Reinventing the Fountain of Youth
Posts tagged Osteoporosis
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
The Facts, Statistics and Dangers of Soda Pop
168494 days
Kids are heavy consumers of soft drinks, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and they are guzzling soda pop at unprecedented rates.
Carbonated soda pop provides more added sugar in a typical 2-year-old toddler’s diet than cookies, candies and ice cream combined.
Fifty-six percent of 8-year-olds down soft drinks daily, and a third of teenage boys drink at least three cans of soda pop per day.
- These popular beverages account for more than a quarter of all drinks consumed in the United States.
- More than 15 billion gallons were sold in 2000.
- That works out to at least one 12-ounce can per day for every man, woman and child.
Not only are soft drinks widely available everywhere, from fast food restaurants to video stores, they’re now sold in 60 percent of all public and private middle schools and high schools nationwide, according to the National Soft Drink Association. A few schools are even giving away soft drinks to students who buy school lunches.
As soda pop becomes the beverage of choice among the nation’s young – and as soda marketers focus on brand-building among younger and younger consumers – public health officials, school boards, parents, consumer groups and even the soft drink industry are faced with nagging questions:
- How healthful are these beverages, which provide a lot calories, sugars and caffeine but no significant nutritional value?
- And what happens if you drink a lot of them at a very young age?
Recently, representatives of the soft drink industry, concerned that public opinion and public policy may turn against them, will staged a three-day “fly-in” to lobby Congress to maintain soft drinks sales in schools; and to educate lawmakers on the “proper perspective” on soft drink use.
The industry plans to counter a US Department of Agriculture proposal, announced in January, that would require all foods sold in schools to meet federal nutrition standards. That would mean that snack foods and soft drinks would have to meet the same standards as school lunches.
Nearly everyone by now has heard the litany on the presumed health effects of soft drinks:
- Obesity
- Tooth decay
- Caffeine dependence
- Weakened bones
But does drinking soda pop really cause those things?
To help separate fact from fiction, the Health section reviewed the latest scientific findings and asked an array of experts on both sides of the debate to weigh in on the topic. Be forewarned, however: Compared with the data available on tobacco and even dietary fat, the scientific evidence on soft drinks is less developed. The results can be a lot like soft drinks themselves, both sweet and sticky.
Obesity
One very recent, independent, peer-reviewed study demonstrates a strong link between soda consumption and childhood obesity.
One previous industry-supported, unpublished study showed no link. Explanations of the mechanism by which soda may lead to obesity have not yet been proved, though the evidence for them is strong.
Many people have long assumed that soda – high in calories and sugar, low in nutrients – can make kids fat. But until this month there was no solid, scientific evidence demonstrating this.
Reporting in The Lancet, a British medical journal, a team of Harvard researchers presented the first evidence linking soft drink consumption to childhood obesity. They found that 12-year-olds who drank soft drinks regularly were more likely to be overweight than those who didn’t.
For each additional daily serving of sugar-sweetened soft drink consumed during the nearly two-year study, the risk of obesity increased 1.6 times.
Obesity experts called the Harvard findings important and praised the study for being prospective. In other words, the Harvard researchers spent 19 months following the children, rather than capturing a snapshot of data from just one day. It’s considered statistically more valuable to conduct a study over a long period of time.
Researchers found that schoolchildren who drank soft drinks consumed almost 200 more calories per day than their counterparts who didn’t down soft drinks. That finding helps support the notion that we don’t compensate well for calories in liquid form.
Tooth Decay
Here’s one health effect that even the soft drink industry admits, grudgingly, has merit. In a carefully worded statement, the NSDA says that “there’s no scientific evidence that consumption of sugars per se has any negative effect other than dental caries.” But the association also correctly notes that soft drinks aren’t the sole cause of tooth decay.
In fact, a lot of sugary foods, from fruit juices to candy and even raisins and other dried fruit, have what dentists refer to as “cariogenic properties,” which is to say they can cause tooth decay.
Okay, so how many more cavities are soft drink consumers likely to get compared with people who don’t drink soda? This is where it gets complicated.
A federally funded study of nearly 3,200 Americans 9 to 29 years old conducted between 1971 and 1974 showed a direct link between tooth decay and soft drinks. Numerous other studies have shown the same link throughout the world, from Sweden to Iraq.
But sugar isn’t the only ingredient in soft drinks that causes tooth problems. The acids in soda pop are also notorious for etching tooth enamel in ways that can lead to cavities. “Acid begins to dissolve tooth enamel in only 20 minutes,” notes the Ohio Dental Association in a release issued earlier this month.
Caffeine Dependence
The stimulant properties and dependence potential of caffeine in soda are well documented, as are their effects on children.
Ever tried going without your usual cup of java on the weekend? If so, you may have experienced a splitting headache, a slight rise in blood pressure, irritability and maybe even some stomach problems.
These well-documented symptoms describe the typical withdrawal process suffered by about half of regular caffeine consumers who go without their usual dose.
The soft drink industry agrees that caffeine causes the same effects in children as adults, but officials also note that there is wide variation in how people respond to caffeine. The simple solution, the industry says, is to choose a soda pop that is caffeine-free. All big soda makers offer products with either low or no caffeine.
That may be a good idea, though it raises the question of whether soda machines in schools should be permitted to offer caffeinated beverages or at least be obligated to offer a significant proportion of caffeine-free products.
It also raises the question of how one determines a product’s caffeine content. Nutrition labels are not required to divulge that information. If a beverage contains caffeine, it must be included in the ingredient list, but there’s no way to tell how much a beverage has, and there’s little logic or predictability to the way caffeine is deployed throughout a product line.
Okay, so most enlightened consumers already know that colas contain a fair amount of caffeine. It turns out to be 35 to 38 milligrams per 12-ounce can, or roughly 28 percent of the amount found in an 8-ounce cup of coffee. But few know that diet colas – usually chosen by those who are trying to dodge calories and/or sugar – often pack a lot more caffeine.
A 12-ounce can of Diet Coke, for example, has about 42 milligrams of caffeine – seven more than the same amount of Coke Classic. A can of Pepsi One has about 56 milligrams of caffeine – 18 milligrams more than both regular Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.
Even harder to figure out is the caffeine distribution in other flavors of soda pop. Many brands of root beer contain no caffeine. An exception is Barq’s, made by the Coca-Cola Co., which has has 23 milligrams per 12-ounce can. Sprite, 7-Up and ginger ale are caffeine-free. But Mountain Dew, the curiously named Mello Yellow, Sun Drop Regular, Jolt and diet as well as regular Sunkist orange soda all pack caffeine.
Caffeine occurs naturally in kola nuts, an ingredient of cola soft drinks. But why is this drug, which is known to create physical dependence, added to other soft drinks?
The industry line is that small amounts are added for taste, not for the drug’s power to sustain demand for the products that contain it. Caffeine’s bitter taste, they say, enhances other flavors. “It has been a part of almost every cola – and pepper-type beverage – since they were first formulated more than 100 years ago,” according to the National Soft Drink Association.
But recent blind taste tests conducted by Roland Griffiths at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore found that only 8 percent of regular soft drink consumers could identify the difference between regular and caffeine-free soft drinks.
The study included only subjects who reported that they drank soft drinks mainly for their caffeine content. In other words, more than 90 percent of the self-diagnosed caffeine cravers in this small sample could not detect the presence of caffeine.
That’s why the great popularity of caffeinated soft drinks is driven not so much by subtle taste effects as by the mood-altering and physical dependence of caffeine that drives the daily self-administration.
And the unknown could be especially troublesome for the developing brains of children and adolescents. Logic dictates that when you are dependent on a drug, you are really upsetting the normal balances of neurochemistry in the brain. The fact that kids have withdrawal signs and symptoms when the caffeine is stopped is a good indication that something has been profoundly disturbed in the brain.
Exactly where that leads is anybody’s guess– which is to say there is little good research on the effects of caffeine on kids’ developing brains.
Bone Weakening
Animal studies demonstrate that phosphorus, a common ingredient in soda, can deplete bones of calcium.
And two recent human studies suggest that girls who drink more soda are more prone to broken bones. The industry denies that soda plays a role in bone weakening.
Animal studies – mostly involving rats – point to clear and consistent bone loss with the use of cola beverages. But as scientists like to point out, humans and rats are not exactly the same.
Even so, there’s been concern among the research community, public health officials and government agencies over the high phosphorus content in the US diet. Phosphorus – which occurs naturally in some foods and is used as an additive in many others – appears to weaken bones by promoting the loss of calcium. With less calcium available, the bones become more porous and prone to fracture.
The soft drink industry argues that the phosphoric acid in soda pop contributes only about 2 percent of the phosphorus in the typical US diet, with a 12-ounce can of soda pop averaging about 30 milligrams.
There’s growing concern that even a few cans of soda today can be damaging when they are consumed during the peak bone-building years of childhood and adolescence. A 1996 study published in the Journal of Nutrition by the FDA’s Office of Special Nutritionals noted that a pattern of high phosphorus/low calcium consumption, common in the American diet, is not conducive to optimizing peak bone mass in young women.
A 1994 Harvard study of bone fractures in teenage athletes found a strong association between cola beverage consumption and bone fractures in 14-year-old girls. The girls who drank cola were about five times more likely to suffer bone fractures than girls who didn’t consume soda pop.
Besides, to many researchers, the combination of rising obesity and bone weakening has the potential to synergistically undermine future health. Adolescents and kids don’t think long-term. But what happens when these soft-drinking people become young or middle-aged adults and they have osteoporosis, sedentary living and obesity?
By that time, switching to water, milk or fruit juice may be too little, too late.
Washington Post February 27, 2001
Share and Enjoy
Biochemist Proposes Worldwide Policy Change to Step Up Daily Vitamin D Intake
1529 days
Anthony Norman, a leading international expert in vitamin D, proposes worldwide policy changes regarding people’s vitamin D daily intake amount in order to maximize the vitamin’s contribution to reducing the frequency of many diseases, including childhood rickets, adult osteomalacia, cancer, autoimmune type-1 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, obesity and muscle weakness.
“A reduction in the frequency of these diseases would increase the quality and longevity of life and significantly reduce the cost of medical care worldwide,” said Norman, a distinguished professor emeritus of biochemistry and biomedical sciences at the University of California, Riverside. “It is high time that worldwide vitamin D nutritional policy, now at a crossroads, reflects current scientific knowledge about the vitamin’s many benefits and develops a sound vision for the future.”
Currently, the recommended daily intake of vitamin D in the United States is 200 international units (IU) for people up to 50 years old; 400 IU for people 51 to 70 years old; and 600 IU for people over 70 years old. Today there is a wide consensus among scientists that the relative daily intake of vitamin D should be increased to 2,000 to 4,000 IU for most adults.
“Worldwide public health is best served by a recommendation of higher daily intakes of vitamin D,” Norman said. “Currently, more than half the world’s population gets insufficient amounts of this vitamin. At present about half of elderly North Americans and Western Europeans and probably also of the rest of the world are not receiving enough vitamin D to maintain healthy bone.”
Reporting in a review paper in the July 28, 2010, issue of Experimental Biology and Medicine, Norman and Roger Bouillon of the Laboratory of Experimental Medicine and Endocrinology at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, warn that if the current nutritional guidelines for vitamin D remain unchanged, rickets and osteomalacia, which could be easily prevented, will continue to occur.
They add that if the present guidelines for vitamin D intake are strictly implemented and applied worldwide to pregnant or lactating women, newborns and children, the occurrence of rickets in infants could be effectively eradicated.
Norman, the first author of the review paper, and Bouillon note that if the daily dietary intake of vitamin D is increased by 600-1000 IU in all adults above their present supply, it would bring beneficial effects on bone health in the elderly and on all major human diseases (e.g., cancer, cardiovascular, metabolic and immune diseases).
The researchers add, however, that if the vitamin D dietary intake were increased to 2000 IU per day and even more for subgroups of the world population with the poorest vitamin D status, it could favorably impact multiple sclerosis, type-1 diabetes, tuberculosis, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular risk factors and most cancers.
About vitamin D:
Also known as the “sunshine vitamin,” vitamin D was discovered 90 years ago as a dietary agent that prevented the bone disease rickets.
Exposure to the sun is the body’s natural way of producing the vitamin. Skin exposed to solar UVB radiation can produce significant quantities of vitamin D. But this vitamin D synthesis is reliably available year-round only at latitudes between 40 degrees north and 40 degrees south. A combination of sunshine, food, supplements, and possibly even limited tanning exposure can raise the daily intake of the vitamin to 2000 IU.
Vitamin D is itself biologically inert. Its biological effects result only after it is metabolized first in the liver and then in the kidney — a process that converts the vitamin into a steroid hormone.
The best sources of unfortified foods naturally containing vitamin D are animal products and fatty fish and liver extracts like salmon or sardines and cod liver oil. Vitamin D-fortified food sources in the United States (the fortification levels aim at about 400 IU per day) include milk and milk products, orange juice, breakfast cereals and bars, grain products, pastas, infant formulas and margarines.
Vitamin D excess can cause health problems such as hypercalcemia, vomiting, thirst and tissue damage. The precise upper limit for daily vitamin D intake is not well defined.
ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2010)
