Category Archives: Medical Research

Nutrition Update

According to the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, people who have hepatitis B may benefit from folic acid supplementation because it may protect them from the development of liver cancer which is common with people who have hepatitis B.

Coenzyme Q10 Supplementation May Protect Against Statin-Induced Liver Disease – At this point in time, with all of the research done about the need for Coenzyme Q10 and statin use, wouldn’t you think that every doctor in America would just put the two together for all of their patients?  Sad to say, they don’t. In Europe its mandatory, in the U.S. we have such an anti-supplement bias fueled by misdirected reporters that people may be developing life-threatening diseases because of it. This is just another study showing real benefits to CoEnzyme Q10 use.

High Dietary Vitamin B-6 Intake May Lower Colorectal Cancer Risk in Men – In a very large prospective cohort study (81,184 subjects) it was noted that those men in the highest quartile for B6 intake had a 31% decreased risk for developing colorectal cancer. For men who drank more than 150 grams of alcohol a week the benefits were even greater.

Vitamin B6, Conception, and Early Pregnancy Loss – In yet another human study, researchers have shown that those women with the highest plasma levels of vitamin had a higher level of conception and a lower level of early pregnancy termination (spotaneous miscarriage).

These three studies show how much human research is going on regarding the benefits of nutritional supplement. I bring this up because of communications I had with a reporter from CNN I lambasted in an earlier blog. I challenged him saying that I could produce ten human studies showing the benefits of supplements for every one negative study. Caleb, here is just a smattering of evidence for the use of supplements. Of course, they need to be done in a biochemically individualized manner but when you claim there are no known benefits to the use of nutritional supplements, you kind of lose all credibility.

Do Selenium Supplements Cause and Increase in the Risk of Developing Diabetes?

New research led by Dr. Saverio Stranges of Warwick Medical School in Britain, showed that people who took 200 mcgs of selenium daily, had a 50% increased risk for developing type-II diabetes over a 7 year period than those taking placebo. Published in the Journal Annals of Internal Medicine, the Dr. Stranges group said 58 of 600 people taking selenium and 39 of 602 taking placebos developed type-II diabetes over the 7.7 years. The study was well constructed although quite small in my opinion.

Here are my thoughts about the study. First off, if you take another 1202 people and tried it again, it may show up differently. Secondly, they measured the levels of blood selenium for their patients and the higher the level, the higher the risk of developing diabetes. Well, duh! My work over the years has clearly shown that excessive amounts of nutrients, especially trace minerals have a double-edged sword to them. If deficient, they need to be repleaded. If in excess, they need to be eliminated. It has to do with this quirky idea called biochemical individuality. If they were monitoring peoples selenium levels as has been indicated, did they stop the people from taking the selenium supplement?  If not, then a serious breech of ethics was committed. Excessive selenium is known to be toxic. This is a major problem and should cause serious review of the researchers protocols.

There are other problems with the study. They studied people with skin cancer. Could it be that having skin cancer and taking selenium together may increase the risk of developing the disease but not with healthy people? No healthy cohorts is a bad error in their study design.

Now get this, the researchers relied on participants’ reports that they developed diabetes and did not confirm those reports with measures of blood sugar. Huh?  You didn’t confirm the reports? Terrible research error again.

Next, did they measure other nutrient co-factors like vitamin C, E, amino acids, and dietary intake of foods? Of course not. They blindly rely on one-to-one analysis which is hideously poor. They also only looked at elderly white people yet they make the sweeping statement that selenium supplementation causes people to have an increased risk of developing diabetes.

Another example of poor research and equally poor reporting.

Omega 3 Fatty Acids and Premature Babies – Saving Eyesight

In a study about to start soon led by Dr. Lois Smith, an ophthalmologist at Children’s Hospital in Boston, omega 3 fatty acids will be used to try and prevent a serious retinal disease that affects many premature babies.  The impetus to do this study came from research done on premature mice and the results were quite promising. This type of treatment shows how very valuable omega 3 fatty acids can be.

Usually, infants get most of their supply of omega 3s from their mothers in the third trimester of pregnancy which is why those who are born prematurely may not get the full benefit of these important nutrients. What is nice abou this research is that is shows that you don’t necessarily need expensive pharmaceutical drugs to treat certain diseases. Still, I would bet my last dollar that they would be working on it if the market were bigger.

Read the full article here, posted on MSNBCs website

Antidepressant Use in America. A Depressing Situation.

Don’t like the way your husband is handling the family finances?  Take some antidepressants! Angry with the school about your child’s report card? Take some antidepressants.  According to a government funded study, more Americans take antidepressants than any other drug family. Over 118 million prescriptions were written last year which is up a staggering 48% over the past decade. Some of this increase is the fact that more physicians are becoming adept at diagnosing the disease but I feel that the majority of it is due to marketing done by the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Richard Dworkin even states, “Doctors are now medicating unhappiness. Too many people take drugs when they really need to be making changes in their lives.”

While depression is a serious disorder, there are way too many cases where physicians are prescribing drugs for issues that have nothing to do with the disease. These medications have serious side effects and should be used only when a clinical diagnosis of depression is clear. Still, an even better solution would be to try using amino acid therapy first. The book The Healing Nutrients Within recalls many stories of patients with depression improving using amino acid therapy.

It’s so much about profits, so little about really helping patients. Amino acids can help people far more than antidepressants can. They just won’t make the pharmaceutical industry any money. America, the land where we medicate unhappiness.

Vitamin C and Type 1 Diabetes – A Big Time Winner

According to the journal Diabetes Care, researches found out that injecting type 1 diabetics with vitamin C “neutralized the reactive molecules that were responsible for the damage” that is caused by the disease. This important nutrient did as well as the blood-pressure-lowering drug telmisartan. Of course, and sad to say, the researchers were not happy with this finding since people would have to stay on vitamin C forever (so?) and they want to develop a drug that permanently stop the effect of reactive molecules on certain proteins.

There have been previous experiments showing the benefits of alpha-lipoic acid on neutralizing reactive oxygen species (ROS) and it is likely other antioxidant compounds like acai, may have similar benefits. My suggestion is that anyone with type 1 diabetes should be on a bunch of antioxidant compounds like acai, vitamin C and vitamin E, although testing your oxidative stress levels would be a good idea as well.

Echinachia Helps Fight the Common Cold

In a recent study published in the journal Lancet Infectious Disease, researchers found that the herb Echinachia does indeed help reduce the risk of catching the common cold and that it can lower the number of days with a cold.  Now the study isn’t flawless as it uses a statistical technique called meta-analysis, it does indicate a possibility that this common herb may be beneficial to those who’s immune system isn’t up to snuff.

A word of caution here, this herb may be contraindicated in people with autoimmune disorders like lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis. Because of that I recommend that you go see a good naturopath who is familiar with the use of herbs.

Tidbits and Findings From the World of Medical Research

Can Standard Cancer Treatments Cause Metastasis? 

In an article in the May 2007 issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, discovered a protein known as transforming growth factor beta (TGF-bets) which can increase the likelihood of developing additional tumors after the use of traditional cancer therapies such as chemotherapy and radiation. While TGF-beta is normally found in healthy individuals, its presence in cancer patients can present a problem if this mouse study is confirmed in human studies. The future may be brighter for cancer victims if methods to lower the prescence of TGF-beta while treatment is ongoing.

Men, Migraines and Heart Attack Risk

According to the Archives of Internal Medicine, men between the ages of 40-84 who have migraines are 24 percent more likely to have a heart attack than non-sufferers. While the reason is unknown to researchers, I have an idea.

I believe that a large number of migraine sufferers suffer from an inflammatory reaction to foods and food additives. This is borne out by the positive results from Signet Diagnostics and their LEAP MRT blood test which looks for the pro-inflammatory reaction of foods on people. Their success rate with migraine sufferers is a astonishing 67%. Basically, they check to see which of 150 items your body reacts to in an inflammatory manner and has you change your diet accordingly.

Heart disease is really not so much about cholesterol and fat as it is about inflammation. If we reduce inflammatory processes, we will probably reduce heart disease as well as many other diseases and syndromes. Just something to think about.

Are Your Food Packages Harmful to your Health?

According to researchers reporting in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, the answer is yes. A coating put into food packaging called polyfluoroalkyl phosphate surfactants (PAPS) that acts as a oil and water repelent may convert into the toxic substance known as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), This chemical which helps make TeflonTM, is a known carcinogen and is being found with increasing regularity in people around the world.

What is disturbing about the revelation is that the researchers found that our bodies are converting the PAPS into PFOAs and the chemicals created in the intermediate steps between the two may be even more toxic. This is also found in the detoxification pathway of Xylene and Toluene where the intermediate of 2- or 3-methylhippurate (final stage of those solvents detoxification and excretion) is 2- or 3- methylbenzoate which is highly toxic.

What the researchers led by Dr. Scott Marbury and Jessica C. D’eon of the University of Toronto are now doing is finding out how prevalent and widespread PAPS are in our environment. My guess is that it is all over and in higher quantities than expected.

Is Big Pharma in Trouble?

Recent political developments as well as series of problems with so-called blockbuster drugs have caused the pharmaceutical industry to go on the defensive. After the bad news surrounding VioxxTM followed up this year by the news that the diabetes drug AvandiaTM causes an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer have been forced to scramble to stem the tide of bad publicity. They are doing this by protesting that the data being presented is somehow biased and false instead of owning up to the error of their way and admitting that they didn’t do their homework.

There really seems to be a need to revamp the way clinical trials are being done in order to protect the public and secondly to help with the creation of newer and better drugs to help people. The profit above all modus operandi which at first held promise of incentivizing the pharmaceutical industry has instead created a monster who takes diseases and syndromes which may typically only address a small number of people and creates a marketing campaign to include people who have no business taking the drug. The side-effects that crop up are then treated with other drugs which that the patient wouldn’t have needed had they never taken the unnecessary first medication.

Do I have the answer?  Maybe. What we need is independent, for-profit companies that would be paid by the pharmaceutical industry to run the clinical trials. As a protection against collusion, the government could set up huge penalties for breaking the independence. 

Here are some of the benefits behind my proposal:

If bad results came out of a trial, it would have to be made public due to regulations that could be written into law.

  • The drug companies could no longer hide data that showed problems with the drug studied which would increase the protection to the public.
  • Independent research would bring back public confidence.
  • It would replace the development of minimally helpful drugs who only are slightly better (if at all) than existing ones with true blockbusters that might really improve peoples lives.

Here are some of the arguments that might arise:

It might stifle scientific innovation (which it wouldn’t, it just might cut into profit a wee bit).

  • It would slow down the process of bringing a new drug to market (actually it might speed things up).
  • It will delay or stop medications from being developed that only help small numbers of people (they already don’t do this enough anyway).

While this might not be the perfect system, it needs to be debated and at the very least a change is in order. It’s the perfect political climate with the Democrats in control of both sides of Congress since Big Pharma decided to donate 69% of its political contributions in 2006 to the Republicans which is the most of any major industry (excluding oil – surprise surprise). 

Instead of targeting the nutraceutical/alternative health industry whose track record of safety far surpasses the pharmaceuticals, it would be in their best interest to look inwards and come up with independent ways of running clinical trials. It’s time to change with the times Big Pharma.

Vitamins, Minerals and Antioxidants – Safe or Not? The Debate Rages On.

In the May 2007 issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition an interesting series of comments can be found in the letters to the editor. John Hathcock, an employee of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a dietary supplement advocacy group, questioned a study published in the same journal last year that doubted that antioxidants and vitamin/mineral supplementation was beneficial in the prevention of cancer or cardiovascular disease. He made some compelling arguments against the use of meta-analysis (a statistical method) when reviewing the benefits or lack there of, of supplements. First off, he points out that they included only a small number of clinical trials which is a problem using a meta-analysis. Others argue that all we really need is the RDA to avoid disease but he points out that the prevention of neural tube defects through the use of supplemented folic acid is not a sign of deficiency but a need for extra supplementation.

Donald McCormick of Emory University and Joachim Bleys, et al of Johns Hopkins Medical Institution argue in their correspondence that indeed their findings do show no benefit to the use of antioxidants or B-vitamins. While Hathcock says that the famous Women’s Health Study showed a benefit to the use of vitamin E in reducing cardiovascular death, McCormick and Bleys quote the study conclusion that states “These data do not support recommending vitamin E supplementation for cardiovascular disease or cancer prevention among healthy women.” Both are correct but the later is misleading.

First off, the studies were done on a form of vitamin E known as alpha-tocopherol which is not the optimal type. Gamma-tocopherol should make up at least 40% of the vitamin E used for many reasons (to be discussed at a later date). Secondly, the study showed benefits to unhealthy women but the conclusion states that they can’t recommend vitamin E use to “healthy” women. That is a blatant misleading conclusion and is easily misconstrued to show no benefit to anyone.

My real problem with both sides of the controversy is the use of large population studies to support or deny the benefits of supplementation. It is preposterous to suggest that these studies are beneficial in any way, shape or form when you looking at the concept of biochemical individuality. You are different from me, and what would benefit me, may either have no effect on you or may actually harm you. Are all supplements beneficial?  Depends. To some people, some nutrients may be harmful or wasteful. To others, it can be life saving or dramatically life enhancing. What you need to do is to laboratory testing to determine what you really need.

In my 20+ years of reviewing lab test data, I have yet to see two sets of results that are the same. Fifty thousand tests in the bag and still no two people who are alike. I have seen people who have taken too many supplements, the wrong array and many who don’t have adequate intake of essential nutrients to stay healthy. If we can only get researchers to adopt a new paridigm and look at individuals instead of populations, we might, just might get better health care and a real improvement in the quality of our lives.

Sodium Benzoate – DNA Disaster?

In research done by Professor Peter Piper at Sheffield University, the common preservative, Sodium Benzoate, may wreck havoc on your DNA. In an interview with the British newspaper The Independent, Dr. Piper tested the effect of the preservative found in most soft drinks on the DNA of yeast. What he found shocked him. “These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: they knock it out altogether.The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it – as happens in a number if diseased states – then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA – Parkinson’s and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of ageing.”

While the food industry will undoubtedly come out and tell you that sodium benzoate is safe and has been tested for years, what they won’t tell you is that they have not tested any of these additives when it comes to their affect on DNA. This type of testing is available using microarray technology but I can guarantee unless they are forced to do so via pressure from the government, it won’t be done.

So what’s a person to do?  First you can test your levels of benzoic acid through a urine organic acid test available from US Biotek or Metametrix (make sure they have benzoate as not all their panels contain it). You will need a doctor’s signature for that but if they are unwilling, you can buy the test from Direct Lab Services and their physician will sing the form for you. Don’t forget to ask for the Bio-Clarity Report in order to get a more complete picture of your test results.

One thing you can do safely is to take one gram of the amino acid glycine twice a day (unless you have Parkinson’s disease). That will bind up the glycine, create hippuric acid which then gets urinated out.