Author Archives: Mark Schauss

About Mark Schauss

History was always a passion for me since I was a little kid. Even majored in it in college. Loved my Russian history professor, the late Dr. Paul Avrich who inspired this podcast. Also to my mother Alla who kept the Russian side of me going. Wish I had listened to her to learn Russian when I was younger.

USDA Bastardizing the Word Raw – The Battle Over the Definition of Raw Almonds

In a astonishingly bad decision, the United States Department of Agriculture has decided to force almond producers to pasteurize their product. One of the approved methods uses propylene oxide which is considered by the European Union as a carcinogen. It is also a highly toxic flammable chemical compound, once used as a racing fuel, but that usage is now prohibited under the US NHRA rules for safety reasons. Safety reasons! Yet the USDA wants almond growers to spray it on their crop?

The Organic Consumers Association is sprearheading a campaign to role back the rules. Please go to this site and make your opinion known. We, as consumers, need to stop this madness. Don’t take this sitting down because if you do, what next?

Bisphosphonates vs. Nutrition for Osteoporosis? Part II

Here is part II of the three part series on Bisphosphonates versus Nutrition in the treatment of osteroporosis by Dr. R. Keith McCormick whose practice can be found in Belchertown, Massachusettes.

MICROFRACTURE RISK FROM LONG-TERM BISPHOSPHONATE USE?  Bisphosphonates interrupt the tightly coupled bone-renewing synchrony of osteoclasts that get rid of the old, worn, microfractured bone and the osteoblasts that form strong renewed bone. This reduction in bone turnover leads to skeletal ageing, and there are concerns that long-term bisphosphonate use (> 3 years) may lead to brittle bones and an increase in microfractures. This brittleness is due to altered mineralization properties such as a rise in mineralization homogeneity, which is not a feature of normal healthy bone.

In addition to altered mineralization from long-term use of bisphosphonates, adverse changes also occur within the bone’s non-mineral organic matrix, specifically within the collagen fibers. The “material properties” of collagen give it its strength, and this, in part, is dependent upon the formation through enzymatic mechanisms of structural cross-linking. These enzymatic cross-links hold the collagen fibers together and give them strength and also impart flexibility and toughness to bone. When cross-links are formed from non-enzymatic sources, such as through advanced glycation end products (AGEs) seen with chronic elevation of blood glucose in diabetes or in chronic oxidative stress, collagen integrity is sacrificed, bone becomes more brittle, and fracture risk increases. Bisphosphonate therapy, with reduced osteoclastic activity and bone turnover, leads to the accumulation of these non-enzymatic cross-links and may be of great concern to patients using bisphosphonates long term, especially those, such as diabetics, who are most susceptible to the formation of AGEs.

The extent to which these property changes, induced by long-term bisphosphonate use, influence fracture risk is, as yet, unresolved. But one can easily foresee that ageing bone, especially in a young individual who started taking bisphosphonates when he or she was 30, 40, or even 50 years old, may not end up as “healthy” bone.

WHAT IS THE MOST SERIOUS POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE OF BISPHOSPHONATE USE?  Concerns over the side effects from bisphosphonate use are obvious and valid. But serious side effects are relatively rare and they pale in comparison to another potentially devastating drawback from the unscrutinized, premature use of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. That is the failure to therapeutically address the chronic inflammation and metabolic dysfunction that is often not only the major underlying cause of bone loss but may also be a potential contributor to other disease processes not yet manifested. By using bisphosphonates to improve bone density, only one aspect of osteoporosis is being addressed. The underlying inflammation, a consistent contributor to all chronic degenerative disease processes, continues untreated.

Bisphosphonates vs. Nutrition for Osteoporosis? Part I

Dr. R. Keith McCormick, DC of Belchertown, MA, gave an insightful talk at the recent Boulderfest 2007 in which he described the realities of osteoporosis and the problems with the family of drugs being purveyed by the pharmaceutical industry known as bisphosphonates. In part one of a three part series, Dr. McCormick has been gracious enough to explain to my blog readers why bisphosphonates are NOT the right thing to do to prevent or treat osteoporosis.  Here is part 1.

Osteoporosis is a disease process characterized by skeletal weakening from low bone mass and a deterioration in micro-architectural quality. The physical and financial burden of this disease is substantial with over 50 percent of women and 13 percent of men in America destined to sustain an osteoporotic-related fracture within their lifetime. With these high-stakes costs it is important that our method of treatment is not only efficacious but also conducive to the patient’s over-all good health.

Bone health is naturally maintained in a person’s body by a balanced remodeling system that ensures continued replacement of old worn-out bone with strong new bone. During normal bone remodeling, the bone-forming cells (osteoblasts) produce enough new bone to replace that which was resorbed by the osteoclasts. It is when this coupled remodeling process is in balance that bone health is maintained. When the osteoclasts resorb excessive amounts of bone, remodeling becomes uncoupled and there is a net decrease in bone tissue. Drug therapy has therefore concentrated on reducing osteoclastic activity in an attempt to correct this imbalance that leads to bone loss. The antiresorptive agents, bisphosphonates, have become the most commonly used pharmaceuticals for this task. With less osteoclastic activity, remodeling slows and there is less bone loss. Most physicians and millions of patients who have taken bisphosphonates view them as harmless drugs that increase bone mineral density and reduce the risk of fractures. But after decades of use, concerns are now rising over the safety of bisphosphonates.

HOW DO BISPHOSPHONATES WORK?  Bisphosphonates are synthetic analogs of inorganic pyrophosphates (commonly used antiscaling or water-softening chemicals) that bind to the divalent calcium ion (Ca2+) in the hydroxyapaitite crystal of bone. It is here that nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates are able to decrease excessive osteoclast activity. They do so by repressing farnesyl diphosphate synthase, an enzyme important for the synthesis of osteoclast cell regulatory proteins. Without these proteins, osteoclasts can no longer function and bone resorption is substantially reduced. With decreased osteoclastic activity, resorption sites are reduced, which lessens the risk that a minor external mechanical load could impart a breakpoint strain leading to trabecular buckling and catastrophic structural failure. It is from this reduction in resorption sites that bisphosphonates are able to reduce fractures. From a glance, and from statistics showing that bisphosphonates reduce both vertebral and nonvertebral fractures, this seems a very positive therapeutic outcome. But is this mode of therapy improving the actual “health” of bone? And, are there drawbacks to these powerful drugs that must be considered before prescribing their use?

Tune in tomorrow for part II and Wednesday for the completion of this important series.

Robert Crayhon Blogging

Robert Crayhon, author of numerous books on nutrition like The Carnitine Miracle, has joined the blogging world with his new website – RobertCrayhon.com. Some of his posts will have a political bent but others will focus on issues of nutrition and health. His razor sharp mind and wit will provide the reader with lots of information with which to achieve the goal of optimal growth.

Pharmaceutical Company Payoffs

We all suspected that Big Pharma pays large fees to physicians to speak about their drugs but the latest news out of Minnesota is downright disgusting. Turns out that groups of practitioners in many states “advise” which drugs to select for Medicare use. One such “advisor” was paid over $350,000 in a year, but claims it had nothing to do with their judgement. Yeah, right and I have some prime swamp land in the desert to sell you. To read more about this issue, click here.

This is plain outrageous. This is tatamount to bribery which, if I am not mistaken, is illegal. The recorded votes on which drug is approved and who voted for what is absurd. This is unethical and needs legislation which probably won’t happen due to the deep lobbying pockets of Big Pharma and their stranglehold on Congress.

How much longer can we as a people, citizens of the United States, take this kind of chicanery?  They are stealing our tax dollars to enrich their pockets. Congress needs to stop subsidizing the pharmaceutical industry.  They flat out don’t need it. It is high time we all demand better.

If The Drug Companies Can Do It, So Should You!

The pharmaceutical industry, trying to make more profits at every turn, is now creating disorders in order to market drugs that normally would’nt see the light of day. So, in my attempt to be fair and balanced, have uncovered a website that allows you to create a disease of your own. The people at Newstarget.com have a Disease Mongering Engine. Now you know how Big Pharma does it.  Funny stuff.

Updated Title For The Mark Schauss Blog

I’ve decided to update my blog description and title to reflect what I want to discuss.  Health issues are so important and the media so distorts the truth that someone has to be out there telling you what the truth really is. The problem I see with a lot of other blogs out there is that they all seemingly have agendas to promote. Whether it is a point of view that all that is natural is good (it isn’t) or that supplements are bad or the blogger is trying to sell something and writes to strictly to promote whatever it is they are selling.

I hope to be as objective as possible and hope the information I continue to post here helps you achieve optimal health.  Remember optimal health is not just the lack of disease but a vibrancy that permeates your life.

Also, every once in a while, I will post an opinion about issues I feel passionate about. I hope that they don’t offend anyone but if they do, c’est la vie.

The Media Lies Continue – Antioxidant’s Do Help Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk

As I have pointed out in the past, the media seems to love to lie to the public about the benefits of nutritional supplements. Caleb Hellerman, a stalwart for media distortions with CNN wrote how there was no benefit to the use of supplements in the past, a clear distortion and lack of good reporting. Now the media jumped on one of the worst studies on antioxidants done to date. Their claim as I reported earlier, was that women gained no benefit from the supplementation of antioxidants like vitamin C and E. Turns out, that was a clear distortion of the findings of the study.

My original post showed that the researchers did not look at the lifestyles of the study subjects which distorts the data. Today, I found out more dishonesty about the study which sickened me. Mike Adams points out that they included the data on the benefits of antioxidants from women who DID NOT TAKE the supplements. They showed no benefits to supplementation of vitamins C and E. NO KIDDING!  How can any self-respecting journal publish a piece a garbage like that?  And unless the media purposely distorts the truth, how could they publicize this?  The only reason I can see is the incestuous relationship they have with the advertising dollars from the pharmaceutical industry.  This is just another reason why pharmaceutical advertising must be banned.

Back to the study. What was revealed yet not reported by the media is that those women who actually took the supplements showed a clear benefit and reduction of cardiovascular disease. What did the media report? That there was no benefit despite the evidence that there was one. How dishonest is this? Antioxidants ARE beneficial. The truth is out there, but when money from the pharmaceutical industry clouds minds, the truth is often hidden.

When Boosting Your Thyroid is the Wrong Thing to do.

In my mind, the concept I’m going to talk about here, is such a common sense theory, that I am amazed that every health care practitioner doesn’t know about it. In fact, very few know about the fact that stimulating the thyroid through the use of medications such as SynthroidTM or more natural thyroid stimulants like Westhyroid or Amour can be highly detrimental to a persons health if they are environmentally toxic. The reason is so basic that perhaps it is too simple so that many in the health care industry may simply be missing the obvious.

So why would increasing metabolism be a bad thing when so many people have low metabolisms which inherently can lead to fatigue and obesity? The answer comes from experiments done in animal research and duplicated in humans.  When a mammal is exposed to environmental toxins, it naturally slows down its metabolism in order to fend off the effects of the toxins be they petrochemical, heavy metal or other. The body temperature goes down, metabolism slows and the organism can handle the toxin better. By increasing metabolism we can negate the protective mechanism that is inate in our bodies and cause more damage to our health.

The proper method of dealing with a depressed metabolism is not to artificially boost it with either a pharmaceutical or natural product but to deal with the underlying cause, environmental toxicity. Get tested by doing a Whole Blood Elements test and an Environmental Pollutants Biomarker which will look at both the petrochemical exposure issue and the heavy metals. If you find issues with elevated toxins, then you and your health care practitioner can develop a detoxification protocol to improve the excretion of these detrimental chemicals.

Of course, not everyone has this issue of excessive toxicity, but I would venture a guess that at least 70% of you do. If in doubt, check it out. The health you save may be your own.

Pharmaceutical Companies are Ruining Our Health Care System

In a well thought out article, Robert Bazell, Chief science and health correspondent for NBC News, writes about the ridiculous and scandalous way drug companies are ripping us off. In this case he uses the example of the drug Nexium, that purple pill and how little of a difference there is between it and Prilosec a drug from the same company but costing 7 times more!

Remarkably, the FDA approved Nexium even though it was only proven to be 3% better than its predecessor which is virtually identical except for a minor difference which allowed it to be patentable. This was purely a money-making ploy and had nothing to do with helping patients. The cost to us?  Since seven million people use Nexium which costs $200 per month and Prilosec costs $30 that comes out to a waste of $1.19 billion a year. That is an out and out theft. Multiply this by 20 drugs and you can see the enormous amount of money being made with little benefit to any of us.

So how did they do it?  By spending up to $16 million a month on advertising. Don’t think advertising works?  In this case, there is clear evidence that pharmaceutical advertising drives physician’s prescription. How else can you explain the use of a far more expensive drug with limited benefits over a cheaper generic?  You can’t and it is an abomination. Congress needs to jump on this and stop pharmaceutical advertising to patients. It is a rip off of unprecedented magnitude. We need to reel in our health care costs and this is one way to do it. The other thing that needs fixing is the approval process in the FDA. Why approve this drug at all when no benefit to human health is seen?  Make them improve the drugs not just change something minor and rip people off again.

Better yet, look into nutritional and alternative means of controlling heartburn and you will save so much more than money. You will avoid all those side-effects from the drugs and needing treatment for them as well.

In another article written by the same author, he seems stunned that Lipitor’s maker Pfizer drags out Dr. Richard Jarvik who in Mr. Bazell’s words asks the question, “Would you buy a heart medication from someone whose own efforts to cure heart disease led to failure?”  Do people realize this man never practiced medicine and his claim to fame, the Jarvik Heart was actually based on work by the famous ventriloquist Paul Winchell. It was considered a barbaric medical device that caused pain and suffering to whomever it was tried on. This is who Pfizer hires to push its drug which by the way losses its patent protection in 2010. Wonder what crap they will roll out to replace it.