Reinventing the Fountain of Youth
Posts tagged Cancer
The Meat You Should Never, Ever Eat…
0257 days
“Is your meat made of scraps stuck together with “meat glue”? This exposé reveals how you may be being deceived about the meat you buy – and why the dangerous practice makes food poisoning hundreds of times more likely. If you are still on the fence, wondering if you should make the switch to organic, grass-fed beef from a local farm instead of the mass-produced variety from your local supermarket, perhaps this news brief from the Australian Today Tonight show will help change your mind. If you haven’t yet seen the video, please click through and be ready to be amazed.
By now most people probably realize that ground beef contains the meat from hundreds of animals from different parts of the world, but few would ever suspect that the same can be true for prime cut steaks! Well, that’s possible through the use of so-called meat glue, used to “super-glue” small chunks of meat together that are too small to sell, and passing it off as prime cuts…
What is Meat Glue?
Meat glue is an enzyme called transglutaminase. Some meat glues are produced through the cultivation of bacteria, while others are made from the blood plasma of pigs and cows, specifically the coagulant that makes blood clot. When sprinkled on a protein, such as beef, it forms cross-linked, insoluble protein polymers that essentially acts like a super-glue, binding the pieces together with near invisible seams. The glue-covered meat is rolled up in plastic film, followed by refrigeration. Some manufacturers have gotten so proficient in the practice that even an expert butcher can’t tell the difference between a piece of prime beef and one that’s been glued together with bits and pieces of scraps! Meat glue is also used for: pork/ham, lamb, fish products such as fish balls, chicken, imitation crab meat, and processed meats.
Interestingly enough, Ajinomoto is one of the leaders in transglutaminase. You may recognize that name as they are also one of the leaders in aspartame. According to their website, transglutaminase is also used to “improve the general texture” of a variety of foods aside from meat, such as fat-free yoghurt and cheese.
Meat Glue—Both Unethical and Potentially Dangerous:
First, there’s the obvious issue of misleading consumers. Since food manufacturers are not required to disclose what they’ve done, you think you’re buying a prime cut when in fact you’re paying top dollar for glued-together bits and pieces that would otherwise have been discarded or sold for a fraction of the cost. But aside from the fact that it’s a pure scam, there’s the increased possibility of contracting food poisoning from these meats.
According to the featured report, the bacterial contamination of meat glued steak is hundreds of times higher than a solid piece of steak! Hence, if you cook your steak rare, which is the healthiest way to cook your meat, you’re at a much greater risk of contracting food poisoning. Additionally, when an outbreak does occur, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to discern the source of the contamination, as chunks of meat from multiple cows have now been combined.
Food poisoning is a serious problem in the US. According to US CDC estimates, anywhere between 6 to 81 million Americans contract food borne illnesses each year, and food poisoning claims up to 9,000 lives annually. Considering the fact that our current food system encourages pathogens and contamination’s of all kinds, it’s not all that surprising that as many as one in four people get sickened each year…
The Dangers of Mass Food Production:
Many people are still in the dark about the vast differences between Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and organically-raised, grass-fed beef, both in terms of contamination and nutrient content. It’s important to understand that when you raise animals in a CAFO – away from their natural environments and diets – you dramatically increase the risk of pathogenic contamination that can make you ill. Just take a look at the 2011 USDA list of recalls for various meat products. We’re not even half-way through the year and the list is already a long one.
Most CAFO cows are fed grains (oftentimes genetically modified grains, which make matters even worse), when their natural diet is plain grass. Grain diets create a much higher level of acidity in the animal’s stomach, which E. coli bacteria need to survive. Meanwhile, E. coli contamination is actually quite rare in organic beef for this reason—the cows just aren’t susceptible to those kinds of disease-causing bacteria and viruses when they eat what they were designed to eat.
You’d think that since the meat is being raised in ways that are known to encourage disease-causing organisms, there’d be stringent requirements on testing. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. For example, there is no federal requirement for meat grinders to test their ingredients for E.coli prior to selling them. And most retailers do not test either. In August 2008, the USDA issued a guideline urging meat processors to test their ingredients before grinding. But the guideline is only optional and has been met with criticism and resistance from the meat industry.
Other Health-Harming Side Effects of Mass Food Production:
Modern mass production of food has created a wide array of safety problems. And the methods employed to make food “safer” typically deepens rather than solves them. In fact, once you delve into the world of the food industry, it becomes clear that eating much of it is like playing a game of Russian roulette with your health.
While I’m not going to address them all here, one problem in particular, which relates to the issue of meat, is the issue of contamination with hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides. As much as 70 percent of all antibiotics used in the U.S. are for animals, primarily to serve as growth enhancers. The excessive use of antibiotics in agriculture is the primary reason for the rampant increase in antibiotic-resistant disease in humans.
As for pesticides, most people do not realize that conventionally-raised meat is actually one of the primary sources of pesticide exposure—not fruits and vegetables! How’s that? Again, it goes back to the fact that CAFO animals are raised on a diet consisting primarily of grains, which are of course sprayed with pesticides. Genetically modified (GM) grains are another growing problem. Not only are they sprayed with MORE pesticides than conventional crops, but we also do not know exactly what the health effects on humans might be when you eat meat raised on GM grains.
However, in an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, warns that a never-before-seen plant pathogen in Roundup Ready GM soybean and corn appears to be responsible for high rates of infertility and miscarriages in cattle. In the letter, posted on the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance website, Dr. Huber states: “This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.
Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting. The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.”
Whether or not this could affect humans who consume these grains or meats raised on them is yet unknown, but I wouldn’t be the least surprised if that’s exactly what we’ll eventually find…
Meat Glue May Be the Least of Your Problems when it Comes to Processed Meats:
As mentioned earlier, meat glue is also commonly used in processed meats, but that may be the least of your problems in this case. Processed meats are so bad for your health that I am firmly convinced they should NEVER be consumed. But that’s not just my opinion. It’s also the conclusion reached by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) after reviewing more than 7,000 clinical studies examining the connection between diet and cancer.
Processed meats are those preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or the addition of chemical preservatives. This includes bacon, ham, pastrami, salami, pepperoni, hot dogs, some sausages and hamburgers (if they have been preserved with salt or chemical additives) and more. Particularly problematic are the nitrates that are added to these meats as a preservative, coloring and flavoring. The nitrates found in processed meats are frequently converted into nitrosamines, which are clearly associated with an increased risk of certain cancers.
The latest research from WCRF is only the most recent of a slew of evidence linking processed meats to cancer. A 2007 analysis by WCRF found that eating just one sausage a day can significantly raise your risk of bowel cancer. Specifically, 1.8 ounces of processed meat daily – about one sausage or three pieces of bacon – raises the likelihood of the cancer by 20 percent. Other studies have also found that processed meats increase your risk of:
- Colon cancer by 50 percent
- Bladder cancer by 59 percent
- Stomach cancer by 38 percent
- Pancreatic cancer by 67 percent
And that’s not all. Hot dogs, bacon, salami and other processed meats may also increase your risk of diabetes by 50 percent, and lower your lung function and increase your risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Why is Grass-Fed Beef Your Best Choice?
A safer option, as many consumers are now beginning to appreciate, is to choose locally grown and raised foods over those that have been mass produced, despite label claims of being “natural” or “organic.” When selecting beef, grass-fed beef that has NOT been “finished off on corn” is definitely your healthiest option as it is:
- A natural source of healthy omega-3 fats – Omega-3s in cattle that feed on grass is 7 percent of the total fat content, compared to just 1 percent in grain-only fed beef. It also has the optimal ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats (3:1)
- High in CLA (Conjugated Linoleic Acid); a fat that reduces your risk of cancer, obesity, diabetes, and a number of immune disorders
- High in beta carotene
- Loaded with over 400 percent more of vitamins A and E
- Virtually devoid of risk of Mad Cow Disease
You know, the rationale behind my nutritional guidelines really boil down to plain old common sense. My recommendations stem largely from what scientific research has determined are the types of foods that humans are naturally designed to eat. Health problems invariably surface the further you stray from eating such foods. Another way to say this would be that your body’s biochemical make-up is adversely affected if you eat things that aren’t right for you.
One result of this is that your body’s composition will inevitably change. Why would things be any different for a cow? When you think of a cow in its natural environment, doing what it naturally does, you likely will picture it grazing. Is it grazing on stalks of corn? Of course not! It’s grazing on green grass. (Animals given a choice will also avoid genetically modified grains, which really should tell us something…) When cows eat grains, their body composition changes in detrimental ways, just like your body and health changes for the worse when you eat lots of junk- and fast food. Most importantly for you, these changes include an alteration in the balance of fatty acids in their bodies, which leads to an imbalance in YOUR intake of omega-3 and omega-6s as well.
Does the E. Coli Risk Decrease With Grass-Fed Beef?
Yes, it does. Grass-finished beef has a minimal risk compared to grain-fed beef due to the difference in epigastric pH in the two diets. Grain diets create a much higher level of acidity in the animal’s stomach, which is exactly what the E.coli bacteria need to survive and thrive. Additionally, grass-finished animals live in clean grass pastures—as opposed to dirty, crowded pens—where higher levels of sanitation greatly reduce the risk of contamination as well.
How to Make Healthier Meat Choices:
If you want to eat beef in a truly healthful way (and yes, meat can be, and is, healthy), while at the same time avoiding getting fooled by glued piece-meats passed off as prime steak, follow these guidelines:
- The beef should be organic and grass-fed
- It should ideally come from a local farmer (try finding a farmer’s market or community-supported agriculture program in your area to do this) who can verify that the products are raised on pasture without antibiotics and pesticides, and who can tell you which cuts you’re actually getting
- The animals should be allowed to live in their natural habitats, eating their natural diets
- The farmer should be aware of the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat – and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems
As you may know, I recommend eating as much food raw as possible, including meat. However, it absolutely MUST be grass-fed! You’re literally risking your life if you eat conventionally-raised CAFO meat raw due to the high rate of pathogenic contamination. That goes for both prime cuts and the glued variety.”
Source: http://articles.mercola.com/
Share and Enjoy
Bioidentical Hormones, Waking Up From the Synthetic Hormone Nightmare
131286 days
Shirley is 52, and suffering from menopausal symptoms of hot flashes, night sweats, insomnia and mood disturbance. The next chance she had, Shirley asked her doctor for bioidentical hormones. Instead, her doctor offered her a prescription for Lexapro, an SSRI antidepressant. Shirley declined the prescription and ran out the door crying all the way home. A few days later, Shirley was sitting in my office asking, “Why won’t my doctor give me what I want, bioidentical hormones?”
Ghost Writing – A Shocking Medical Scandal
I explained to Shirley that her doctor’s opinion is shaped by misleading information in medical journals corrupted by a technique called medical ghostwriting, a shocking scandal uncovered by Senator Grassley’s Committee.(1) In this sinister practice, the prestigious name of an academic MD “opinion leader” appears as author. However, unknown to the reader, the article is actually written by the drug company’s paid-for-hire writers. Grassley discovered that sixty articles on women’s hormones were ghostwritten, downplaying the adverse effects of synthetic hormones, and casting doubts about bioidentical hormones. Medical ghostwriting is scientific misconduct and fraud which harms society and corrupts the medical literature.
A Brief History of Synthetic Hormones – Re-Living the Nightmare
Let’s review a short history of synthetic hormone replacement as brought to you by the Drug Industry. (2) Many people have forgotten about the disaster of DES, Diethylstilbestrol, the first synthetic hormone invented in 1938. This carcinogenic, monster hormone was approved by the FDA and given to millions of women from 1940 until it was banned in 1975 when it was shown carcinogenic. The first report of cervical cancer in the daughters of DES treated women was published in April 1971 in the New England Journal of Medicine.(3-4)
Next, the Drug Industry invented Premarin, a horse estrogen isolated from the urine of pregnant horses. Available since FDA approval in 1942, Premarin has caused an estimated 15,000 cases of endometrial cancer, representing the largest epidemic of serious iatrogenic disease ever reported.(5-8) One might think this would be the end of any drug. However Premarin was promptly rehabilitated with the addition of another synthetic hormone, a progestin, to prevent endometrial cancer. Thus, in 1995, Prempro was born, a synthetic hormone pill containing both Premarin (the horse estrogen) and Provera (the progestin). Again, this was FDA approved, thought safe and handed out freely to millions of women.
However, storm clouds soon appeared on the horizon when four large scale studies showed increased breast cancer and heart disease from this estrogen-progestin combination pill. The Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project, published in 2000, showed an eight fold increase in breast cancer for estrogen-progestin users.(9) The Swedish Record Review, published in 1996, had a fourfold increase in breast cancer with progestin use.(10) The Million Woman study, published in Lancet in 2003, had a fourfold increase in breast cancer for estrogen-progestin combination users compared to estrogen alone users.(11) The brakes came on to this synthetic hormone experiment in 2002 with the JAMA publication of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), an NIH funded study terminated early because of increased breast cancer and heart disease in the estrogen-progestin users.(12)
Abandoning the Synthetic Hormone Ship
Two important things happened after this 2002 WHI study was published. Smart women abandoned synthetic hormones and switched in large number to bioidentical hormones, producing an immediate decline in breast cancer rates of about nine per cent.(13,14) A second important thing happened. Apparently, women have decided to turn to lawyers to protect them, since the FDA has been unable to do so. Thirteen thousand women have filed cases in court claiming synthetic hormones caused their breast cancer. These cases are slowly working their way through the court system, and the jury is still out, so stay tuned.(15)
Dispelling the Myths and Misconceptions
Over the years, I have compiled a list of myths and misinformation commonly encountered about bioidentical hormones in newspapers and magazines. Here are a few of them, followed by the corrections. The misinformation is in italics, with the correct information to follow.
Myth Number One: “The term bioidentical hormone is undefined and has no meaning.”
This is incorrect. Bioidentical is a term which is defined as having the exact same chemical structure as hormones found naturally in the human body. Bioidentical Hormones are the ones circulating in your blood stream right now.
Myth Number Two: “There is no proof that Bioidentical Hormones are safer and more effective than synthetic hormones…All of the evidence that we have suggests that all of these hormones should be painted with the same brush,”
This is incorrect and misleading. As we have seen in the above short history of synthetic hormones, there exists a large body of science showing that synthetic chemically altered hormones cause cancer and heart disease.(9-14) On the other hand, medical studies have found bioidentical hormones are safe with no increase in breast cancer or heart disease compared to non-hormone users. (33-41) An excellent review of this medical science can be found in a 2009 article by Kent Holtorf MD in Postgraduate Medicine. (16)
Myth Number Three: “Bioidentical Hormones are not FDA approved.”
This is blatantly incorrect. There are twenty or so FDA approved bioidentical hormone preparations widely available at corner drug stores. Here are a few examples: Vivelle-Dot, Estrace, Climara, Prometrium, Androgel , etc.
Myth Number Four: “Bioidentical Hormones made by compounding pharmacies are Non-FDA approved.”
This is not only incorrect, it is misleading and deceptive. Compounding pharmacies are regulated at the state level, and do not fall under FDA jurisdiction. So, of course compounding is not FDA approved. No FDA approval is required or even desired. Your local hospital pharmacy is a compounding pharmacy that makes up life saving medication such as IV antibiotics with no FDA oversight or “approval”. The FDA approval process is designed for manufactured capsules and tablets, and is impractical and unnecessary for compounded medications prepared to order by hand. Are we going to reject IV antibiotics from the hospital pharmacy because these are non-FDA approved compounded medication? Of course not. Compounding is here to stay.
Myth Number Five: “Unless a woman has symptoms of hot flashes and night sweats, she doesn’t need hormones.”
This is incorrect. In addition to night sweats and hot flashes, there are many other valid symptoms of hormone deficiency such as insomnia, cognitive dysfunction, menopausal arthritis, evaporative dry eye, anxiety, panic, mood disorder, vaginal dryness, and decreased libido and post hysterectomy. These are all good indications for prescribing bioidentical hormones. (17-25)
Myth Number Six: “The idea that Menopause is a Hormone Deficiency Disease was disproven, and the idea that hormone replacement rejuvenates youth, or prevents degenerative diseases is also disproven….Hormones decline with age, and is normal and does not require treatment.”
This is incorrect. There is no question that hormonal decline is a health risk. Three separate studies have shown low testosterone in males carries a 40% increase in mortality.(26-28) Studies in females show the same findings, with low hormone levels in women after hysterectomy associated with increased mortality. (29)(30) Hormonal decline is a direct cause of degenerative diseases of aging, all of which may be prevented or partially reversed by replenishing hormone levels, a vastly more effective treatment which competes directly with the Drug Industry.(42-46)
Myth Number Seven: “Hot flashes and sweats in menopausal women can be treated with SSRI antidepressants. They don’t need to use hormones.”
This is not only wrong, it is criminal. The use of SSRI antidepressants for menopausal symptoms is NOT FDA approved, and is a cruel mistreatment and medical victimization of women. This practice should be halted immediately. Studies of SSRI drugs show they are no better than placebo for most cases of depression(31), and they are not much better than placebo for menopausal hot flashes. (32) Synthetic hormones are bad enough, they cause cancer and heart disease. SSRI drugs like Lexepro, Effexor and Pristiq are even worse; they are chemically addictive with horrendous withdrawal effects. Avoid becoming a medical victim. Stay away.
In Conclusion:
It is time to awaken from the nightmare of synthetic hormones, known for decades to cause cancer and heart disease. You can put lipstick on a pig, and it is still a pig. The drug industry can spin, deceive, and misleading the medical journals and media. Yet, after all the lies and propaganda, synthetic hormones remain monsters that should be avoided. Smart women have made the switch to safer and more effective bioidentical hormones. The future of medicine is your choice to make. Hopefully, this article has awakened you to the natural choice.
For More Information, here are some leaders in the field of bioidentical hormones providing trustworthy information in books, articles and web sites: David Brownstein MD, Kenton Bruice MD, John Crisler DO, Kent Holtorf MD, Steve Hotze MD, Sangeeta Pati MD, CW Randolph MD, Ron Rothenberg MD, Erika Schwartz MD, Jonathan Wright MD, and Joseph Mc Wherter MD.
Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes and not intended as medical advice, and it is recommended you work closely with a knowledgeable physician before making any decisions regarding hormone treatment. Please feel free to share this article with your doctor.
Jeffrey Dach MD
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 190
Davie, Florida 33314
(954) 792-4663 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (954) 792-4663 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
http://www.drdach.com
Author Biography: Jeffrey Dach MD is founder of the TrueMedMD clinic in Davie, Florida specializing in bioidentical hormones and natural thyroid. He is the author of the book, Natural Medicine 101 available on Amazon, and offers a free email newsletter.
References
(1) http://grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/Senator-Grassley-Report.pdf Ghostwriting in Medical Literature Minority Staff Report 111th Congress United States Senate Committee on Finance Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member June 24, 2010
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13drug.html Menopause, as Brought to You by Big Pharma By NATASHA SINGER and DUFF WILSON Published: December 12, 2009
(3) http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM197104222841604 Adenocarcinoma of the Vagina — Association of Maternal Stilbestrol Therapy with Tumor Appearance in Young Women. Arthur L. Herbst, M.D., Howard Ulfelder, M.D., and David C. Poskanzer, M.D. N Engl J Med 1971; 284:878-881April 22, 1971
(4) http://www.jstor.org/pss/2683841 Epidemiologic Evidence for Adverse Effects of DES Exposure during Pregnancy Theodore Colton and E. Robert Greenberg The American Statistician Vol. 36, No. 3, Part 2: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Statistics and the Environment (Aug., 1982), pp. 268-272
(5) http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/70/3/264.pdf The Epidemic of Endometrial Cancer:A Commentary Hershel Jick et al.Am J Public Health 70:264-267, 1980.
(6) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM197512042932303 Increased Risk of Endometrial Carcinoma among Users of Conjugated Estrogens. Harry K. Ziel, M.D., and William D. Finkle, Ph.D. N Engl J Med 1975; 293:1167-1170 December 4, 1975
(7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/213722 N Engl J Med. 1979 Jan 4;300(1):9-13. Endometrial cancer and estrogen use. Report of a large case-control study. Antunes CM, Strolley PD, Rosenshein NB, Davies JL, Tonascia JA, Brown C, Burnett L, Rutledge A, Pokempner M, Garcia R.
(8) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3358913
The dose-effect relationship between ‘unopposed’ oestrogens and endometrial mitotic rate: its central role in explaining and predicting endometrial cancer risk.Key TJ, Pike MC.
Br J Cancer. 1988 Feb;57(2):205-12.
(9) http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/283/4/485.abstract Menopausal Estrogen and Estrogen-Progestin Replacement Therapy and Breast Cancer Risk. Catherine Schairer, PhD et al. JAMA. 2000;283(4):485-491.
(10) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19960729)67:3%3C327::AID-IJC4%3E3.0.CO;2-T/pdf
see also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8707404
Cancer incidence and mortality in women receiving estrogen and estrogen-progestin replacement therapy—long-term follow-up of a Swedish cohort. Ingemar Persson et al. International Journal of Cancer Volume 67, Issue 3, pages 327–332, 29 July 1996
(11) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12927427 Lancet. 2003 Aug 9;362(9382):419-27. Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Beral V; Million Women Study Collaborators.
(12) http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/3/321
Risks and Benefits of Estrogen Plus Progestin in Healthy Postmenopausal Women
Principal Results From the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial
Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators JAMA. 2002;288:321-333.
(13) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr070105 The Decrease in Breast-Cancer Incidence in 2003 in the United States. Peter M. Ravdin, Ph.D., M.D et al. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1670-1674 April 19, 2007. A comparison of incidence rates in 2001 with those in 2004 (omitting the years in which the incidence was changing) showed that the decrease in annual age-adjusted incidence was 8.6% .
(14) http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/09/23/jnci.djq345.abstract Breast Cancer Incidence and Hormone Replacement Therapy in Canada by Prithwish De, C. Ineke Neutel, Ivo Olivotto and Howard Morrison. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst (2010) . This drop occurred concurrently with a 9.6% decline in the incidence rate of breast cancer
(15) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-27/pfizer-settles-arkansas-prempro-case-before-retrial-over-punitive-damages.html Pfizer Said to Pay $330 Million to Settle Prempro Lawsuits Claiming Cancer By Jef Feeley – Feb 9, 2011 4:42 PM ET
(16)http://jeffreydach.com/files/80618-70584/The_Bioidentical_Hormone_Debate_Ken_Holtorf_MD.pdf
Postgraduate Medicine: Volume 121: No.1 January 2009. The Bioidentical Hormone Debate:Are Bioidentical Hormones (Estradiol, Estriol, and Progesterone) Safer or More Efficacious than Commonly Used Synthetic Versions in Hormone Replacement Therapy? Kent Holtorf, MD
(17) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11386980 Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001 Jun;58(6):529-34. Efficacy of estradiol for the treatment of depressive disorders in perimenopausal women: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. by Soares CN et al.
(18) http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/4/605 Neurology 2001;57:605-612, 2001 American Academy of Neurology High-dose estradiol improves cognition for women with AD Results of a randomized study by S. Asthana, MD et al.
(19) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19804793 Estradiol reduces anxiety- and depression-like behavior of aged female mice by Alicia A. Walf and Cheryl A. Frye Neuroscience
(20) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16142740 Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Sep;52(9):2594-8. Aromatase inhibitors and the syndrome of arthralgias with estrogen deprivation. Felson DT, Cummings SR.
(21) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9609575 Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 May;178(5):1002-9.When does estrogen replacement therapy improve sleep quality? Polo-Kantola P et al.
(22) http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/512093 “Menopausal Arthritis” May Develop in Women Receiving Estrogen-Depleting Treatments News Author: Laurie Barclay, MD CME Author: Désirée Lie, MD, MSEd
(23) http://www.emaxhealth.com/70/3606.html Women treated with aromatase inhibitors often experience joint pain and musculoskeletal aching: severe enough, in some cases, to make them stop the treatment.
(24) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11173183 Maturitas. 2001 Jan 31;37(3):209-12. Treatment of keratoconjunctivitis sicca with topical androgen. by Worda C et al.
(25) http://abstracts.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/5/2450 Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44: E-Abstract 2450. Treatment of Dry Eye with a Transdermal 3% Testosterone Cream by C.G. Connor.
(26) http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/12/1494.abstract Eur Heart J (2010) 31 (12): 1494-1501. Low serum testosterone levels are associated with increased risk of mortality in a population-based cohort of men aged 20–79, Robin Haring et al.
(27) http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/23/2694 Endogenous Testosterone and Mortality Due to All Causes, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer in Men European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer in Norfolk (EPIC-Norfolk) Prospective Population Study (Circulation. 2007;116:2694-2701.)
(28) http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/166/15/1660 Vol. 166 No. 15, Aug 14/28, 2006 Low Serum Testosterone and Mortality in Male Veterans Molly M. Shores, MD et al. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1660-1665.
(29) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755630 Menopause. 2009 Jan–Feb; 16(1): 15–23. Increased cardiovascular mortality following early bilateral oophorectomy. Cathleen M. Rivera, MD et al.
(30) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19384117 Obstet Gynecol. 2009 May;113(5):1027-37.Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term health outcomes in the nurses’ health study. Parker WH et al.
(31) http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/303/1/47 Antidepressant Drug Effects and Depression Severity A Patient-Level Meta-analysis. Jay C. Fournier et al. JAMA. 2010;303(1):47-53.
(32) http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/3/267 Efficacy of Escitalopram for Hot Flashes in Healthy Menopausal Women A Randomized Controlled Trial Ellen W. Freeman, PhD; JAMA. 2011;305(3):267-274
(33) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15551359 Int J Cancer. 2005 Apr 10;114(3):448-54. Breast cancer risk in relation to different types of hormone replacement therapy in the E3N-EPIC cohort. Fournier A et al.
(34) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2211383/ Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 January; 107(1): 103–111. Unequal risks for breast cancer associated with different hormone replacement therapies: results from the E3N cohort study. Agnès Fournier et al.
(35) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19752341 J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 1;27(31):5138-43. Estrogen-progestagen menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer: does delay from menopause onset to treatment initiation influence risks? Fournier A et al.
(36) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17651686 Ann Endocrinol (Paris). 2007 Sep;68(4):241-50. Epub 2007 Jul 24. Hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) in postmenopause: a reappraisal. Caufriez A.
(37) http://jeffreydach.com/files/80618-70584/Hormones__in_wellness_and_disease_prevention_common_practices_current_state_evidence_Erika_Schwartz_Kent_Holtorf.pdf
Prim Care. 2008 Dec;35(4):669-705. Hormones in wellness and disease prevention: common practices, current state of the evidence, and questions for the future. Schwartz ET, Holtorf K.
(38) http://www.jpands.org/vol13no2/hotze.pdf Point/Counterpoint:The Case for Bioidentical Hormones by Steven F. Hotze, M.D. Donald P. Ellsworth, M.D. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 13 Number 2 Summer 2008 p43.
(39) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18775609 Could transdermal estradiol + progesterone be a safer postmenopausal HRT? A review. L’hermite M, Simoncini T, Fuller S, Genazzani AR. Maturitas. 2008 Jul-Aug;60(3-4):185-201.
(40) http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/11/3/208.pdf A Comprehensive Review of the Safety and Efficacy of Bioidentical Hormones for the Management of Menopause and Related Health Risks Deborah Moskowitz, ND Altern Med Rev 2006;11(3):208-223
(41) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123717056802137143.html March 16, 2009 The Truth About Hormone Therapy Wall Street Journal By Erika Schwartz , Kent Holtorf , and David Brownstein
(42) http://www.tasciences.com/pdf/Harley_CMM_final.pdf Current Molecular Medicine 2005, 5, 29-38 205 Telomerase Therapeutics for Degenerative Diseases. By Calvin B. Harley.
(43) http://mcb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/20/11/3764 Molecular and Cellular Biology, June 2000, p. 3764-3771, Vol. 20, No. 11 Induction of hTERT Expression and Telomerase Activity by Estrogens in Human Ovary Epithelium Cells. Silvia Misiti, et al.,
(44) http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/59/23/5917.full Estrogen Activates Telomerase. Satoru Kyo et al. Cancer Res December 1, 1999 59; 5917
(45) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC120798/ Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2002 September; 66(3): 407–425. Human Telomerase and Its Regulation. Yu-Sheng Cong et al.
(46) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09603.html Telomerase reactivation reverses tissue degeneration in aged telomerase-deficient mice by Ronald A. DePinho et al. Nature November 2010.
Jeffrey Dach MD
7450 Griffin Road
Davie, Fl 33314
954-983-1443 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 954-983-1443 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
http://www.jeffreydach.com
http://www.drdach.com
http://www.naturalmedicine101.com
http://www.truemedmd.com
Click Here for: Dr Dach’s Online Store for Pure Encapsulations Supplements Click Here for: Dr Dach’s Online Store for Nature’s Sunshine Supplements
Web Site and Discussion Board Links:
http://jdach1.typepad.com/blog/
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/244124.html
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/244066.html
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/244067.html
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/244161.html
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/244163.html
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.diabetes/browse_frm/thread/ade10a1b80e9725b?hl=en#
Disclaimer click here: http://www.drdach.com/wst_page20.html
The reader is advised to discuss the comments on these pages with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Also note that concerning an answer which appears as an electronically posted question, I am NOT creating a physician — patient relationship. Although identities will remain confidential as much as possible, as I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur.
Link to this article:
http://jeffreydach.com/2011/03/29/bioidentical-hormones-clearing-up-the-confusion-jeffrey-dach.aspx
Copyright (c) 2010,11 Jeffrey Dach MD All Rights Reserved. This article may be reproduced on the internet without permission, provided there is a link to this page and proper credit is given.
Share and Enjoy
Tomatoes combat killer diseases – and are even more potent when cooked
0321 days
Eating tomatoes can help reduce the risk of cancer, osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease, scientists have revealed.
Not only that but cooked or processed tomatoes are actually better for you than raw ones.
U.S researchers found the juicy vegetable is the biggest source of powerful antioxidant dietary lycopene, and unlike other fruit and vegetables it has greater potency after it is cooked.
Scientists at the National Centre of Food and Safety in Illinois said the nutrient contains protective mechanisms that help prevent inflammation and blood clots.
A strong link has already been established between the wonder veg and a lower risk of certain diseases such as prostate cancer, heart disease and osteoporosis.
Dr Britt Burton-Freeman and and Dr Kristin Reimers, who carried out the review, said: ‘Leveraging emerging science about tomatoes and tomato products may be one simple and effective strategy to help individuals increase vegetable intake, leading to improved overall eating patterns, and ultimately, better health.
‘Research underscores the relationship between consuming tomatoes and reduced risk of cancer, heart disease, and other conditions.’
‘The evidence also suggests that consumption of tomatoes should be recommended because of the nutritional benefits and because it may be a simple and effective strategy for increasing overall vegetable intake.’
The review article will appear in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.
Share and Enjoy
Vitamin D conspiracy leads straight to Big Pharma
0330 days
You’ve probably heard about the bad rap vitamin D has been getting lately. The argument goes something like this…the vitamin D crisis isn’t as bad as we thought. You probably don’t need as much of it as we thought. But it’s a free country. So go ahead and take 400 IU of it per day, if you want. That’s more than enough. Just don’t go over 4,000 IU per day. “High doses” like that can increase your risk for “harm”
These new guidelines come from the U.S. Institute of Medicine (or IOM), a powerful non-profit agency that advises the nation of matters of health. But here’s the problem: Their report is pure propaganda.
In fact, I believe these low doses of vitamin D are a deliberate attempt to keep the American public needing more drugs until the day they die. (I’ll admit, that sounds a tad paranoid. But I’ll explain why my paranoia is well-founded a moment.)
First, let’s look at the three major problems with the IOM research.
Leave it to the IOM to redefine “majority”
First off, the IOM report states that the “majority” of adults living in the U.S. get enough vitamin D…and that’s just nonsense.
As you’ll recall, last week I told you about a major CDC study that found almost 80 percent of Americans don’t get enough vitamin D. Plus, another major study published late last year by researchers from the University of Tennessee came up with similar results. In fact, this time researchers found that 87 percent of the general population is mildly to severely deficient in vitamin D. Even the most conservative estimates put vitamin D deficiencies at about 50 percent of the population.
So how the IOM can confidently claim the “majority” of Americans get enough vitamin D, I have no idea!
Spend a minute in the sun each day
The IOM report also states that “North Americans need on average 400 International Units (IUs) of vitamin D per day. People age 71 and older may require as much as 800 IUs per day because of potential changes in people’s bodies as they age.”
Again, this is pure nonsense. But before I go any further, here’s a quick biochemistry primer…
The IOM says you only need 400 IU of vitamin D. But they actually mean 400 IU of vitamin D3 (or cholecalciferol). Your skin makes this natural form of vitamin D when exposed to sunlight. In fact, spending just 30 minutes in the sun without sunscreen, your skin will produce anywhere from 10,000 IU to 50,000 IU of D3! Plus, you can also take D3 as a supplement.
Next…
Vitamin D3 passes through your liver and it turns into a pre-hormone called 25-hydroxycholecalciferol. This is abbreviated as 25(OH)D.
When you get a vitamin D blood test, we really want to see how much 25(OH)D is in your blood. We measure 25(OH)D in nanomoles per liter or nmol/l.
Now, stick with me, because here’s where it gets interesting…
According to the IOM report, taking just 400 IU of vitamin D3 per day will give 97 percent of us a blood serum level of 50 nmol/l. And that level will protect us from fractures. Sounds okay, I guess. But let me put this another way to show you just how silly the IOM recommendation really is…
Let’s assume that your body makes 10,000 IU of D3 for every 30 minutes spent in the sun without sunscreen. (Most experts say you make at least twice that much…but let’s not get picky.) So, how long does it take for your body to make 400 IU of D3?
Hurray! Just 1.2 minutes in the sun! That’s all you need to keep your bones strong.
Is it me, or does that just sound wrong?
Well, here’s the good news. It isn’t just me. It is wrong. And there’s some solid scientific proof to back me up…
IOM gets their numbers wrong
Two major meta-analysis’ from 2009 found that 50 nmol/l of 25(OH)D in your blood isn’t enough to protect you from a fracture or a fall. In fact, 28 separate studies found that 50 nmol/l isn’t enough!
Plus, the International Osteoporosis Foundation recommends men and women have 75 nmol/l of 25(OH)D. This is what it takes to protect you from accidental falls and fractures. Lastly, numerous studies over the years show that the more 25(0H)D in your blood, the greater your bone density. But to get up to those higher levels of 25(OH)D, you need more D3.
Plus, here’s another interesting twist. The authors of the IOM report most likely knew about all this research…they just chose to ignore it.
You see, before publishing the new vitamin D guidelines, the IOM board consulted with Dr. Walter Willet. The board even thanked Dr. Willet at the end of their report.
So who’s Dr. Willet?
He’s a vitamin D expert and Chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard. He also co-wrote one of the 2009 reports on vitamin D I mentioned earlier. The IOM, however, ignored his findings.
But don’t feel bad, Dr. Willet. Yours isn’t the only research the IOM ignored…
IOM report ignores research on vitamin D and disease
Remember how I told you the IOM said 400 IU of D3 is enough to protect you against osteoporosis? Well, what about everything else…like cancer and heart disease?
In a press conference, IOM chair Dr. Catherine Ross said “We could not find solid evidence that consuming more [vitamin D] would protect the public from chronic disease ranging from cancer to diabetes to improved immune function.” And with that simple statement, Dr. Ross lost all credibility.
Here are some of the best studies linking vitamin D and major diseases:
Breast cancer: Women with vitamin D blood serum levels less than 50 nmol/mL are eight times more likely to develop an aggressive form of breast cancer.
Colon cancer: Men and women with the highest vitamin D levels cut their colon cancer risk by 40 percent.
Heart Disease & Stroke: Men and women with low vitamin D double their heart attack or stroke risk.
Cognitive decline: Older women with low vitamin D are twice as likely to suffer cognitive impairment.
Diabetes: A whopping 91 percent of diabetics have low levels of vitamin D in their blood. Plus, the less vitamin D in their blood, the greater their blood sugar problems.
And I’m just scratching the surface here! If you want to look at all the scientific data on vitamin D, the Vitamin D Council is a good place to start. They list the studies by disease, so you can see all the scientific data Dr. Catherine Ross and her colleagues missed.
In closing, there’s one last reason why the IOM report has the pungent smell of propaganda…
There’s a rat in the house
Glenville Jones, PhD is one of the authors of the IOM report. He’s a scientist and also the co-inventor of drug made by a company called Cytochroma. This drug is still in development…but what condition will they treat with their top-secret drug?
You got it.
Vitamin D deficiencies!
(I’m not making this stuff up. You can see the patent for yourself at the U.S. Patent Office website.)
Dr. Jones also sits on the scientific advisory board of a drug company called Receptor Therapeutics. These guys also made a synthetic vitamin D treatment for cancer…in fact THREE synthetic vitamin D treatments for cancer. (Drug companies use synthetic vitamin D because they can patent it and make a huge profit. You can’t patent natural vitamin D.)
Well, isn’t that so thoughtful…
You don’t need to take vitamin D. But if you do happen to get cancer…guess who plans to have a vitamin D drug you can take?
Here’s the bottom line for you: Ignore anything published by the IOM. Take up to 5,000 IU of natural vitamin D3 each day. And avoid anything made by Cytochroma and Receptor Therapeutics.
Share and Enjoy
Towards age-suppression
1388 days
The amino acid L-cysteine is one of the standard building blocks used by the body to produce the countless proteins it needs: enzymes, structural proteins, signalling molecules and their receptors, and small polypeptide molecules with specialized functions. One such polypeptide, ‘glutathione’, is an essential antioxidant that protects cells from being damaged or killed by stray free radicals.
Since glutathione is crucially important for preventing cellular damage and the diseases that result from such damage, there is good reason to increase the amount of L-cysteine available to the body for making it. The trouble is, if cysteine is used as a supplement, it can be neurotoxic. This toxicity can be avoided by using N-acetylcysteine (NAC) instead of cysteine itself.
NAC’s remarkable biological benefits
NAC is one of the most studied of all supplements. In the 1960s it was found to be useful for people with cystic fibrosis and other pulmonary ailments. It later garnered the attention of HIV researchers, and has now been investigated for many other medical conditions.
The list of medical applications of NAC is a very long one, and includes the following categories:
- Pulmonary and respiratory ailments
- Aging
- Muscle fatigue
- Neurological conditions
- Cancer
- Infections
- Neurodegenerative diseases
- Addictions
- Sickle cell disease
- Muscle-degenerative conditions
- Toxicity
- Cardiovascular ailments
- Immune system problems
- Diabetes
- Fatty liver disease
Let us look at one of the many intriguing applications of this supplement:
NAC interferes with cardiovascular damage.
Whenever food is cooked, some of the sugars in the food are converted into substances called ‘AGEs’ (Advanced Glycation Endproducts). These are inflammatory chemicals that, when consumed, cause damage to the walls of arteries and veins, as well as accelerated aging in other tissues in the body. The body actually produces its own AGEs from sugars, but usually in smaller amounts than are found in cooked food. Diabetics, however, have a much higher AGE burden than non-diabetics do, because diabetes causes spikes in blood sugar levels.
In an important 2004 paper, researchers reported that diabetics experience substantially less damage to arteries when their consumption of AGEs is reduced. Furthermore, NAC interferes with a key process through which AGEs produce inflammation and tissue damage, and actually prevents AGEs from damaging vascular cells.
NAC suppresses many other harmful processes taking place in the body. It is an inexpensive supplement that is safe and easy to obtain — so it would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
