

For instance, when producing these new vaccines, once the mutation-prone virus hemagglutinin’s head domain is removed, its hemagglutinin (HA) stem region, which has a relatively low mutation frequency, will now mutate more. And beneficial adaptation mutations on the polymerase basic 2 (PB2) gene/protein can occur, as the virus adapts to the new production method and environment. As breakthroughs are produced, the stem, which was previously not prone to mutations, would also mutate.

In addition to the mutations brought about by the immune environment, the vaccine companies would also deliberately select the fast-growing strains of influenza virus. This is because for high volume virus production, the choice of virus strains with higher reproduction efficiency is also important. So, it is necessary for vaccine companies to select strains that reproduce fast, in order to grow more viruses with fewer resources.

During this virus strain screening process, mutations concerning gene segments such as the viral enzymes PB1 and PB2 are introduced, and this changes the strains’ replication capability. Also, many of the new generation vaccines are in Vero cells, which are a lineage of monkey kidney epithelial cells and the most popular cell lineage for manufacturing human vaccines.  However, Vero cells are not human cells.  The virus still needs to adapt to a different host when using Vero cells.

The Impact of Annual Vaccination on the Human Immune System and the Flu Virus
In the 1970s, T.W. Hoskins and colleagues observed a phenomenon in a British boarding school for the first time. That is, flu vaccination in prior influenza seasons can reduce the effectiveness of the vaccine in the current season. This phenomenon, known as the “Hoskins effect,” has also been identified by some other studies.

Although academics have been exploring the “Hoskins effect” for decades and scratching their heads over this phenomenon, the general public is not aware of this issue.

Many people believe that the benefits of flu vaccination outweigh its drawbacks. This is why they are promoting the implementation of flu vaccines. Although there have always been questions about the effectiveness of flu vaccines, there haven’t been any large-scale studies on this issue so far.

Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends people over the age of 6 months to receive seasonal flu vaccines. However, what are the impact of annual flu vaccination on our immunity?

According to the journal Frontiers in Immunology, a human cohort vaccine study has been conducted since the 2016-2017 flu season with adult (over the age of 18) and teenage (12 to 18 years old) participants, who are vaccinated annually against the seasonal flu. Every flu season, the subjects’ sera samples and personal information are collected and analyzed at the University of Georgia.

Epoch Times Photo
Their immune responses to repeated annual influenza vaccination is tested by hemagglutination Inhibition (HAI) composite scores. The participants are enrolled in early September every year, without having received the seasonal flu vaccine. In the teenage participant group, during the 2017-2018 flu season, the hemagglutination inhibition was relatively adequate. However, the inhibition came down in the following flu season. The same phenomenon took place in the adult group, as well.

It can be interpreted that at the beginning of the 2017-2018 flu season, the participants were not vaccinated, and the flu vaccine later provided them with useful protection. However, in the subsequent 2018-2019 flu season, with repeated flu vaccination, the protection offered by the vaccine actually decreased. It has also been observed that the vaccine had become less and less effective among the repeatedly vaccinated participants.

Overall, the HAI composite scores declined significantly from one flu season to the next in teenagers, but somehow remained steady in adult participants. In addition, a comparison of the mean HAI composite scores of prior vaccinated teens and those newly enrolled in the 2018-2019 flu season implies that repeated annual vaccination resulted in reduced immune responses.

Therefore, repeated vaccination strains are associated with reduced boosting of immune responses and thus protection.

The annual flu vaccine contains four different virus strains. It was discovered that if the virus is the same, to very similar year to year, the decline in immune response would be more obvious if the vaccine had been given continuously year to year. In addition, if there is a change in the choice of virus strains between seasons, the vaccine’s protection effect would be better. This may be because the immune system has been fatigued by the repeated vaccination.

The immune system may use the immunological memory based on the previous vaccination when a second slightly different vaccine is administered, leaving the immune system stuck with its first immune responses and unable to generate more effective responses to the second vaccination. However, as flu viral strains change from year to year, the antigens in the vaccine are also adjusted. There has been no tracking of the immune fatigue associated with a particular strain of virus. And the specific mechanism of this phenomenon has not been studied in particular detail.

Epoch Times Photo
In addition, repeated vaccination also forces the virus to undergo mutation, as it guides the virus to develop in a certain direction, as it screens the virus strains. This is called immune escape.

During the natural evolution process, pathogens experience random mutations that change their antigens. Therefore, the vaccine loses its effectiveness against the mutated pathogens. Nevertheless, during the vaccine-driven evolution process, after the vaccine is administered, certain pathogens die, and the surviving ones replicate themselves. After several rounds of repeated vaccination, the surviving pathogens would have gone through several rounds of screening, and the vaccine then has less effect on them. And eventually, vaccine-escape mutants will be screened out.

Epoch Times Photo
Vaccine escape does not just occur for flu vaccines. There are many examples for other bacteria vaccines. Lessons were not rare.

For example, Bordetella pertussis is the bacterium causing pertussis (whooping cough). As the design of the vaccine against Bordetella pertussis was targeting one of its surface-associated proteins called pertactin, through self-screening, more and more pertactin-negative bacterial isolates were replicating themselves more than the other ones.

This immune escape phenomenon may explain the fact that since the 2009-2010 flu season, the effectiveness of the flu vaccines has been below 50 percent most years.

Do Flu Shots Reduce the Rate of Severe Illness?
Many people get the annual flu jabs, because they believe that they can prevent severe illness. However, the results of a Japanese study may disappoint. This study, published in the journal Vaccine in 2014, shows that flu vaccination doesn’t reduce the risk of subsequent hospitalization or prevent severe illness.

Epoch Times Photo
As shown in the table, within 14 days of flu infection, around 40 percent of people who had previously been vaccinated with the flu vaccine were infected with the flu virus. And the percentage of cases in which the individuals got vaccinated and became hospitalized was 9 percent, while this figure was 4 percent for the hospitalized patients who were unvaccinated. Therefore, the flu vaccine doesn’t always reduce disease severity or prevent critical illness as the general public believes, a belief driven by the annual flu vaccination campaigns.

Epoch Times Photo
The CDC also conducted a study on flu-caused critical illness among a vaccinated population recently. The patients with life-threatening illness included those who used invasive ventilation, vasopressor, dialysis, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

According to this study, the flu vaccine was effective in 75 percent of the cases with life-threatening illness and in 57 percent of the cases with non-life-threatening illness.

However, this study is not very rigorous, as its sample size is very small. More importantly, the factor of underlying medical conditions was not included in the evaluation of the patients’ disease severity, as many of them already had respiratory, cardiovascular, and/or neurological conditions prior to flu infection. The data of disease severity was not stratified based on different types and degrees of underlying medical conditions. The data shown in this paper only pointed out how many people, whether vaccinated or not, have underlying medical conditions. Therefore, this study is very biased and it draws more conclusions than its data can suggest.

So, in summary, objective evaluation of vaccine efficacy and safety are critical to provide unbiased information to the public.  And international organizations or health regulators should avoid politicizing the people who carefully evaluate of their choice of vaccinations.  “Vaccine Hesitancy” is a political label that should be abandoned by health agencies and international organizations like WHO.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Efficacy of Flu Vaccine and others
« Reply #546 on: October 15, 2022, 10:27:01 AM »
False information syndrome has really hurt public health and confidence. 

First they tell us w can't be trusted with real data or contrary opinions, then they find people have no trust - even in good data.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Health Thread (nutrition, medical, longevity, etc)
« Reply #547 on: October 16, 2022, 07:34:27 AM »
Yup.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
ET: Antibiotics linked to fatal heart condition
« Reply #548 on: October 20, 2022, 04:40:22 AM »
Antibiotics Linked to Fatal Heart Condition
HEALTH VIEWPOINTS
Joseph Mercola
JOSEPH MERCOLA
Oct 19 2022
(David Gallaher/Shutterstock)
(David Gallaher/Shutterstock)
This antibiotic contributes to rising problems with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, kidney stones and psychotic episodes; data demonstrates it increases your risk of a fatal heart condition. I’ll share how to avoid this risk.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Fluoroquinolones, long associated with Achilles tendonitis and rupture, have been demonstrated to increase your risk of aortic dissection (a tear in the wall of the major artery, allowing blood to flow between the layers) or aortic rupture, which can lead to death
Even though “black-box” warnings are now attached to them, fluoroquinolones are still often prescribed for upper respiratory infections or urinary tract infections

Antibiotic use can trigger a permanent change in your gut microbiome, which accounts for nearly 80% of your immune system function, so it is important to use antibiotics only when absolutely necessary

You may reduce your risk of bacterial and viral infections by supporting your immune system through simple lifestyle measures, such as quality sleep, fermented foods, regular exercise and optimizing your vitamin D level

Research shows your body’s microbiome has nearly 39 trillion bacteria.[[1] During early years, your family, dietary intake and environmental exposure contribute to the variety in your microbiome, influencing your lifelong health. Everyday activities such as brushing your teeth, eating, kissing someone or handling a family pet also affect your microbiome.

This composition may be as distinct to you as a fingerprint and plays an enormous role in disease prevention, and influences the function of your skin, lungs, breast and liver.[2] Harmful bacteria can trigger illness and disease, which is frequently treated with antibiotics. Of the 10 most commonly prescribed, two are from the antibiotic class of fluoroquinolones.[3]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first added a boxed warning to fluoroquinolones in 2008, due to the increased risk for tendinitis and tendon rupture.[4] Boxed warnings, also referred to as black box warnings, appear on prescription drug labels designed to call attention to serious or life-threatening risks.[5]

An additional warning was added in 2011 for those suffering from myasthenia gravis, and updates were included in 2013 describing irreversible peripheral neuropathy.[6] In 2018, the FDA warned fluoroquinolone antibiotics may increase the occurrence of ruptures or tears in the aorta.[7] And, in January 2022, the FDA decided:[8]

“We have determined that fluoroquinolones should be reserved for use in patients with no other treatment options for acute bacterial sinusitis, or ABS, acute bacterial exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (ABECB), and uncomplicated UTI because the risks generally outweighs the benefits.

For some serious bacterial infections the benefits of fluoroquinolones outweigh the risks, and it is appropriate for them to remain available as a therapeutic option.”

Yet, despite these warnings, researchers found in April 2022 that fluoroquinolones are still among the most-prescribed antibiotics around the world.[9] They concluded that some health care workers may have an “unsatisfactory knowledge” of the safety profiles and risks of these drugs, and that more education on adverse reactions to fluoroquinolones may be needed.

FDA Warning Links Fluoroquinolones With Aortic Damage

The aorta is the main artery in your body supplying oxygenated blood to your circulatory system. The artery comes from the left side of your heart and runs down the front of your backbone. The review by the FDA found fluoroquinolone antibiotics increase the risk of tears in the aorta, also called aortic dissections, or ruptures of an aortic aneurysm, leading to excessive bleeding and death.

The findings occurred when antibiotics were given by mouth or through an injection. This led the FDA to caution against the use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics in those at risk, unless there are no other treatment options available.

Specifically, the antibiotic should not be used in those who are at risk for, or have a current, aortic aneurysm, such as those suffering peripheral atherosclerotic vascular disease, hypertension and specific genetic conditions such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or Marfan syndrome.[10]

Findings were pulled from four published observational studies, which taken together demonstrated a consistent association between aortic dissection or rupture and fluoroquinolone use. The underlying mechanism could not be determined from those studies.

Some of the commonly used fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), levofloxacin (Levaquin), gemifloxacin (Factive) and moxifloxacin (Avelox). These are prescribed to treat upper respiratory and urinary tract infections. In a statement, the FDA warns:[11]

“Fluoroquinolones should not be used in patients at increased risk unless there are no other treatment options available.

Health care professionals should avoid prescribing fluoroquinolone antibiotics to patients who have an aortic aneurysm or are at risk for an aortic aneurysm, such as patients with peripheral atherosclerotic vascular diseases, hypertension, certain genetic conditions such as Marfan syndrome and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and elderly patients.”

Upper Respiratory Infections Are Often Viral

Viruses commonly trigger upper respiratory infections (URIs) with symptoms of runny nose, cough, low grade fever, sore throat and difficulty sleeping. URIs represent the most common acute illness in the outpatient setting, often related to the common cold, which is typically a mild, self-limited inflammation of the mucous membranes in the airways.[12]

Bacterial illness may follow a viral illness as a secondary infection, and commonly includes symptoms persisting longer than 14 days with a fever higher than one might typically expect from a virus. Oftentimes, the fever gets worse a few days into the illness rather than improving.[13]

Unfortunately, one of the more common reasons fluoroquinolones are prescribed is for upper respiratory infections, ordinarily triggered by a virus. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),[14] the highest number of community antibiotic prescriptions are written in the southeastern states.

Fluoroquinolones ranked No. 4 in the highest number of prescriptions written per 1,000 people in the CDC’s outpatient antibiotic prescription index in 2016. Because providers were still opting for fluroquinolones more than they should for respiratory infections such as pneumonia, the CDC reported in 2021 that an expert panel had recommended the use of these drugs for this purpose be lowered by 90%.[15]

Bacterial and viral infections are dissimilar in important respects related to the organism’s structure and the way they respond to medications. Although both are too small to be seen with the naked eye, the largest virus is actually smaller than the smallest bacteria.[16] Unlike the more complex bacteria, viruses cannot survive without a host and only reproduce by attaching themselves to other cells. Also, unlike bacteria, most viruses are specific in the cells they attack.

The differences in the structure and complexity of the organism have an impact on the type of medication that may be effective against it. Viral infections are not affected by antibiotics such as fluoroquinolones. In fact, using antibiotics for viral infections only contributes to the rising number of antibiotic-resistant infections.

Fluoroquinolones Linked to Multiple Health Concerns

Fluoroquinolone antibiotics have been associated with Achilles tendon ruptures and damage for over a decade. Other severe adverse events, such as retinal detachments as well as aortic aneurysms, may also be associated with other systems requiring collagen formation.[17] This may also explain, at least in part, how the drug increases your risk of aortic rupture or dissection, as collagen[18] lines your arteries and veins to allow for stretch as the heart pumps blood.[19]

Subsequently, in July 2022 the FDA mandated another warning, “alerting physicians to the increased risk of tendonitis and tendon rupture associated with their use.”[20] According to Dr. Renata Albrecht, who heads the FDA’s Division of Special Pathogen and Transplant Products, “Achilles’ ruptures associated with fluoroquinolones are three to four times more frequent than ruptures among people not taking these drugs.[21]

So, if you are taking these antibiotics, you should seek immediate medical care if you experience soreness or inflammation in muscles or tendons. You should also not exercise while your joints are affected.

The drugs are also powerful iron chelating agents that may trigger epigenetic changes through the loss of agents requiring iron as a cofactor. As noted in one study, this may also explain the classic renal toxicity associated with the antibiotics:[22]

“At sub-millimolar concentrations, these antibiotics inhibited jumonji domain histone demethylases, TET DNA demethylases and collagen prolyl 4-hydroxylases, leading to accumulation of methylated histones and DNA and inhibition of proline hydroxylation in collagen, respectively. These effects may explain fluoroquinolone-induced nephrotoxicity and tendinopathy.”

A recent study[23] has linked the use of fluoroquinolones to the rising number of children and adults affected by kidney stones. The odds of stones increased 1.5 times with the use of fluoroquinolones and exposure within 3 to 12 months was associated with greater risk. It appeared children and adolescents were particularly susceptible.

Reactions can be bodywide, impacting your central nervous system and musculoskeletal, visual and renal systems, sometimes simultaneously. Among the serious reactions reported are:[24]

Memory impairment
Delirium
Agitation
Disorientation
Retinal detachment[25]
Hearing loss and/or tinnitus[26]
Disturbance in attention
Kidney stones
Kidney failure[27]
Hypoglycemia leading to coma
Aortic rupture or dissection
Tendon rupture or dissection
More Psychiatric Side Effects Than You Might Imagine
Researchers recommend further study to understand the pathogenesis caused by antibiotics in order to treat antibiotic-associated diseases through the mitigation of the intestinal environment — restoring it to its original state.[28]

Further research has demonstrated an imbalance in gut microbiome caused by antibiotics can negatively affect health in a number of ways and for long periods of time.[29] If your physician prescribes one of these dangerous antibiotics, ask to use another one. It would be unusual a fluoroquinolone would be the only antibiotic that could be used to treat your infection.

Remember, these dangerous antibiotics should be used as a last resort only. If it is necessary, be sure to carefully read the package insert and all the warnings, and seek medical attention the moment you notice a side effect.

The late Dr. David Flockhart, who served as professor of medicine and chief of clinical pharmacology at Indiana University School of Medicine, and who before his death was considered one of the leading experts in fluoroquinolone side effects, said in 2012 that “as many as one-third of patients taking a fluoroquinolone will experience some sort of psychiatric side effect.”[30]

But the thing is, Flockhart had tried to call attention to these drugs over 10 years earlier, in 2001, when he decried Ciprio specifically, as he tried to stress just how dangerous fluoroquinolones are:[31]

“Cipro is basically a big gun whose benefits outweigh its risks in certain circumstances. But the bigger the gun you use, the more damage you can expect as collateral.”

Antibiotics Trigger Permanent Changes to Your Gut Microbiome
The health of your gut microbiome is a game changer. It has become increasingly apparent in recent years that the composition of your gut microbiome plays an enormous role in your health and disease prevention. Cancer and many other health conditions have been traced back to the influence of gut microbes, including obesity, depression, Parkinson’s and allergies, just to name a few.

Since your gut is the main residence of your immune system,[32] disrupting your gut microbiome automatically disrupt your immune function, which can have far-reaching consequences. One way antibiotics can promote disease is by creating an oxygen-rich environment in your intestines, favoring the growth of pathogenic bacteria.

Beneficial microbes grow in an anaerobic (no oxygen) environment, while pathogenic bacteria need oxygen to survive.[33] Data suggest even one course of antibiotics can negatively alter your microbiome for up to one year, which is why it’s crucial to use antibiotics only when it is absolutely necessary.[34]

However, Dr. Martin Blaser with the Langone Medical Center at New York University argues the impact of antibiotics on gut bacteria may be permanent. In an editorial in Nature he writes:[35]

“Early evidence from my lab and others hint that, sometimes, our friendly flora never fully recover. These long-term changes to the beneficial bacteria within people’s bodies may even increase our susceptibility to infections and disease.

Overuse of antibiotics could be fueling the dramatic increase in conditions such as obesity, Type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies and asthma, which have more than doubled in many populations.”

Support Your Health and Your Gut
The stronger your immune system, the less chance any microbe will have of gaining a foothold in your body. Below are some basic strategies for supporting your immune system and preventing illness.

Optimize your diet — Avoid foods that tax your immune system, such as trans fats, fried foods, processed foods, sugars and grains. Seek to reduce your net carbohydrate (sugar, grains, fructose) and protein intake, replacing them with high-quality healthy fats.
Balance your gut flora — One of the best ways to support your gut is by incorporating naturally fermented foods into your diet, working up to 4 to 6 ounces per day. You may take a high-quality probiotic supplement, but fermented foods tend to offer the greatest benefit.
Exercise regularly — Exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood, creating a more efficient system at locating and eliminating pathogens in your body. Make sure your fitness plan incorporates weight training, high-intensity exercises, stretching and core work.
Get plenty of restorative sleep — Research shows sleep deprivation has the same effect on your immune system as physical stress or disease, which is why you may feel ill after a sleepless night.
Reduce stress — High levels of stress hormones can diminish your immunity, so be sure you’re implementing some sort of stress management. Meditation, prayer, yoga and Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) are all excellent strategies for managing stress, but you’ll have to find what works best for you.
Optimize vitamin D levels — Studies show inadequate vitamin D can increase your risk for MRSA and other infections. Your best source of vitamin D is through sensible sun exposure. Monitor your vitamin D level to confirm they’re in a therapeutic range of 60 to 80 ng/mL. If you can’t get UV exposure, consider taking an oral vitamin D3 supplement, in conjunction with magnesium and vitamin K2 (MK-7).
In addition to the lifestyle measures listed above, there are natural agents that are naturally antibacterial, including the following:

Vitamin C — Vitamin C’s role in preventing and treating infectious disease is well established. Intravenous vitamin C is an option, but if you don’t have access to a practitioner who can administer it, liposomal vitamin C is the most potent oral form. For more information on vitamin C, listen to my interview with Dr. Ronald Hunninghake (hyperlinked above), an internationally recognized vitamin C expert.
Garlic — Garlic is a powerful antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal. It can stimulate your immune system, help wounds heal and kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria. For highest potency, the garlic should be eaten fresh and raw (chopped or smashed.)
Olive leaf extract — In vitro studies show olive leaf extract is effective against Klebsiella, a gram-negative bacteria, inhibiting its replication, in addition to being toxic to other pathogenic microbes.
Manuka honey — Manuka honey, made from the flowers and pollen of the Manuka bush, has been shown to be more effective than antibiotics in the treatment of serious, hard-to-heal skin infections. Clinical trials have found Manuka honey can effectively eradicate more than 250 clinical strains of bacteria, including resistant varieties such as MRSA.
Tea tree oil — Tea tree oil is a natural antiseptic proven to kill many bacterial strains.[36]
Colloidal silver — Colloidal silver has been regarded as an effective natural antibiotic for centuries, and recent research shows it can even help eradicate antibiotic-resistant pathogens. If you are interested in this treatment, make sure you read the latest guidelines for safe usage of colloidal silver as there are risks with using it improperly.
Originally published Sep 30 2022, on Mercola.com

References
[1] American Microbiome Institute, January 20, 2016

[2] Institute of Science for Society February 26, 2014

[3] Drugs.com, Antibiotics Guide

[4] Food and Drug Administration, July 26, 2016

[5] Food and Drug Administration, A Guide to Drug Safety Terms at the FDA

[6] Food and Drug Administration, July 26, 2016

[7] Food and Drug Administration, December 20, 2018

[8] FDA. FDA Updates Warnings for Oral and Injectable Fluroquinolone Antibiotics Due to Disabling Side Effects. January 19, 2022

[9] Frontiers in Medicine. April 29, 2022

[10] Food and Drug Administration, December 20, 2018

[11] NBC News, December 20, 2018

[12] Medscape, Upper Respiratory Tract Infection

[13] Duke Health, October 1, 2013

[14] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Outpatient Antibiotic Prescriptions — United States, 2016

[15] CDC. 2021 Update on Antibiotic Use in the United States. 2021

[16] Mayo Clinic. Bacterial vs. Viral Infections: How Do They Differ?

[17] BMJ Open, 2015; 5(11)

[18] Collagen, G.A. Holzapfel, P 285

[19] Collagen Complete, Did You Know That the Walls of Your Blood Vessels are Lined With Collagen and Elastin?

[20] ABC News. FDA Mandates Black Box Warning for Some Antibiotics. July 9, 2022

[21] ABC News. FDA Mandates Black Box Warning for Some Antibiotics. July 9, 2022

[22] Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2015;290(36):22287

[23] Renal and Urology News, May 15, 2018, Kidney Stones Linked to Oral Antibiotics

[24] MPR, July 10, 2018

[25] JAMA, 2012;307(13)

[26] Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2018 Apr; 9(4): 219–221

[27] Drug Safety, 2000;22(6):479

[28] Yonsei Medical Journal, 2018;59(1):4

[29] Frontiers in Microbiology, 2015;6:1543

[30] Forbes, Antibiotic Alert: The Drug the Doctor Ordered Could Cause Deadly Side Effects,” September 30, 2012

[31] UCLA Department of Epidemiology, “Drug of Choice Has a Downside,” October 29, 2001

[32] Hopkinsmedicine.org, November 2015

[33] Cell Host & Microbe 2016;19(4):443

[34] Cell Host & Microbe 2016;19(4):443

[35] Wired, August 26, 2011

[36] Journal of Hospital Infection, 2004;56(4):28

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Statins and Diabetes
« Reply #549 on: October 31, 2022, 07:56:59 AM »
Statins Double Diabetes Rates
Your risk of diabetes may even triple with long-term use.
HEALTH VIEWPOINTS
Joseph Mercola
Joseph Mercola
Oct 29 2022
biggersmaller
The data also indicated that individuals taking statin medications had a 6.5% increased risk of high blood sugar as measured by hemoglobin A1c values.  (Proxima Studio/Shutterstock)
The data also indicated that individuals taking statin medications had a 6.5% increased risk of high blood sugar as measured by hemoglobin A1c values. (Proxima Studio/Shutterstock)
Cholesterol lowering medications have a long history of side effects and adverse events. Research finds your risk of diabetes may double, or even triple, with long-term use. Lower your risk of cardiovascular events without using medications.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
While past research has indicated statins increase your risk of diabetes, data demonstrate they double your risk of Type 2 diabetes, and when taken for more than two years may even triple your risk
Statins work by blocking a liver enzyme your body uses to make cholesterol; blocking this enzyme triggers a depletion of CoQ10 and vitamin K2, both necessary for heart health and the prevention of some cancers. Your body makes cholesterol as it is necessary for the production of hormones and cell walls, and to produce substances to digest food
While the relative risk reduction of a cardiovascular event with statin medications is between 20% and 25%, the absolute risk, or the actual difference in rates of coronary death is 2.3%
Additional risks associated with statin medications include neurodegenerative diseases, musculoskeletal disorders, cataracts and heart disease; consider using natural approaches to improve your cardiovascular health
Statins are a type of medication prescribed to lower cholesterol levels. They work by blocking an enzyme in the liver your body uses to make cholesterol.1 Although vilified for many years as causing heart attacks and stroke,2 your body makes cholesterol as it is needed to produce hormones, build cell membranes and produce substances used to digest food.3

Cholesterol is found in foods from animals, such as dairy products and meats.4 Your body makes the fatty substance cholesterol, but it cannot travel in the bloodstream alone.5 The body encases small particles of cholesterol inside protein particles that are able to mix easily with the blood. These are called lipoproteins and they’re responsible for transporting cholesterol.6

One of the main types of lipoproteins is high-density lipoprotein (HDL), sometimes called the “good” cholesterol as its job is to collect cholesterol and deliver it to your liver where it’s removed.7

Low density lipoprotein (LDL) and very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) are often referred to as “bad.”8 It’s important to remember that only 20% of the cholesterol in your body is acquired from the food you eat, while the rest is made by your body.9

Prescriptions for statins are written to reduce the levels of cholesterol made by the body.10 However, since your body is so complex, changing one factor often results in unintended events, sometimes called side effects or adverse reactions.11 As suggested by one study, one adverse reaction from statin drugs may be doubling your risk of Type 2 diabetes.12

Risk of Diabetes Doubles With Cholesterol Medication
Past studies have demonstrated that statins increase the risk of diabetes.13 A new study led by a graduate researcher at The Ohio State University14 explored this link in research published in Diabetes Metabolism Research and Reviews. The study was a retrospective evaluation of medical records using employees and spouses from a private insurance plan.

Yearly biometric screening, health surveys, medical claims and pharmacy data were gathered from 2011 through 2014.15 Individuals who had indications for statin use, or who had a previous cardiovascular event, were enrolled. Adults who had Type 2 diabetes before the study or who acquired it in the first 90 days were excluded.

Records were classified as belonging to a statin user if they had two or more prescriptions filled, but individuals using statins before January 2011 or within the first 90 days of enrollment in the insurance were excluded. Data were collected from 755 individuals using statins and 3,928 who were not.16

After accounting for factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, education and body mass index, the researchers found those who used statins during the study were two times as likely to be diagnosed with diabetes than those who did not take statin medications.17

Interestingly, individuals who used statin drugs longer than two years experienced an increased risk of more than three times as likely to get the disease.18 The data also indicated that individuals taking statin medications had a 6.5% increased risk of high blood sugar as measured by hemoglobin A1c values.

The hemoglobin A1c blood test is an average level of blood sugar measuring the past 60 to 90 days.19 The test measures how much sugar is bound to hemoglobin on red blood cells. Since red blood cells live for up to 90 days, the test is an average of your blood glucose level during this time.

Take One Medicine for the Side Effects of Another
In 2012, the FDA20 approved changes to labels on statin medications to provide information on adverse events, including reports of increased blood sugar and higher A1c testing. Other side effects listed on the label included cognitive effects such as memory loss and confusion.

While there had been reports of rare but serious liver conditions in those taking statin medications,21 in the same announcement, the FDA22 removed the need for routine monitoring of liver enzymes and recommended they should be performed before starting therapy and then as clinically necessary. Since severe injury was rare, they concluded routine monitoring would not be effective.

The NHS, National Health Services from England, recommends23 statins should not be used in those with severe liver disease since they affect your liver and are “more likely to cause serious problems if you already have a severely damaged liver.”

In 2014,24 one team of researchers discovered adding Glyburide to a statin regimen suppressed the immune response they believed was responsible for the development of Type 2 diabetes. The team led by Jonathan Schertzer, Ph.D., from McMaster University, believed this finding may lead to a next generation of statins. As reported in a press release:25

“Recently, an increased risk of diabetes has been added to the warning label for statin use. This was perplexing to us because if you are improving your metabolic profile with statins you should actually be decreasing the incidence of diabetes with these drugs, yet, the opposite happened.

We found that statins activated a very specific immune response, which stopped insulin from doing its job properly. So we connected the dots and found that combining statins with another drug on top of it, Glyburide, suppressed this side effect.”

In other words, to offset a significant adverse event from one drug, the team recommended the addition of a second drug, which comes with an additional list of side effects including vasculitis, hyponatremia (low blood sodium associated with confusion, seizures and muscle weakness),26 alopecia and liver damage.27

One journalist for Diabetes.co.uk commented on this turn of events, saying: “However, as glyburide stimulates insulin production, using a type 2 diabetes drug to prevent type 2 diabetes seems a peculiar treatment.”28

Statins Trigger High Number of Side Effects
Statin medications deplete your body of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which may account for some of the devastating long-term results. It was strongly suggested29 the FDA add a black box warning to statin medications to advise patients and physicians about this, but in 2014 the FDA decided against it.30

The reduction in CoQ10 may be responsible for an increased risk of acute heart failure31 and atherosclerosis, as reported in a 2015 scientific investigation.32 The study addressed physiological mechanisms in the reduction of CoQ10, including the inhibition of the synthesis of vitamin K2 necessary to protect against arterial calcification.

A reduction in vitamin K2 may contribute to osteoporosis,33 heart disease,34 brain disease35 and inappropriate calcification.36 Statins have also been associated with an increased risk of neurodegenerative diseases,37 cataracts,38 cancer.39,40 and musculoskeletal disorders.41

In one study,42 a research team evaluated the use of statins in patients with terminal illnesses who had a high likelihood of dying within one year. They found those who stopped taking statins had a mean survival of 39 more days than those who continued to take statins — 229 days without statins and 190 days with statins.

Although the FDA calls liver complications rare, one physician’s43 search of MedWatch, the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting Program, found 5,405 individuals reporting hepatitis or liver function abnormalities associated with just two statin medications between 2006 and 2013.

Effectiveness of Statins Lower Than Publicized
How effective a medication may or may not be is expressed as relative risk or absolute risk.44 If the type of risk is not identified it may be difficult to determine whether taking action would affect you.

For instance, if a medication under investigation to prevent prostate cancer enrolls 200 men and splits them into two equal groups, one is likely to receive a placebo and the other is likely to receive the experimental drug. In the placebo group, two men may develop prostate cancer; in the treatment group, perhaps only one man develops it. When compared, the researchers find there’s a 50% reduction in relative risk.

Relative risk is determined by comparing the number between two groups. One man developed it in the treatment group and two in the control group. Since one is half of 2, there’s a 50% reduction in the development of the disease. The absolute risk is far smaller.

The risk of developing prostate cancer in the control group was 2%, since two out of 100 developed prostate cancer, but in the treatment group it was 1%. This means there’s a 1% absolute risk of developing prostate cancer with the medication as compared to 2%. Your absolute risk is not 50% less but rather just 1% less when taking the medication.

Knowing the difference between relative risk and absolute risk is necessary when balancing the benefits of statin medications against the side effects and adverse events. If you are in a position of needing to decide to use statin medications, it’s important to note the relative reduction in risk of a major cardiac event while using statins was between 20% and 25%.

In the case of having to decide whether the potential benefits of statins are worth the known risks, for example, it’s important to consider a report from 2016. In an Expert Analysis article, it was noted that a meta-analysis45 of 27 randomized trials revealed that “[F]or every ~40mg/dL LDL-C reduction with statin therapy, the relative risk of major adverse events is reduced by ~20-25%, and all-cause mortality is reduced by 10%.”

While another study found a similar relative risk, the actual difference in rates of coronary death in the population was 9% in the placebo group and 6.7% in those who were treated with statins.46

Researchers therefore found the difference between the treated and untreated groups was a mere 2.3% and not the inflated relative risk of 28%. They wrote that while the reduction in relative risk appears impressive to some readers, this form of data presentation is misleading.47

Simple Strategies to Normalize Your Cholesterol Levels
Before becoming concerned about your cholesterol levels, it’s important to evaluate whether you really need a statin drug to reduce your risk of a cardiovascular event. Updated guidelines published by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology are based on a personalized risk assessment.48

However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services critically evaluates those with cholesterol levels over 200 milligrams per deciliter.49 I believe this total cholesterol measurement has little benefit in evaluating your risk for heart disease unless the number is over 300.

In some instances, high cholesterol may indicate a problem, provided it’s your LDL or triglycerides and you have low HDL. A better evaluation of your risk of heart disease are these two ratios in combination with other lifestyle factors, such as your iron level and diet.

HDL/Cholesterol ratio — Divide your HDL level by your cholesterol. This ratio should ideally be above 24%.
Triglyceride/HDL ratio — Divide your triglyceride level by your HDL. This ratio should ideally be below 2. Data demonstrate a ratio greater than four is a powerful predictor of coronary artery disease.50
You have control over your health and may protect your heart and lower your risk of heart disease by following suggestions affecting your lifestyle and exposure to environmental toxins.

Originally published October 27, 2022 on Mercola.com

Sources and References
1 Medical News Today, July 17, 2017
2 Harvard Health Publishing, Cholesterol
3, 4, 7, 8 Medline Plus, Cholesterol
5, 6, 9 Harvard Health Publishing, February 2017
10 American Heart Association, Cholesterol Medications
11 Food and Drug Administration, July 19, 2018
12, 15, 16 Diabetes Metabolism Research and Reviews, May 24, 2019; doi:10.1002/dmrr.3189
13 Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 2014;5(3):181
14, 17, 18 Medical News Today, June 26, 2019
19 CDC. All About Your A1C
20, 22 Food and Drug Administration, January 19, 2016
21 Hepatology, 2014;60(2):679
23 NHS, Statins, Considerations
24 Diabetes, 2014;63(11)
25 EurekAlert! June 11, 2014
26 MayoClinic, Hyponatremia
27 Drugs.com, Glyburide Side Effects
28 Diabetes.co.uk, June 23, 2015
29 Holistic Primary Care, October 15, 2002
30 Lawyers and Settlements, January 16, 2015
31 BMJ Open Heart, 2015;2:e000326 doi:10.1136/openhrt-2015-000326
32 Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, 2015;8(2)
33 Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2017;2017:6254836
34 Current Nutrition Reports, 2017;6(3):197
35 Frontiers in Neurology, 2019;10:239
36 Integrative Medicine, 2015;14(1):34
37 Movement Disorders 2015; doi.org/10.1002/mds.26152
38 JAMA Ophthalmology 2013;131(11):1427
39 The Prostate. 2011;71(16):1818
40 Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(9):1529
41 JAMA Internal Medicine 2013;173(14):1318
42 JAMA Internal Medicine, 2015;175(5):691
43 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Adverse Effects of Statin Drugs: A Physician Patient’s Perspective
44 Institute for Work & Health. Absolute and Relative Risk. November 2006
45 American College of Cardiology, 2016; Summarizing the Current State and Evidence on Efficacy and Safety of Statin Therapy
46, 47 BMJ, 2017;358:j4171
48 American Heart Association, November 10, 2018
49 National Cholesterol Education Program, High Blood Cholesterol What You Need to Know
50 Clinics, 2008;63(4)