Health & Medicine
by Wayne Hall
Write me at herblist2002@yahoo.com or Wayne Hall 357 HWY 15 S. Jackson Ky. 41339
**NOTE** Breathitt Online is not responsible for you, the reader, for using anything in our health articles for your personal gains. As always you should seek your physicians approval when trying any new health treatments. We encourage healthy eating and good exercise.
CLICK on AD to See WebSite
OLD PHOTOS CLICK HERE
Back to Online News Click Here
Health Stories Click Here
Articles by James Turner III Click Here
Wayne Hall Archived Health Stories Click Here
Echinacea 5-29-08
Are you wasting your money on Echinacea? That depends on whom you ask.
"According to Dr. Dean Edell, a syndicated radio host M.D., there are no studies that prove Echinacea enhances the immune system. He says it's a waste of money. Do you have a study that supports your position that it is good for your immune system?"
Dr. Edell is not exactly an enthusiastic advocate of complementary and alternative therapies, so his dismissal of Echinacea is no surprise. And while there are a number of animal studies that have demonstrated an immune response to Echinacea, I've only been able to find one human trial.
In a healthy person, an elevated white blood cell count indicates an immune response. So a team of Australian researchers assessed white cell levels in 11 healthy subjects before a two-week intervention in which subjects took two Echinacea tablets each day. At the end of the study, white cell levels were elevated, along with other immune activity markers.
In the August 2005 issue of the Journal of Clinical Pharmacy & Therapeutics the authors wrote: "The pilot study suggests that Echinacea may invoke an immune response through altered expression of leucocyte heat shock protein 70 and increased white cell count."
Of course, this small study doesn't "prove Echinacea enhances the immune system," but there IS plenty of research that demonstrates Echinacea's effectiveness as a common cold fighter.
Echinacea and then some
In the artical "Get to the Root", I told you about a study that found Echinacea to be ineffective in preventing or treating the common cold. Mainstream reports conveniently ignored the most glaring flaw of the study: The dosage used was about one- third the typical recommended dosage. This is a cute trick we've seen in other alternative health care research: Use a ridiculously low dosage and then spread the word: Echinacea, vitamin E, folic acid (fill in the blank) doesn't work!
Last year, researchers at the University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy conducted a study that provides an ideal rebuttal to that 2005 trial. After analyzing 14 Echinacea intervention studies, the UC team reported: "Echinacea decreased the odds of developing the common cold by 58 %…and the duration of a cold by 1.4 days."
And a vitamin C supplement might improve those numbers. In a study in which Echinacea was combined with vitamin C supplements, risk of developing a cold dropped by more than 85 percent, compared to placebo. In that same study, subjects who took Echinacea alone lowered their risk by 65 percent.
Get to the root
As with any herbal treatment, consumers need to know some basics before they purchase an Echinacea product.
In previous articals, I've mentioned this rule of thumb for Echinacea: Potency runs from seed to root to leaf to almost none in the flower – so look for products that are extracted from the root. Echinacea flowers may also contain pollen, which can trigger allergic reactions.
Herbalists also recommend that Echinacea not be taken daily for long periods of time. Some herbalists suggest two weeks should be the maximum, while others say a few weeks longer is fine. Talk to your doctor or an experienced herbalist who's knowledgeable about your medical history before using Echinacea.

New Diet 5-18-08
The Associated Press calls it the "strongest evidence yet" that a government- recommended diet can prevent heart attacks and strokes.
I'll admit, the size is impressive: More than 88,000 subjects were followed for nearly 25 years and their dietary habits reveal no surprise at all: A diet that puts a strong emphasis on a generous daily intake of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains may lower your risk of coronary heart disease, heart attack, and stroke.
But a little digging among some passing comments buried in this study produces a couple of interesting surprises – as well as a couple of important caveats about following a "government" diet.
Situation normal
"Normotensive" is what we aim for – that's the word that describes the normal blood pressure range between hypertensive and hypotensive. It's also the target for those who follow the DASH diet (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension), brought to you by the good folks at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
NHLBI is a division of the National Institutes of Health. And the NIH kindly provided a grant to Harvard researchers to test the long-term effects of the DASH diet on cardiovascular risks.
Of course, you can't conduct a study in which 88,000 subjects follow different diets for 25 years. So the next best thing is to use information collected from the Nurses' Health Study, which began following the medical and dietary records of more than 120,000 nurses in 1976. About every four years, most of the members of the original cohort supplied detailed updates on their dietary intake.
When the Harvard team compared these dietary records against cardiovascular events, they found that subjects whose diets most closely matched the key elements of the DASH diet had a 24 percent reduced risk of heart attack and an 18 percent reduced risk of stroke.
In the AP write up of the study, Dr. Nieca Goldberg (medical director of the NYU Women's Heart Program) noted that many patients would rather just take a pill than change their diets. So she tries to persuade them to make dietary and other changes, hoping they'll see the wisdom in avoiding a lifetime commitment to medication.
Dr. Goldberg certainly has her work cut out for her. Just imagine: Most of those patients probably watch television, so every day they see happy, healthy, vibrant people gushing about how this drug or that drug took care of this problem or that problem. In the background there's always some guy muttering something about side effects, but these enthusiastic folks don't seem to be suffering from night sweats, depression, vomiting, rashes, heartburn, loss of libido, etc.
Gimme the pill, doc!
Filling in the blanks
Here's a little detail that wasn't covered in the AP report, or any of the other mainstream media reports I've seen about this study: According to the Harvard researchers: "Women with higher DASH scores tended to use multivitamins."
Funny how THAT didn't warrant much attention! Subjects with higher DASH scores also had greater amounts of omega-3 fatty acids in their diets, and consumed fewer trans fats.
While those healthy details may seem obvious to me, they probably won't to most people who visit the web site that offers DASH dietary recommendations (nhlbi.nih.gov/hbp/index.html). There they'll be told to eat two or fewer servings of fish, lean meats, or skinless poultry each day. That's not going to supply much omega-3.
Meanwhile, the DASH plan says it's fine to consume a couple of teaspoons of soft margarine every day – an excellent source of trans fatty acids.
And DASH doesn't include any recommendations for multivitamins or other dietary supplements.
In other words, women with the highest DASH scores were savvy about their nutritional needs, so they rejected some of the DASH recommendations.
Their reward: reduced heart disease risk.

Cancer 4-1-08
About one-third of all cancer patients who take supplements begin doing so after their diagnosis.
That's according to a recent survey (Journal of Clinical Oncology, February 2008), which also notes that nearly two out of every three cancer patients who take dietary supplements don't discuss their supplement use with their doctors.
That's not very shocking really. And it's also not very good.
Any issue that impacts your health (such as supplement use) should be shared with your doctor – even if he tends to be dismissive about alternative health care. And he may well be, given the widespread belief that antioxidant supplements may undercut the effects of chemotherapy and radiation.
But in the decade since that theory was first published in the journal Oncology, many studies have demonstrated that antioxidants may help cancer patients live longer while improving quality of life.
Skewed logic
Cytotoxic therapies (such as chemo and radiation therapies) create free radicals. Some believe these therapies depend on free radicals to kill cancer cells. And some proponents of this theory even suggest that patients treated with cytotoxic therapies should avoid antioxidant-rich foods – which would basically cut fruits and vegetables from their diets.
Right. Pour poison into a cancer patent's blood stream while removing key sources of high quality nutrients. I have no idea how that scheme makes sense to anyone.
In a 2007 study from the Institute for Integrative Cancer Research and Education, researchers combed through several data banks to come up with 19 randomized clinical trials that evaluated the use of antioxidants during chemotherapy.
The 19 trials included more than 1,500 subjects, and most had advanced or relapsed cancers. Seven trials evaluated the antioxidant glutathione, four evaluated melatonin, and the remaining trials examined vitamins A, C, and E, N-outlasting, ellagic acid, or an antioxidant mixture.
Results showed no significant decreases in chemotherapy effectiveness when used with antioxidant supplements. In fact, the supplements may have INCREASED chemo effectiveness. Writing in Cancer Treatment Reviews, the authors noted: "Many of the studies indicated that antioxidant supplementation resulted in either increased survival times, increased tumor responses, or both."
As for quality of life measures, in 17 trials that assessed chemotherapy toxicities (such as weight loss, low blood count, nerve damage, vomiting, diarrhea, etc.), 15 trials showed that subjects who received antioxidants had fewer side effects than control group subjects who didn't receive supplements.
Where to start
As I've noted in previous articles, one of the foremost authorities on alternative cancer treatments – Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. – has advocated antioxidant therapy for many years.
At a 2001 symposium, Dr. Moss gave a speech that included this comment: "We can reassure patients that the overwhelming mass of data accumulated so far supports the concurrent use of chemotherapy with dietary antioxidants." That was one year after Dr. Moss published a book titled "Antioxidants Against Cancer" in which he outlined the ways antioxidants enhance the effectiveness of cytotoxic treatments while minimizing their side effects.
There are many different types of chemotherapy, of course, just as there are many types of antioxidants. Decisions about which antioxidants to use with which chemotherapies should be made with professional help from doctors who are familiar with alternative therapies.
Vitamin C is probably the most common antioxidant therapy for cancer. Research has shown that high doses of vitamin C administered intravenously can kill cancer cells while leaving healthy cells alone.

Prozac Doesn't Work, say scientists 3-25-08
Analysis of unseen trials and other data concludes it is no better than placebo
Prozac, the bestselling antidepressant taken by 40 million people worldwide, does not work and nor do similar drugs in the same class, according to a major review released today.
The study examined all available data on the drugs, including results from clinical trials that the manufacturers chose not to publish at the time. The trials compared the effect on patients taking the drugs with those given a placebo or sugar pill.
When all the data was pulled together, it appeared that patients had improved - but those on placebo improved just as much as those on the drugs.
The only exception is in the most severely depressed patients, according to the authors - Prof Irving Kirsch from the department of psychology at Hull University and colleagues in the US and Canada. But that is probably because the placebo stopped working so well, they say, rather than the drugs having worked better.
"Given these results, there seems little reason to prescribe antidepressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients, unless alternative treatments have failed," says Kirsch. "This study raises serious issues that need to be addressed surrounding drug licensing and how drug trial data is reported."
The paper, published today in the journal PLoS (Public Library of Science) Medicine, is likely to have a significant impact on the prescribing of the drugs. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) already recommends that counselling should be tried before doctors prescribe antidepressants. Kirsch, who was one of the consultants for the guidelines, says the new analysis "would suggest that the prescription of antidepressant medications might be restricted even more".
The review breaks new ground because Kirsch and his colleagues have obtained for the first time what they believe is a full set of trial data for four antidepressants.
They requested the full data under freedom of information rules from the Food and Drug Administration, which licenses medicines in the US and requires all data when it makes a decision.
The pattern they saw from the trial results of fluoxetine (Prozac), paroxetine (Seroxat), venlafaxine (Effexor) and nefazodone (Serzone) was consistent. "Using complete data sets (including unpublished data) and a substantially larger data set of this type than has been previously reported, we find the overall effect of new-generation antidepressant medication is below recommended criteria for clinical significance," they write.
Two more frequently prescribed antidepressants were omitted from the study because scientists were unable to obtain all the data.
Concerns have been raised in recent years about the side-effects of this class of antidepressant. Evidence that they could prompt some young people to consider suicide led to a warning to doctors not to prescribe them for the under-18s - with the exception of Prozac, which was considered more effective than the rest.
In adults, however, the depression-beating benefits were thought to outweigh the risks. Since its launch in the US in 1988, some 40 million people have taken Prozac, earning tens of billions of dollars for the manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Although the patent lapsed in 2001, fluoxetine continues to make the company money - it is now the active ingredient in Sarafem, a pill sold by Lilly for premenstrual syndrome.
Eli Lilly was defiant last night. "Extensive scientific and medical experience has demonstrated that fluoxetine is an effective antidepressant," it said in a statement. "Since its discovery in 1972, fluoxetine has become one of the world's most-studied medicines. Lilly is proud of the difference fluoxetine has made to millions of people living with depression."
A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Seroxat, said the authors had failed to acknowledge the "very positive" benefits of the treatment and their conclusions were "at odds with what has been seen in actual clinical practice".
He added: "This analysis has only examined a small subset of the total data available while regulatory bodies around the world have conducted extensive reviews and evaluations of all the data available, and this one study should not be used to cause unnecessary alarm and concern for patients."

Drugs 3-17-08
I've covered many cases of drug company greed and corruption over the years, but this one completely takes the cake. It really would be very hard to go lower than this.
As you might suspect, an unsafe drug is at the center of this controversy. It's called Trasylol (manufactured by Bayer), and you've probably never heard of it because its use is so specific: It controls bleeding during heart operations. But for well over a decade Trasylol may have contributed to many thousands of deaths.
Bayer representatives knew this, and records show they withheld evidence from the FDA.
This deplorable case was covered on 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago, but for those who missed it I'll provide a simple but appalling timeline of events that illustrates how greed drives a drug company to protect product over people.
Time after time
Potential problems linked to Trasylol started showing up years before the drug was approved by the FDA.
EARLY 1980s: Dr. Juergen Fischer (director of the University of Cologne's Institute of Experimental Medicine) tells Bayer executives he's found evidence that Trasylol prompts severe kidney damage in animals. Dr. Fischer told 60 Minutes that he felt Bayer representatives weren't interested in examining this troubling side effect.
1992: Heart surgeon Dr. Nicholas Kouchoukos conducts a small study in which Trasylol is given to 20 patients. Thirteen of these subjects experience some level of kidney malfunction.
1993: The FDA approves Trasylol for use during surgery on heart patients at high risk of bleeding, noting that the drug may cause kidney toxicity.
1998: The FDA approves Trasylol for use in any heart bypass operation.
2005: Sales of Trasylol reach $300 million. Sales for 2006 are projected at $750 million.
January, 26, 2006: Reality catches up with Trasylol when the New England Journal of Medicine features a study that examined more than 4,000 patients. Results showed Trasylol use doubled the risk of renal failure requiring dialysis, while also increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. The lead author of that study told 60 Minutes that Trasylol use "showed a trend toward increased death in hospital."
January 2006: The FDA issues a warning to alert doctors of the NEJM study results.
Early 2006: The FDA plans an advisory committee meeting to assess Trasylol safety. According to 60 Minutes, Bayer executives prepare for the meeting by launching a study to examine records of about 67,000 patients who had used Trasylol. Results show Trasylol increases risk of acute kidney failure and death.
September 26, 2006: With 18 yes votes and one abstention, an FDA advisory committee votes to ENDORSE the efficacy and safety of Trasylol. Bayer representatives are present at the committee meeting, but do not submit the results of the study they commissioned.
September 30, 2006: A whistleblower reveals the Bayer study results to the FDA.
November 5, 2007: When a Canadian Trasylol trial is halted, prompted by deaths among subjects taking the drug, 60 Minutes reports that "the FDA persuaded Bayer to suspend marketing temporarily, though surgeons can still use it in special cases."
February 17, 2008: In a 60 Minutes interview, correspondent Scott Pelley asked Dennis T. Mangano, M.D. (the lead author of the January 2006 NEJM study), to estimate how many lives might have been saved if Trasylol had been taken off the market after his study was published. Dr. Mangano's answer: 22,000.
Flight additional charge for side effects
You might think this miserable story couldn't get any worse. But it does.
The 60 Minutes report notes that there are two other drugs that control bleeding during heart operations. Dr. Mangano states that these two drugs are just as effective as Trasylol, but with none of the adverse side effects.
And to ice the cake: Trasylol costs more than $1,000. The other two drugs cost $50. Which begs the question: Who makes the decision to use Trasylol? When your doctor prescribes Lipitor, for instance, you can go home and do some research about side effects before filling the prescription. But when you go into surgery, your doctor doesn't suggest you use Trasylol. He administers it. Which begs question number two: Did Trasylol become a best selling drug because Bayer offered sweet perks to surgeons who chose their drug over the less expensive ones?
The FDA and Bayer both declined to discuss the Trasylol fiasco with 60 Minutes, but Bayer sent a letter stating: "Available data continue to support a favorable risk-benefit profile for Trasylol when used according to labeling."
Well, what can we really expect them to say? After all, they've got to do everything they can to support their legal department in what will surely be a flood of lawsuits, similar to the deluge of litigation that followed the Vioxx disaster a few years ago.
As I've noted in previous articals, anyone who takes a drug within the first few years after FDA approval is essentially participating in a safety trial. But instead of getting compensated to participate, they actually pay top dollar. Some pay with their lives.

Light Bulbs 3-8-08
Light bulb manufacturers have convinced environmentalists and lawmakers that the compact fluorescent light (CFL) is more energy efficient than the incandescent.
Okay. No problem. When you go to buy a new light bulb, if you care to spend the extra money (CFLs cost about six times as much as incandescents), you might feel good about helping the environment. Nothing wrong with that. Enjoy.
Problem is, those light bulb makers have quietly mounted a very successful campaign to MAKE you buy their new bulbs. No choice. Their new bulb is your new bulb.
This past December, President Bush signed an energy bill that will make it illegal to manufacture or sell incandescent light bulbs as of 2014. So if you prefer incandescent light, too bad for you. Within a decade, every home in the U.S., including yours, will be lit with little glowing swirls of mercury.
Mercury rising
In the artical I told you about the Environmental Protection Agency's tips on how to clean up after a broken CFL. Tip number one suggests you open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes to reduce exposure to mercury.
And why don't you want to be exposed to mercury? Because it's a neurotoxin. What a fantastic idea! Let's fill fragile tubes with a neurotoxin and place them all over the house!
Another tip suggests that when broken CFL debris is on the carpet, you should pick up fragments and powder with sticky tape before vacuuming. But an HSI member named Ed spotted a problem here. Ed writes: "If you vacuum the mercury you will blow the mercury around the room through exhaust of the vacuum cleaner."
Good point, Ed. So to the EPA's tips we can add this one: If you break a CFL in a carpeted area, roll up the carpet, put it on your front lawn, and call the EPA to come take it away.
Environmentalists claim that filling our homes with CFLs will actually lower our exposure to mercury. Here's how the logic goes: About half the electricity in the U.S. is supplied by burning coal, which emits mercury into the atmosphere. But CFLs are energy efficient, so less coal will be burned, and less mercury will waft on the breeze.
And that would be a strong pro-CFL argument if we only used electricity to light our lamps. I don't about you, but at my house the refrigerator, the televisions, the computers, the central air, the microwave and dozens of other appliances all run on electricity. I've got a hunch that most of that burning coal is going to keep right on burning.
Green to partly green
Ok here is a question that was ask.
"Does the danger also exist in the long ones in use for years?"
By "long ones," of course, the question is referring to fluorescent tube lighting that many of us already use in our homes. And the answer is yes – the long ones contain mercury and are dangerous when broken. In fact, they're even dangerous when they're not broken in the home. If they're not carefully recycled, they end up breaking in landfills and the mercury may become airborne or migrate into water supplies. According to a U.S. Navy web site, fluorescent tubes in landfills create the second largest source of mercury pollution. You have to imagine that CFLs will only contribute to the problem.
But no, no, no – that won't happen at all, according to environmentalists. Because CFLs will be recycled. See? Problem solved!
Or that's what will happen in some imaginary perfect green world. Meanwhile, back here on earth, who's kidding who? Millions of burned out CFLs will go straight into the trash.
Where's there's smoke…no fire?
Out of curiosity I recently purchased a CFL, and was astonished to read this note included in the packaging: "May cause interference to radios, televisions, wireless telephones, and remote controls. Avoid placing this product near these devices."
You've got to be kidding. In our increasingly wireless society, this is going to be the only type of light bulb we can buy? And in rooms where I have a television, I may have to decide between TV or light? Who in the world came up with this insane plan? And even worse – who decided to FORCE it on us?
But wireless interference is just one of the annoying little problems with CFLs…
CFLs don't work well (or sometimes at all) in very cold weather, so operation of porch lights and outdoor security lights in northern states may be erratic in wintertime
If a CFL is turned on and off frequently, its energy efficiency drops and its highly-touted life expectancy decreases
Most CFLs can't be used with dimmer switches or timers
CFLs won't fit in many existing lighting fixtures
CFLs may smoke or smolder, but don't worry – we're assured they won't catch fire
Energy Star – a government program that encourages energy conservation – offers this hilarious procedure to follow when a CFL fills a room with smoke:
"If you have a product that does begin to smoke or smolder, immediately shut off the power to the CFL and, once it has cooled, remove it from the light socket. Then, send us e-mail…to alert us of this incident. Please include the product manufacturer's name and model information that is included on the CFL base and if possible an electronic photo. Also please tell us how the CFL was used – open or enclosed light fixture; indoors or outdoors; base orientation – up, down or sideways. Then visit the manufacturer's web site to find customer service contact information to inform them of the early failure."
When a CFL in my home starts smoking I'm going to get rid of the foul thing. I'm not going to send Energy Star an e-mail, and I'm not going to tell them how I was using it, and I'm not going to visit the manufacturer's web site.
But then maybe someone is busy right now writing a law that will force me to do those things.

Human Brain 2-29-08
For memory, learning, concentration, & more.
There's a revolution happening in brain research, and phosphatidylserine (PS) is a big part of it.
It's now proven that the brain can partially compensate for damage by adjusting existing circuits and calling upon a reserve of fresh cells.
PS (phosphatidylserine) nutritionally supports brain adaptability, offering people of all ages the possibility of up grading their mental performance.
I think of PS as a "deep nutrient" because it occurs in all known life forms and, works at a profound level. It has been around since life began, being an essential building block for cells, the most basic units of life. PS is most concentrated in the brain, where it nutritionally supports many crucial nerve cell functions.
Mental decline: not an inevitable part of aging:
As we age, many of us notice a loss of mental sharpness and think that this is just part of getting older, but aging cannot explain the current epidemic of severe mental deterioration. The fact is, the human brain is highly susceptible to living in modern "developed" society. Poor lifestyle and diet, ongoing emotional stress, and environmental pollutants all damage fragile brain cells. Many pharmaceutical drugs can cause severe memory loss. More and more children are showing behavioral and learning difficulties linked to pollutant exposures, and such difficulties can persist into adulthood.
People who abuse their bodies through poor diet and lifestyle can experience mental fall-off as early as their 30s, and for many others the problems become really noticeable during their mid-40s. Those people who perform the worst for their age-group are at increased risk of severe cognitive deterioration in later life, unless they make a commitment to rebuilding brain function. They can start with PS.
The science behind PS
PS has a solid scientific track record. Eighteen double-blind studies establish that PS consistently benefits memory, learning, concentration, word choice, and mood. PS often benefits elderly people with behavioral and mood changes. In a double-blind trial with middle-aged subjects, Thomas Crook found PS helped them regain as much as 12 years' worth of lost memory power. As for children, PS often helps those who have problems learning in school and responding to their parents at home.
How PS works
Biochemically speaking, PS is a phospholipid substance, a major building block for membranes, those dynamic structures upon which most life activities occur. The membrane systems of the nerve cells make the connections for the brain's estimated 1,000-trillion separate conducting pathways. Through its deep-membrane actions in the nerve cells, PS facilitates the production, action, and cross-harmonization of the brain's many chemical transmitters. PS raises brain energy, integrates electrical activity across the brain zones, improves mood, restores hormones that are out of rhythm, even improves coordination between the brain and the adrenal organs which help us cope with stress.
How to use PS
Since PS is a fat-soluble nutrient, I recommend intake of 300 mg daily for the first month. After that, 100 to 200 mg per day may suffice for maintenance. For some people, higher intakes may be advisable, in consultation with a qualified healthcare professional. PS is safe to take, extremely well-tolerated, and proved to be compatible with drugs in common use by the elderly:
Now that we know the human brain can bounce back to rebuild lost function, dietary supplementation with PS ought to be a key component of any brain support program.

Vitamins 2-21-08
Your doctor may be able to assess your relative stroke risk with just two simple measures.
Measure Number 1: Vitamin C.
Top of the heap
Previous trials have shown a slight but not significant link between vitamin C supplement use and reduced stroke risk. But what about blood levels of vitamin C from dietary sources? Could evidence of a high intake of C-rich foods predict risk?
This is the question a UK team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, set out to answer in a study published last month in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
STUDY PROFILE
Blood samples were taken from more than 20,600 subjects participating in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer study
At baseline, subjects were between 40 and 79 years old
Each subject completed a questionnaire to record personal habits and conditions that impact general health
Researchers followed the subjects for nearly 10 years, recording 448 strokes
When blood levels of vitamin C were measured, subjects were divided into four groups according to their plasma vitamin C concentrations
Results showed that subjects in the top quartile had a 42 percent lower risk of stroke compared to subjects in the bottom quartile
The Cambridge team concluded that plasma vitamin C concentration might serve as a useful tool in identifying a patient's stroke risk.
An editorial that accompanied the Cambridge research notes that five to nine servings of a wide variety of fruits and vegetables each day would put most people in the top vitamin C quartile.
Add just a little more
A study five years ago (7/1/02), a study from Finland in which researchers took blood samples from more than 2,400 middle-aged men, and then followed their health records for 10 years.
Results showed that subjects with the lowest plasma concentrations of vitamin C were almost two and a half times more likely to experience a stroke compared to subjects with the highest C levels.
One of the most interesting things about this study is that the vitamin C intake difference between subjects with high levels and subjects with low levels was not enormous. Researchers estimated that the difference between the two groups was equal to the equivalent of only about one and a half glasses of orange juice per day.
Measure for measure
And now for stroke Measure Number 2: Folate.
In the the link between folate levels and stroke risk was examined by researchers at Tulane University who assessed 19 years of dietary and medical data collected from more than 9,700 subjects. When folate intake was compared to incidence of strokes and development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), researchers found that subjects who consumed at least 300 micrograms (mcg) of folate daily reduced stroke risk by 20 percent and CVD risk by 13 percent.
Dietary sources of folate (part of the B vitamin complex) include spinach, leafy green vegetables, asparagus, beans, chickpeas, and two excellent sources of vitamin C: citrus fruit and tomatoes.

Adrenal Fatigue 2-16-08
Most common symptoms are fatigue, insomnia, weight gain, and depression. Does that sound like you? If so, your underlying problem may be adrenal fatigue.
The effects of adrenal dysfunction can be profound: fatigue and weakness, suppression of the immune system, muscle and bone loss, moodiness or depression, hormonal imbalance, skin problems, autoimmune disorders, and dozens of other symptoms.
The good news is that adrenal fatigue can almost always be relieved. Let’s look at the relationships between stress, high cortisol levels and adrenal fatigue, and then we’ll look at how you can give your adrenals more support.
The original, life-saving role of the adrenal glands
To understand how adrenal fatigue develops, it is important to understand the original, evolutionary function of the adrenal glands. The adrenals are walnut-sized glands located on top of each kidney, and are important control centers for many of the body’s hormones. The outer layer of the gland, called the adrenal cortex, produces hormones including cortisol, DHEA, estrogen and testosterone. The centers of the glands produce adrenaline, the hormone named after them.
The basic task of your adrenal glands is to rush all your body’s resources into "fight or flight" mode by increasing production of adrenaline and other hormones. When healthy, your adrenals can instantly increase your heart rate and blood pressure, release your energy stores for immediate use, slow your digestion and other secondary functions, and sharpen your senses.
Let’s emphasize two points about this healthy stress response. First, it takes priority over all other metabolic functions. Second, it wasn’t designed to last very long.
Stress and the adrenal glands
Unlike our ancestors, we live with constant stress. Instead of occasional, acute demands followed by rest, we’re constantly over-worked, under-nourished, exposed to environmental toxins, worrying about others — with no let-up.
Every challenge to the mind and body creates a demand on the adrenal glands. And the list of challenges is endless: lack of sleep, a demanding boss, the threat of losing your job, financial pressures, personality conflicts, yo-yo dieting, relationship turmoil, death or illness of a loved one, skipping meals, reliance on stimulants like caffeine and carbs, digestive problems, over-exercise, illness or infection, unresolved emotional issues from our past or present and more. The result is adrenal glands that are constantly on high alert.
The destructive effect of high cortisol levels
What is cortisol? In its normal function, cortisol helps us meet these challenges by converting proteins into energy, releasing glycogen and counteracting inflammation. For a short time, that’s okay. But at sustained high levels, cortisol gradually tears your body down.
Sustained high cortisol levels destroy healthy muscle and bone, slow down healing and normal cell regeneration, co-opt biochemicals needed to make other vital hormones, impair digestion, metabolism and mental function, interfere with healthy endocrine function; and weaken your immune system.
Adrenal fatigue may be a factor in many related conditions, including fibromyalgia, hypothyroidism, chronic fatigue syndrome, arthritis, premature menopause and others. It may also produce a host of other unpleasant symptoms, from acne to hair loss.
The loss of DHEA production
When the adrenals are chronically overworked and straining to maintain high cortisol levels, they lose the capacity to produce DHEA in sufficient amounts. DHEA (the full name is dehydroepiandrosterone) is a precursor hormone to estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone, and is necessary to moderate the balance of hormones in your body. Insufficient DHEA contributes to fatigue, bone loss, loss of muscle mass, depression, aching joints, decreased sex drive, and impaired immune function.
Should you get an adrenal test?
In general, if you feel happy and well, have steady energy and emotions, sleep soundly seven to nine hours a night, wake up feeling rested, recover well from stress, and maintain a healthy weight without dieting, then your adrenals are probably doing well.

On the other hand, if your energy lags during the day, you feel emotionally unbalanced much of the time, you sleep poorly or less than seven hours a night, can’t lose excess weight even while dieting, use caffeine or carbohydrates as “pick-me-ups” — these are all red flags indicating adrenal insufficiency.
Natural adrenal support — how to restore healthy adrenal function
The first step is to have a full physical exam to rule out disease or other factors. In my experience, women with mild to moderate cases of adrenal fatigue can see significant improvement through these steps:
Dietary changes to enrich your nutrition and reduce carbohydrates and stimulants. We also recommend the addition of high-quality nutritional supplements, including essential fatty acids from fish oil.
Stress reduction, including moderate exercise and taking more time for yourself. It’s helpful to make a list of your stressors, especially those that are constant.
Get more rest. Your body needs time to heal.
Women with more severe symptoms, or those who have reached complete adrenal exhaustion, usually need greater intervention. Here are a few supplements that you can try to boost your adrenal glans, low-dose DHEA,50 Mg.Ginseng,(as directed on bottle) and deglycyrrhizinated licorice (As directed on bottle).
It’s important to emphasize the role of emotional factors. Guilt, pain from past hurts, self-destructive habits, unresolved relationship problems — your past and present emotional experience may serve as an ever-present stressor. Dealing with these problems directly is much more beneficial than trying to compensate for the stress they create, in the same way that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
In all but the most extreme cases, we expect to see dramatic improvement within about four months. For mild to moderate adrenal fatigue the turn around can be much faster. Remember, you may feel too tired to make changes now, but by moving forward in stages, you’ll build the strength you need to stay with it. You will love how you feel when you do!
*Note this is only information and is not used to treat or cure any disease:

Dietary Supplements 2-7-08
Every choice you make about your diet and dietary supplements will have an impact on your health. A new study demonstrates why that's especially true for patients with type 2 diabetes.
Happily, the news here is good: When type 2 diabetics receive sufficient amounts of one specific nutrient, they may reduce total fat mass and improve heart health. But this good news comes with a caution as well.
The great white way
In the December 2007 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, scientists from several research institutions in Paris, France, reported on a study in which they evaluated the effect of fish oil supplements on adiposity and insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetics.
Before we look at the study, you might be wondering: adiposity?
Amanda Ross, the Managing Editor of Dr. Jonathan V. Wright's Nutrition & Healing newsletter, neatly defined the term in her Health e-Tips e-letter: "Adiposity literally means fattiness, and is often used interchangeably with the word obesity. There are two types of adipose cells, White Adipose tissue (WAT) and Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT). The body uses WAT to store energy for use in famines; BAT burns energy to maintain body temperature.
"Severe obesity occurs when the body begins storing too many WAT cells than it requires for survival. Some research suggests that only the reduction of fat cell numbers can cause permanent fat loss, and weight loss techniques that reduce the size of fat calls, but not their numbers, are doomed to be temporary."
Coincidentally, the Paris study involves reduction of fat cell numbers AND reduction in the size of fat cells.
STUDY PROFILE
Researchers recruited 27 women with type 2 diabetes
Half the subjects took 3 grams of fish oil each day (delivering nearly 2 grams of omega 3 fatty acids), and half the subjects took a placebo
After two months of intervention, tests revealed a significant drop in total fat mass and diminished diameter of subcutaneous adipocytes (fat cells just below the skin's surface)
Markers that reveal risk factors for fatty deposits in arteries were also lower in the fish oil group compared to placebo
In addition, the authors wrote: "A subset of inflammation-related genes was reduced in subcutaneous adipose tissue after the fish oil, but not the placebo, treatment."
Watch those levels
The Paris researchers also noted that there was no significant change in insulin sensitivity between the two groups. But at a higher dosage of fish oil, blood sugar control might be an issue.
In a artical "Just the Flax", I told you about an Australian study in which 59 type 2 diabetics took four grams of fish oil each day for six weeks. As in the Paris study, the intervention had negligible effects on insulin levels, but blood sugar levels increased. I haven't found any subsequent studies to confirm this potential danger, but to be on the safe side, diabetics should closely monitor their blood sugar for changes when using high doses of fish oil.
As always, talk to your doctor before adding any new supplements to your daily regimen.
And speaking of doctors, I'll give Allan Spreen, M.D., the final word today, with his recommendation to take a vitamin E supplement when using fish oil. Omega-3s are polyunsaturated fatty acids, and in a artical "The Kids are Alright", Dr. Spreen offered this observation in a discussion about omega-3: "Vitamin E counteracts free-radical formation from unsaturated oils (funny how all the hoopla about unsaturated fats seems to ignore that)."

Cancer 1-24-08
Your phone rings. It's your doctor. He's got your test results. Before he says another word your body tenses, bracing for the diagnosis.
When the diagnosis is cancer, the way your body reacts to the resulting stress may actually energize the cancer's growth. But researchers believe a common botanical may curb the stressful reaction and help put the breaks on further development of the cancer.
Two steps up
We've already seen evidence that ginkgo biloba extract may help women lower their risk of developing ovarian cancer.
In a previous artical I told you about a Harvard study that examined herbal usage among 1,200 female subjects, half of whom were ovarian cancer patients. Researchers found that women who used ginkgo were much more likely to be in the healthy group. In fact, it appeared that when ginkgo was used for six months or longer, ovarian cancer risk was cut by as much as 60 percent.
The Harvard team backed up this research with a lab study in which results showed that a small amount of ginkgolide (the biologically active component of ginkgo biloba) stopped the growth of ovarian cancer cells.
That research is followed up with a Georgetown University study that indicates the Harvard results were on the right track. And even more promising: The Georgetown results suggest that ginkgo may help keep localized cancers from becoming invasive.
Keeping a lid on it
Forget all the negative reports you've recently heard concerning steroid use in baseball. Steroids produced naturally in the body are regulatory hormones that a cell needs for proper growth. For two decades, Georgetown researchers have been studying a molecule known as PBR – a protein molecule that plays an important role in drawing cholesterol into a cell where it's used to produce steroids.
The Georgetown research reveals that PBR is over-expressed by some highly invasive cancers, including certain brain cancers, breast, colon, and prostate cancers. PBR over-expression is also linked to some neurological disorders, so Dr. Vassilios Papadopoulos (vice president of the Georgetown University Medical Center) designed a test to examine the effects of ginkgo on PBR production.
Dr. Papadopoulos' team took breast cancer cells that over-expressed PBR and implanted them in mice. After a 30-day treatment with ginkgo extract, tumor size was reduced by 35 percent compared to mice that didn't receive ginkgo.
In a more recent lab study from the Georgetown team, ginkgo extract significantly slowed the growth of aggressive cancer cells.
Dr. Papadopoulos plans further research to test his theory that a cancer diagnosis might boost the production of stress steroids through PBR over-production. He believes such stress may prompt a tumor to become invasive, and adds, "Ginkgo biloba could possibly reduce this stress by tamping down PBR."
Acid test
Most of my readers are probably aware that ginkgo biloba is well known as a potential memory enhancer and an aid for cognitive function that might even be effective in treating the early symptoms of Alzheimer's disease.
If you're thinking of supplementing with ginkgo, keep in mind that many alternative practitioners believe the recommended daily dosage of 120 mg is too low, and that the dosage should be 240 mg or more per day. The optimal dosage for any individual should be determined by weighing other health factors, other supplements or drugs being used, and only after consulting a doctor or medical professional.
Also note that ginkgo may prompt gastrointestinal bleeding. Apparently this bleeding is slight, and usually happens when ginkgo is taken with other agents that are also known to prompt such bleeding, like aspirin or the anticoagulant drug warfarin. So for most people, bleeding shouldn't be a problem. However, there are other side effects linked to ginkgo usage, including headaches and skin irritations.
The culprit in these cases is ginkgolic acid, a toxic compound. It's generally accepted that five ppm (parts per million) is a safe maximum level for this acid. But some supplement manufacturers don't list ginkgolic acid on their labels, so be sure to read content labels carefully. If ginkgolic acid ppm isn't listed, choose another ginkgo product.
Talk to your doctor or a health care professional before supplementing with ginkgo biloba.
...and another thing
If your doctor prescribes an antibiotic for bronchitis, it's time to start asking questions.
First question: Is it viral bronchitis?
If the answer is yes (which it will be in the vast majority of cases), the next question is: What are you thinking?
In a new review of bronchitis studies, researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University report that antibiotics are prescribed to about 70 percent of bronchitis patients, and most of those cases are unresponsive to antibiotic therapy.
In an artical I sent you last year, Allan Spreen, M.D., explained why antibiotics are still prescribed for a condition that's not bacterial: "When I started practice (1985), almost any symptom of bronchitis got a Rx for antibiotics. Later on, with more news about 'superbugs,' antibiotic resistance, and antibiotic overuse, the prescriptions for antibiotics decreased for bronchitis (which already had several reports of those drugs not being effective). Today it sort of depends on the doc, as some will still prescribe an antibiotic to get a patient out of the office (and not wanting to deal with the 'please doctor DO something' syndrome)."
So how should bronchitis be treated? Dr. Spreen again: "For bronchitis (an inflammation of the larger airways that lead to the lungs, but don't include gas-exchange tissues) I'd be going heavy on vitamin C, the absolute minimum being 1,000 mg three times/day, and preferably (in my opinion) a loading dose of 3,000-5,000 mg with 1,000-2,000 mg/hour more like it for the aggressive types. If bronchitis tends to be chronic, vitamin A (not beta-carotene) and zinc should be thrown in there to help protect mucosal surfaces that may be chronically nutrient-deficient.
"Plus, I'd add Alpha Lipoic Acid (ALA), as it's the best antioxidant that can reach fat- soluble spaces, along with NAC (N-Acetyl Cysteine), which is known to be good for lung tissue to keep bronchitis from possibly progressing into something worse."
Talk to your doctor before adding these supplements to your regimen.

You Are What You Wear 1-17-08
You are what you eat, but unfortunately you are also what you apply to your skin – shampoo, hand lotion, lipstick…anything.
Here's a very sobering paragraph that appears in a Q&A titled "Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Can be Cancer Risks" on the Cancer Prevention Coalition web site: "Cosmetic ingredients most certainly are absorbed through the skin.
Some chemicals may penetrate the skin in significant amounts, especially when left on the skin for long periods, as in the case of facial makeup." According to this Q&A, one study showed that the skin absorbs more than 10 percent of a cosmetic preservative known as BHT.
"Toxmetics" is how William Campbell Douglass II, M.D., refers to the products so many of us frequently use. But just a few simple precautions may dramatically minimize your exposure to harmful chemicals.
Goodbye kitty
Dr. Douglass shared eye-opening details from a UK advocacy group known as Chemical Safe Skincare. The CSS web site states that, "the average woman uses 12 toiletries every day and applies more than 175 chemical compounds to her body in the process."
Of course, not all 175 of those compounds are necessarily bad for you. But if just one or two chemicals are toxic and you apply them every day, then you might be setting yourself up for a wide range of health problems.
And, men, you're not off the hook. When you think of cosmetics, you may think of facial makeup, lipstick, mascara – that sort of thing. But the broad definition of cosmetics includes deodorants, hair coloring, shaving cream, and bath products, including shampoos.
Even products for infants are part of the cosmetic mix. In fact, last year a group called Campaign for Safe Cosmetics issued a press release to warn consumers about several popular children's bath products that contain a cancer-causing petrochemical with the cumbersome name of 1,4-Dioxane. This chemical is considered a probable human carcinogen and a proven animal carcinogen. Johnson's Baby Wash, Sesame Street Bubble Bath, and Hello Kitty Bubble Bath are all reported to contain 1,4-Dioxane.
Meanwhile, the folks at Chemical Safe Skincare have put two widely used cosmetic chemicals high on the "Must Avoid" list: parabens and phthalates. Studies have linked both chemicals to disruption of normal hormone function and increased breast cancer risk.
Parabens are antimicrobial preservatives used in deodorants, creams, body sprays, and many other cosmetics. Phthalates are found in deodorant, perfume, nail polish, and hair spray. Their use has also been linked to lung, liver, and kidney damage.
Steer clear
Of course, you can always check cosmetic labels to see if they contain 1,4-Dioxane, parabens, phthalates, BHT, and other worrisome chemicals (including formaldehyde and sodium laureth sulfate). But keep in mind that neither the FDA nor any other agency requires cosmetic companies to fully list the contents of products.
Needless to say, many groups, such as Chemical Safe Skincare (ChemicalSafeSkincare.co.uk), Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (safecosmetics.org), and others are currently waging campaigns that call for the ban of certain ingredients and a requirement that all cosmetic products carry ingredients labels.
In the meantime, there are two things you can do: 1) Share this information with friends and family to let them know that toxic chemicals might be hiding in many of the personal care products we use every day, and 2) Choose safe cosmetics.
Here are three sources that offer cosmetic products free of harmful chemicals:
Raintree Nutrition (rain-tree.com)
Lluvia Skin Renewal System (amazonianherb.com)
Elave (elave.co.uk)
The Cancer Prevention Coalition also offers these cosmetic safety tips:
Choose cosmetics that contain the fewest ingredients
Handle all cosmetics in a way that prevents bacterial contamination
Do not leave product containers uncapped
Do not share cosmetics
Use applicators – do not apply makeup with your fingers

New Year Revolution 1-10-08
It's that time of year again - New Year Resolutions! Millions of people around the world are vowing to lose weight, quit smoking, stick to a budget, and more. How many will actually follow through with these changes? Probably not many.
Have you done this before? Have you made promises to yourself and not kept them? You are not alone. Why does it seem so easy to make changes in our lives, until we actually begin to do the work?
Change is hard. Most of us don't stop to think about that when we set goals. We start out filled with passion, fire and excitement. We feel invincible and know we can accomplish whatever we desire. We see the glorious outcome of our desires shining before us, and we are determined to make it happen. Then we begin to encounter obstacles along the way. We may struggle halfheartedly through a few of them, but eventually we find ourselves making excuses, procrastinating and losing interest in those same goals we were so excited about before. What happened?
Goal setting involves much more than making a promise to do something. We need to equip ourselves with the right tools and mindset to ensure our success. There are several things we need to think about before we set goals:
Why? - What is your reason for wanting this particular outcome? It's lofty to want to lose weight or quit smoking, but if you don't have a clear, strong reason for wanting to do so, you will have no passion to fuel your efforts. What will you gain by making these changes in your life? What will you gain by not making changes? Oh yes, you are gaining something by keeping your bad habits around, or else you would have gotten rid of them long before now. Understand that, and acknowledge it. Be honest with yourself. Be clear about what you really want. Let's say you want to quit smoking because you want to live a healthier life. Why? What will that do for you? It will improve your quality of life. Okay, why is that important to you? Keep asking yourself "why", until you get to the "meat" of your desire. Be sure you understand exactly why these goals are important to you, and write it down. You will want to read it over and over again, especially when you feel your resolve crumbling.
Action Goals vs. Results Goals - Most of us make the mistake of setting results-oriented goals, rather than action goals. This is an important distinction. Setting a goal to lose thirty pounds is not a goal at all. It is an outcome. The goal should be to exercise and eat right - which will result in the loss of weight. We need to treat the problem, not the symptom. Make a note of the outcome you want, and then make a list of the actions that will get you there. Then make the actions your goal. Be specific. Rather than setting a goal to "lose weight", decide how, when, how often, and for how long you will exercise each day. Decide what foods you will eat (or not eat), and how much of them. Set realistic and specific daily goals, and reward yourself when you accomplish them. Each day is an opportunity for victory.
Believe You Deserve It - Many of us struggle with low self-esteem, and feel we don't really deserve success. Unfortunately, if we don't believe we deserve it, we will resist it when it arrives. We may do this unconsciously by sabotaging our own efforts, or we may outright refuse to even try. We must first understand and then truly believe that we do deserve success and happiness. In addition, we must be consciously open to receiving it. We're so good at giving to others, but many of us won't accept help or blessings for ourselves. Be willing to believe that you deserve to be successful and happy. Then be willing to accept that success when it arrives. Give yourself the gift of better health, inner peace, more organization, a better job - whatever you are striving for in setting your goals. Affirm aloud to the universe each day, "I joyfully accept all of the abundance and success the universe has for me, NOW." Remember that the more abundance you have, the more you will be able to help others also.
Commitment - One of the greatest secrets of success is simply not giving up. When we look at successful people, they seem to have it so easy. What we usually don't see are the years of hard work, dedication and commitment that got them to where they are today. Many of them struggled through massive obstacles and setbacks, sometimes having to start all over again repeatedly. Are you that committed to your goals? Will you persevere no matter what? Make a promise to yourself that you will continue working toward your goals, even if you aren't seeing the progress you hoped for. Be willing to work hard and continue working hard, even when - especially when - the going gets rough. When obstacles arise, fuel your persistence with positive thoughts and keep moving forward. Let your determination glow hot and bright, and burn away all doubts and fears. Don't beat yourself up if you make mistakes, simply get up and begin moving forward again.
Patience - Forming new habits takes time and practice. The good news is that countless people have proven it can be done. If they can do it, you can do it too. Give it your best effort, but don't expect perfection from yourself. You may stumble and fall; you may grow weary of the battle. However, remember that anything worthwhile takes effort. Your goals and dreams are worth fighting for, no matter how fierce the battle, no matter how long it takes.
Most importantly, believe in yourself. Believe that you have the skills, ability and determination to make your dreams come true. That, above all else, will guarantee your success.

Guinea Pigs 1-01-08
When one guinea pig gets the flu, his guinea pig pals get the flu too.
That might not seem like a big deal, but that one simple detail, hidden in plain sight for more than 85 years, has lead to an answer to one of the most persistent questions in medicine: Why does flu season occur in the winter?
New Mexico, 1919
Peter Palese, M.D., had one of those moments when details connect and a light bulb flashes on in the mind.
He was reading a scientific paper, published in 1919, about the horrific Spanish influenza pandemic that caused at least 50 million pneumonia deaths worldwide. The paper detailed the effects of the pandemic in a laboratory in New Mexico where guinea pigs died of pneumonia.
That was Dr. Palese's light bulb moment.
Ethical problems prohibit the study of flu transmission from person to person (you can't deliberately infect human subjects), and mice don't transmit the flu from one to another. Why researchers never used guinea pigs for such a study is unclear, but Dr. Palese immediately realized the potential.
After running a simple study to confirm that guinea pigs actually transmit the flu, Dr. Palese and his colleagues at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York mounted a more ambitious study that included twenty different experiments to determine flu transmission at various temperature and humidity levels. Results showed that the optimal temperature for transmission was five degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit), and the optimal relative humidity was 20 percent.
Dr. Palese's results also show that at 41 degrees F., the infected guinea pigs duration of peak transmission was about 40 hours longer than that of guinea pigs kept at 70 degrees F. There was no transmission of the flu at 86 degrees F. and above.
Humid and healthy
Dr. Palese's results seem counterintuitive. After all, organisms thrive in warmth – so why would a nasty winter virus flourish in Montreal, but not Miami?
Because it's not the cold, it's the humidity.
In a recent issue of the journal PLoS Pathogens, Dr. Palese explains that when humidity is high, respiratory droplets exhaled from an infected person tend to take on water, increase in size, and quickly settle out of the air. But when the air is cold and relatively free of moisture, those exhaled droplets remain light and airborne. In addition, indoor heating usually makes the air very dry, so exhaled droplets tend to fly instead of fall.
A New York Times report on this study notes that Dr. Palese doesn't suggest moving into a greenhouse for the winter: "The best strategy, he says, is a flu shot."
With all due respect to Dr. Palese, I'd much rather take my chances in a greenhouse. Like Cancun, for instance. Unfortunately, most of us aren't able to winter on Mexico's Caribbean coast, and many of us certainly don't want to have anything to do with a flu shot, so we'll have to fight off flu the old fashioned way: by strengthening our immune systems.

Natural 12-18-07
In the game of craps, if you roll a 7 or an 11, that's called a natural. No gray areas there: a "natural" is a win. Pick up your money.
In the game of selling food, however, the definition of "natural" isn't nearly as straightforward as rolling a lucky 7.
Nature enhanced
You and I know what natural is. A thing is natural when it hasn't been modified. Simple. You grow a tomato in your backyard – no fertilizer, no pesticide – you get a natural tomato. But if you buy a can of tomato soup that has flavoring added, maybe a preservative thrown in, a little color enhancement – sorry, that's not natural.
And yet, there are those who just can't figure out what natural is, mostly because they put unnatural constraints on what they WANT the word to mean.
A recent Associated Press article notes that the FDA allows the word "natural" to be used when a food item contains no added flavors, colors, or synthetic material. The USDA has similar guidelines, and allows "natural" to be used on packaging for poultry and meat that's received only a minimum of processing.
But a "minimum of processing" to you and me is not necessarily the same as it is to a government bureaucrat who may be feeling intense pressure from representatives of various food industries.
For instance, the USDA recently ruled that it's not "natural" to add sodium lactate to meat as a preservative, but it IS natural to add that chemical to meat as a flavor enhancer. Which begs the question: What's up with THAT?
The web site sodium-lactate.com describes the chemical as a, "natural salt that is derived from a natural fermentation product." Okay we get it! It's natural! But if you add a "natural" chemical to a meat product to boost its flavor, that's an extra processing step that changes the meat. So, call it whatever you want – is it really natural?
Sweet machine
The "natural" controversy doesn't get really fun until you start talking about high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
As you might suspect, the Corn Refiners Association considers HFCS to be as natural as a dewdrop on the first green leaf of spring. But the Sugar Association (which represents an industry that's losing ground daily to the growing widespread use of HFCS) doesn't regard the alternate sweetener as anything close to natural.
The AP reports that the Sugar Association petitioned the FDA last year for a more precise definition of natural. The petition noted that allowing HFCS to be called natural was "exceedingly misleading." And that's absolutely true.
"High-fructose corn syrup isn't something you could cook up from a bushel of corn in your kitchen, unless you happen to be equipped with centrifuges, hydroclones, ion-exchange columns and buckets of enzymes."
Okay, but is sugar natural?
Sure it is – when it's in the cane.
Allan Spreen, M.D., explained that when sugar cane is chewed, the body isn't stressed because along with sugar the cane delivers water, fiber, and nutrients. But when cane is processed into "pure, concentrated, naked-calorie refined sugar" (Dr. Spreen's description), all the nutrients necessary for assimilation are missing, prompting the body to use nutrient stores that ideally should be available for other important tasks.
Bad Spinach
Where in this howling Tower of Babel can we find a true definition of "natural"?
On a hunch, I went to the web site for the American Museum of Natural History – they've got to have the inside scoop on what's natural, right? I typed the word "natural" in the search box, but that just turned up thousands of hits containing the museum's title. So I tried the word "food" and found this description of dishes served in the museum's Café On One: "Menu selections include a roasted beet and goat cheese salad with hazelnuts served on a bed of arugula, house-smoked salmon salad with shaved fennel and fingerling potatoes served on a bed of spinach, and basil-grilled chicken sandwich with roasted red peppers and provolone served on a focaccia roll."
Okay, that's not really a workable definition of "natural," but with giant food conglomerates squabbling over their profit-driven concepts of "natural," this will have to do for now (provided, of course, the chicken is flavor-enhanced but not preserved with sodium lactate).
and another thing
If you ever take your daily supplements and wonder what the specific benefits might be, a new study from the University of California offers a clue.
UC researchers conducted physical exams and interviewed more than 275 multiple vitamin supplement users, about 175 single supplement users, and more than 602 subjects who used no supplements at all.
Analysis of the data produced these results, which appeared in a recent issue of Nutrition Journal: "Greater degree of supplement use was associated with more favorable concentrations of serum homocysteine, C-reactive protein, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides, as well as lower risk of prevalent elevated blood pressure and diabetes."
The California team also notes that blood level concentrations of nutrients generally increased with higher supplement use, putting to rest the claims of naysayers who would have us believe that vitamin supplements don't actually boost vitamin levels in the body.
In addition to basic multivitamins (delivering such staples as vitamins C and E, the B- complex, and various minerals), researchers found that men who took supplements also tended to take extra zinc, garlic, and saw palmetto, while women tended to take extra gamma linolenic acid and probiotic supplements.

Health Care 12-13-07
I've got a hunch that generations to come will look back on our era of health care and wonder at the irony of using radiation (which causes cancer) to treat and diagnose cancer.
Of course, we couldn't get along very well without x-rays, and there are many people who will tell you their lives were saved by radiation therapy. Nevertheless, radiation is dangerous stuff.
I was very surprised to find out that computed tomographic colonography (CTC). Tomography is an x-ray procedure and involves ionizing radiation. 'Imaging X-rays Cause Cancer: A Call to Action for Caregivers and Patients.'
"Yes the OC is uncomfortable and there is a risk of perforation, but tomography is carcinogenic!"
Not to cut hairs, CTC, it simply compared th