Category Archives: Nutritional Supplements

Another Kevin Trudeau Scam

You would think by now the FDA would have gotten this guy out of the public eye but no, he keeps coming backing scamming people with so-called super products like Eden PM Sleep Support. Instead of honestly telling people what the product is, he masks it by using the full technical name for the amino acids in it and makes it sound mystical.

Here is the scoop on Eden PM –

  • Proprietary THP – tetrahydropalmatine a herbal extract that has shown ability to calm the nervous system but he uses a very small amount (2mg), much lower than the study by HM Chang and PPH But which was at 100 to 200 mgs.
  • 2-Aminoethanesulfonic acid – A fancy name for the amino acid taurine which is relatively inexpensive and is a good calming agent.
  • 2-amino acetic acid – Another fancy name for the cheapest amino acid on the market, Glycine.
  • Acetyl-3-Hydroxy-4-Trimethylaminobutoanyoate – Yup the long name for Acetyl-L-Carnintine

As is typical with Mr. Trudeau he wrapped a simple combination with relatively cheap ingredients into a extremely high priced scam. While the product is ok, the price is ridiculous – $104.90 for two bottles or $69.95 for one bottle.  Save your money and buy some melatonin, taurine or 5-HTP (5-hydroxytrytophan) for a lot less.

Alcoholism Cure? Media Nonsense and Poor Medical Research

The latest in a series of research papers being published by once respected journals has reared its ugly head today.  According to the lastest issue of JAMA and the media, you would think that the drug Topamax, can help cure alcoholism. Turns out that the reality calls for a much different read on things.  Not only was the drug also known as topiramate not that much better than placebo, there was a 20% dropout rate amongst the rather small 371 person study.

Now comes the real news about the drug and the study. I won’t embellish anything, I’ll quote the study which is available free of charge here and let you decide whether this treatment modality is worth pursuing.

“Adverse events that were more common with topiramate vs placebo, respectively, included paresthesia (50.8% vs 10.6%), taste perversion (23.0% vs 4.8%), anorexia (19.7% vs 6.9%), and difficulty with concentration (14.8% vs 3.2%).”

Hmmmm, increases in paresthesia a sensation of tingling or numbness is 5 times higher in those who take topiramate versus placebo, taste perversion 5 times higher, anorexia, a very serious disorder occurred 3 times more in the drug group and a 4 1/2 times higher rate of mental concentration difficulties in those taking the drug. Now let’s think about this. Those taking the drug had lots of side-effects and all they got was an 8% improvement over placebo. That isn’t very good.

Of course, the papers authors all belong to the Topiramate for Alcoholism Advisory Board and/or the Topiramate for Alcoholism Study Group which are funded by Ortho-McNeil, the makers of Topamax which goes for $350 a month. Save your money and look into nutritional ways of reducing alcohol intake at a much lower cost with far fewer side-effects.

Quercitin and Sports – A Way to Help Fight Off Illness

Doctor at Appalachian State University did a study on endurance athletes and found remarkable benefits to the nutritional supplement quercetin. Giving 40male cyclists either a placebo or 1 gram of quercetin daily, they found that the ones given the placebo had nine chest infections after two weeks of rigorous training and the quercitin group only had 1. This is a major improvement and should be studied in bigger groups.

In lab studies, quercetin, a flavonoid found in fruits, berries and tea, bound itself to bacteria and viruses, stopping them from duplicating. This may be why quercetin supplementation may be beneficial this winter when you’re trying to avoid catching a cold. I would suggest combining it with about 1,200 IUs of vitamin D and 1,000 mgs of vitamin C each day. I know I will.

Antioxidants Are Not Always a Good Thing

You’ve all heard the comment “you can get too much of a good thing” well it does come up with antioxidant use. Scientists from the University of Utah found that mice who had the gene mutation known as alpha-B crystalline produced too much glutathione in response to abnormal clumps of protein in the heart which led to heart failure. The over use of antioxidants and omega 3 fatty acids are also known to be a problem with people with congestive heart failure as they need more oxidation around the heart and not less.

What this study suggests is that some people can overdose themselves with antioxidants under the impression that all oxidation is bad, it isn’t. To live we need a good amount of oxidation. It is part of how our immune system works, how we create new cells, hormones, neurotransmitters and a whole array of biochemical actions.

The key here is the way and the types of antioxidants you take. Because of the stressful and toxic world we live in, we need to be taking a variety of antioxidants daily. Things like freeze-dried Acai, Coenzyme Q10, and Vitamin C should be in everyone’s daily routine. A whey protein drink  is another good idea. What is a bad idea is the overuse of IV glutathione, something that should only be used rarely in my opinion and not for every disease and syndrome like some people who claim to be scientists do.

Doing IVs is a pharmacologic intervention that should only be used when a person is in clear and present danger from excessive oxidative stress. Oral co factors like the ones I mention above is a way to get your own body to produce the needed antioxidants like glutathione in a natural and safe manner. Train your body to be more efficient, don’t intervene and cover up a problem. It’s the smart thing to do.

Update on Tasya – Seizures, Health, Behavior and Mood

It’s about time I updated everyone on my now 11 year old daughter, Tasya. As many of my readers know, she has a rare and as of yet, uncatergorized form of epilepsy that was so severe at one time, we thought that either she would die of it or become retarded by the age of 11 or 12. I am very happy to report that despite the doom and gloom that seemed to follow her 3 years ago, she is now doing better now than she has at anytime since her seizures began 8 years ago.

So what have we been doing to help her so much? Well, aside for the diet and avoiding crappy foods, aspartame, MSG and the foods on her LEAP test that cause inflammatory responses, we added two key nutrients from our previous regimen. The first was Glycerophosphocholine also known as GPC. GPC is a great phospholipid that has been shown in numerous clinical trials to be beneficial to people who have suffered strokes as well as restoring memory and concentration in both young and older individuals. Concentration issues were a major problem for Tasya so we asked Dr. Kidd what the dosage should be and his suggestion was 300 mg per day, always in the morning. I can honestly report that her concentration has markedly since starting on a regular regimen of GPC.

The second nutrient PS Omega Synergy which is a combination of Phosphatidylserine and two Omega 3 fatty acids, EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), has made a truly profound change in her mood, social skills and helped to lower the number of seizures she has to almost nothing. This is the best seizure control that she has had ever since they started in October of 1999. Her classmates have noticed a difference, her teachers have and we have. She is less likely to lose her temper, she has exhibited a wider range of emotions than ever before and has started to get excited about things that normally wouldn’t have moved her off the couch. PS Omega Synergy was the right nutrient at the right time for Tasya.

Is this the answer for others?  I can’t say that honestly. Did it make that much of a difference with Tasya?  That and more. We have a happy and predominantly seizure free child for the first time in years. Even her neurologist had a smile on his face yesterday when Tasya and my wife Hillary visited him. He decided that instead of the every four month visit, we could extend it to every six months.

My big thanks today is for two people, Robert Crayhon and Dr. Parris Kidd. Robert, thanks for being who you are and focusing on brain nutrition. The second is to Dr. Parris Kidd for bringing these two marvelous products to the market and doing the research to get them done right. Both of you should be proud that you helped save a little girls life as well as give her a future. I am also proud to call you both, friend.

Bisphosphonates vs. Nutrition for Osteoporosis? Part III

Here is the wrap-up of the three part series on osteoporosis by Dr. R. Keith McCormick whose Chiropractic practice can be found at 145 Old Amherst Rd. Belchertown, MA  01007 – Telephone # (413) 253-9777.  Enjoy the final installment of what I think is an important issue and should be shared with all of your friends and relatives, especially females who might be taking bisphosphonate drugs.

WHY USE NUTRITIONAL THERAPY BEFORE RESORTING TO DRUGS? Strategic nutritional therapy can reduce a patient’s fracture risk without the risks for adverse effects posed by drug therapy. It therefore makes clinical sense to first use nutritional therapy before resorting to pharmaceuticals. There are, of course, situations where a patient may have already sustained one or more fragility fractures or has been determined to be in imminent fracture risk and may require a combination of drug (such as teriparatide, the 1-34 amino acid segment of parathyroid hormone) and nutritional therapy. But in the clinical setting, there is often a window of time where the use of nutritional therapy can be used as a first choice.

Specific biomarkers shown to be related to bone health can be used to identify metabolic dysfunction that can be improved through nutrition. In addition, because osteoporosis is a catabolic disease with high correlation to diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and cardiovascular disease, improving these indicators may reduce etiopathologic mechanisms of other disease processes. Drug therapy as a first choice does nothing to improve a person’s overall health. It can only reduce fracture risk and that only possibly for a limited time period.

WHAT FACTORS MUST BE CONSIDERED PRIOR TO PRESCRIBING A BISPHOSPHONATE?  All too often, physicians look at improving bone density with a bisphosphonate as being the means to an end, when in fact the bone loss is just one symptom within a system struggling against a catabolic tide of inflammation-induced destructive forces. Before a person is placed on bisphosphonates as a panacea for bone loss, many factors should and must be ruled out. These include vitamins D and K deficiency, hypercalcemia, mineral deficiencies, high oxidative stress, chronic systemic inflammation, chronic low-level metabolic acidosis, malabsorption syndromes such as celiac disease, food allergens leading to chronic systemic inflammation, and heavy-metal toxicity. Artificially increasing bone density with a bisphosphonate while leaving the catabolic fires of destruction to burn on is both shortsighted and irresponsible.

Because there are currently no adequate guidelines available, it is difficult to assess an individual’s true fracture risk. The best we can do is to assess the patient’s lifestyle and superimpose upon this their level of bone mineral density to make a judgment call as to their risk for fracture.  But laboratory tests can also be used to improve our assessment of risk and guide the application of a nutritional treatment program. These lab values include the resorption markers N-telopeptide and deoxypyridinoline, but other indirect markers such as morning urine pH, urine organic acids, chemistry screen, CBC, 24-hour urine calcium, TSH, anti-tissue transglutaminase, antigliadin antibodies, glucose, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, homocysteine, hsCRP, and others can also be used to assess fracture risk and overall health. When biomarkers are abnormal, they may reflect a rise in the patient’s risk for fracture. Prescribing a bisphosphonate before laboratory tests are obtained is not an optimal approach to improving a patient’s bone health.

In summary, when bisphosphonates are used before adequate laboratory evaluation and before appropriate strategic nutrition is used to reduce fracture risk, we have lost not only an important opportunity to normalize bone remodeling but a chance to reduce the catabolic forces of chronic inflammation and further disease.

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.

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.

Antioxidants and Health – More Headline Nonsense

In the upcoming Archives of Internal Medicine a study was published that seemingly negates the benefits of antioxidant nutrients, especially when it comes to the prevention of cardiovascular disease.  It was a large scale study with over 8,000 women being looked at over a greater than 9 year period and the findings were likely very accurate, that antioxidant supplements do not prevent coronary heart disease.  Problem is, the study has a few fatal flaws that never make it to the headlines. All the headlines focus on is that antioxidants don’t help prevent heart

What the pharmaceutical company funded media fails to highlight is that they researchers did not look at the lifestyles of the individuals taking the supplements. If you have someone who has a very oxidative lifestyle filled with alcohol, poor diet, and no exercise there is no doubt that antioxidant supplements, especially in the low doses they used in the study, will have little effect on coronary heart disease. What the headlines should have said is that we found little benefit to supplements if you don’t give a damn about your health. You can’t use supplements to overcome a bad lifestyle.

The bottom line here is that the headline is deceiving. What it should have said is that supplements may are not helpful to people who don’t care about their health. There are numerous studies to show benefits of antioxidants in human health and this one does little to deny that fact, what it does suggest is that antioxidants alone are not the answer. Total focus on lifestyle issues is the answer. Sorry public, no pills to overcome bad decisions.