31 Mart 2011 Perşembe
Vitamin D and Fatigue
If you do not have healthy saturated in your diet your diet you CANNOT absorb Vitamin D, nor can you use calcium or have good support for healthy cholesterol levels and hormone production.
Please eat unsalted-organic butter (you can make "spread" by blending one stick of butter with 1/2 cup olive oil), and any dairy products MUST contain at least 2% butter fat.
Vitamin D deficiency associated with chronic fatigue in brain injured patients
ScienceDaily (2010-04-28) -- New evidence has shown that vitamin D deficiency is closely associated with the chronic fatigue that often follows post traumatic brain injury (TBI). ... > read full article
Vitamin D testing and supplements are available from our organization. Profits and donations help us help your health through education.
Death Effects and Schizophrenia Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11-year follow-up of mortality in patients with schizophrenia: a population-based cohort study (FIN11 study).
Lancet. 2009; 374(9690):620-7 (ISSN: 1474-547X)
Tiihonen J ; Lönnqvist J ; Wahlbeck K ; Klaukka T ; Niskanen L ; Tanskanen A ; Haukka J
Department of Forensic Psychiatry, University of Kuopio and Niuvanniemi Hospital, Department of Clinical Physiology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. jari.tiihonen@niuva.fi
BACKGROUND: The introduction of second-generation antipsychotic drugs during the 1990s is widely believed to have adversely affected mortality of patients with schizophrenia. Our aim was to establish the long-term contribution of antipsychotic drugs to mortality in such patients. METHODS: Nationwide registers in Finland were used to compare the cause-specific mortality in 66 881 patients versus the total population (5.2 million) between 1996, and 2006, and to link these data with the use of antipsychotic drugs. We measured the all-cause mortality of patients with schizophrenia in outpatient care during current and cumulative exposure to any antipsychotic drug versus no use of these drugs, and exposure to the six most frequently used antipsychotic drugs compared with perphenazine use. FINDINGS: Although the proportional use of second-generation antipsychotic drugs rose from 13% to 64% during follow-up, the gap in life expectancy between patients with schizophrenia and the general population did not widen between 1996 (25 years), and 2006 (22.5 years). Compared with current use of perphenazine, the highest risk for overall mortality was recorded for quetiapine (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.41, 95% CI 1.09-1.82), and the lowest risk for clozapine (0.74, 0.60-0.91; p=0.0045 for the difference between clozapine vs perphenazine, and p<0.0001 for all other antipsychotic drugs). Long-term cumulative exposure (7-11 years) to any antipsychotic treatment was associated with lower mortality than was no drug use (0.81, 0.77-0.84). In patients with one or more filled prescription for an antipsychotic drug, an inverse relation between mortality and duration of cumulative use was noted (HR for trend per exposure year 0.991; 0.985-0.997). INTERPRETATION: Long-term treatment with antipsychotic drugs is associated with lower mortality compared with no antipsychotic use. Second-generation drugs are a highly heterogeneous group, and clozapine seems to be associated with a substantially lower mortality than any other antipsychotics. Restrictions on the use of clozapine should be reassessed. FUNDING: Annual EVO Financing (Special government subsidies from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Finland).
PreMedline Identifier:19595447
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Be Prepared to Avoid Coming Vaccine Propaganda
Recombinomics Commentary 23:40 August 25, 2010
The US CDC released an NA sequence, A/Kansas/05/2010, today (at GISAID), which had in vivo Tamiflu (oseltamivir) and Relenza (zanamivir) resistance. The sample was collected March 17, 2010 and had two non-synonymous changes, S363N and I 466M (S364N and I467M in N1 numbering).
Flu vaccine for all except babies
CHAPEL HILL, N.C., Aug. 25 (UPI) -- U.S. government officials urge everyone age 6 months and older to get an influenza shot, which contains vaccine against H1N1 and two other strains of flu.In the past, government health officials focused on vaccinating people in 'high-risk" groups -- children, the elderly, pregnant women, those with chronic diseases and those in contact with people at high risk."The message is simple now," Dr. David Weber, professor of medicine, pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says in a statement. "If you're more than 6 months of age, get the (influenza) vaccine."The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an advisory group for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommends universal vaccination after last year's H1N1 outbreak affected many teenagers and young adults -- a group not normally at risk for influenza.In addition, Weber says, the list of conditions that put a person at high risk for influenza has grown during the years so many people are unaware of their high-risk status.Adults need only one dose, but children age 6 months to age 8 may need two doses, depending on which vaccines they received last year, Weber said. © 2010 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
UPDATE: 23 August -
Back to school time is vaccination time: Parents should check to make sure students are up to date on required nutrition and vitamin D, not shots.
Administration Announces New Pandemic Preparedness EffortThe Obama administration announced that it plans to invest nearly $2 billion in measures to beef up the nation's ability to respond to bioterrorism and pandemic threats, including $822 million for pandemic influenza vaccine development.Medical countermeasures include vaccines, antivirals, antibiotics, diagnostics, and medical equipment.
The report found that the nation's ability to respond to medical threats is lacking and could be improved by: enhancing regulatory innovation; providing core development and manufacturing services to innovators and medical countermeasure developers; expanding manufacturing capacity to be able to respond to a sudden threat; and creating novel ways for academia and industry to work together.
WHO Declares End to H1N1 Pandemic
By Todd Neale, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: August 10, 2010
Director-General of the World Health Organization Margaret Chan, MD, MPH, has declared an end to the H1N1 influenza pandemic, following the advice of an emergency committee convened to address the issue.
"The new H1N1 virus has largely run its course," she said from Hong Kong in a conference call with reporters.
Based on previous pandemics, Chan said the virus is expected to behave like seasonal influenza viruses and continue to circulate "for some years to come." It also will likely continue to cause serious disease in younger individuals, at least in the immediate post-pandemic period, she said.
Chan noted that significant localized outbreaks of H1N1 were still possible, as is currently occurring in New Zealand.
Because of the continuing threat, the WHO continues to recommend immunization with both the monovalent H1N1 vaccine and the trivalent seasonal vaccine, of which the new H1N1 virus is a component.
The decision to declare an end to the pandemic was made based on several factors, according to Chan: the lack of out-of-season -- or summer -- outbreaks in either the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, the fact that current H1N1 outbreaks are similar in intensity to those of seasonal influenza, and the increasing mix of circulating influenza viruses.
During the pandemic, H1N1 largely crowded out the seasonal viruses, accounting for nearly all tested samples. Now, Chan noted, countries are observing a mix of H1N1, H3N2, and B viruses.
An additional factor that went into the decision to end the pandemic designation is evidence of community-level immunity. Studies have indicated that 20% to 40% of the population in some areas have been infected with H1N1 and, thus, have some level of immunity.
Good vaccine coverage in some areas has also contributed to community-wide immunity, Chan added.
Keiji Fukuda, MD, special adviser to Chan on pandemic influenza, urged countries to continue surveillance and remain alert for changes in the H1N1 virus. Public health officials should maintain control efforts, especially in the countries that continue to have intense activity, he added.
Chan echoed the need for continued vigilance.
"Pandemics are unpredictable and prone to deliver surprises," she said.
She noted that the mild nature of the pandemic was aided by good luck -- the virus did not mutate into a more lethal form, widespread resistance to oseltamivir did not develop, and the vaccine was a good match with the circulating virus and had an excellent safety profile.
"Had things gone wrong in any of these areas," Chan said, "we would be in a very different situation today".
Docs told to avoid 1 flu shot brand for small kids
By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer, Thu Aug 5
ATLANTA – A government panel is recommending doctors steer clear of giving one brand of flu vaccine to young children this year because of convulsions and fever in kids who got the shot in Australia and New Zealand.
At issues is the flu vaccine made by CSL Biotherapies, an Australian company. CSL is one of five manufacturers supplying the U.S. this fall but it only accounts for a small portion of the 170 million doses.
On Thursday, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said doctors should avoid using the CSL vaccine in children ages 6 months through 8 years.
Committee members were concerned about the unexplained higher rate of fevers and related seizures seen in young children who got the vaccine earlier this year in Australia and New Zealand. In kids under 5, the rates were roughly 10 times that of other flu vaccines. No deaths have been linked to the problem.
The panel said the vaccine could be used in children older than 5 if they were at greater risk of flu complications and no other vaccine was available.
The committee provides vaccine advice to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which usually adopts its recommendations and sends the advice to doctors and the public.
Australian investigators have been unable to find anything in the CSL vaccine that might explain why it would cause more fevers and convulsions in children.
But a CSL spokeswoman said the company agreed with the U.S. committee's decision.
"We support the precautionary approach," said spokeswoman Sharon McHale.
She said the company had already decided not to distribute one version of its vaccine intended for the youngest children. That means CSL will only be providing 10.5 million of the 170 million U.S. doses.
As expected, the U.S. flu vaccine for next fall will include the pandemic flu that has swept the world, the FDA said.
One component of the vaccine will be what is formally known as A/California/7/09 (H1N1)-like virus, the agency said in a statement.
The others will be another influenza A strain and an influenza B -- formally known as A/Perth /16/2009 (H3N2)-like virus and B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus, respectively.
The strains included in the seasonal flu vaccine are chosen by a panel of experts to be those most likely to cause disease in the coming season. The pandemic strain was by far the most common in 2009-2010, with almost no other variant causing disease, and is expected to continue its preeminence.
A range of different brands will be produced for next fall and winter, the FDA said, including:
• Afluria, made by CSL
• Agriflu and Fluvirin, made by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics
• Fluarix, by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals
• FluLaval, by ID Biomedical Corp
• FluMist, by MedImmune Vaccines
• Fluzone and Fluzone High-Dose, manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur
The labeling for Afluria has been changed this year to inform healthcare providers about an increased incidence of fever and febrile seizure in young children, mainly under 5, after they were given the 2010 Southern Hemisphere formulation of the vaccine.
Vitamin D May Fight Colds By Catherine Donaldson-Evans Aug 6th 2010
Taking vitamin D every day might help ward off colds and the flu, according to a new study.
Researchers at the University of Tampere in Finland found that men given a daily vitamin D supplement over a six-month period were more likely to take no sick days from work than those who were given placebos.
In fact, 51 percent of the 164 male military recruits who participated stayed healthy for the duration of the study as opposed to just 36 percent in the control group, according to the scientists.
The findings provide "some evidence" that vitamin D can help guard against respiratory infections, according to Dr. Ilkka Laaksi, lead author of the study published online in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.
Recent lab research has indicated that the vitamin, found in milk, sunshine and other natural sources, potentially plays an "important role" in bolstering the human body's immunity against respiratory pathogens, Laaksi told Reuters Health.
"However, there is a lack of clinical studies of the effect of vitamin D supplementation for preventing respiratory infections," Laaksi said.
Other previous studies have found that people with lower vitamin D levels in their bloodstream have higher incidences of colds and flu-like illnesses. Vitamin D deficiencies in children have also been linked to higher rates of type 1 diabetes and severe asthma attacks and in adults to depression, cancer and heart disease.
It hasn't been conclusively shown that a shortage of the compound in the body is the reason for the added health risks.
The team led by Laaksi randomly chose one group among the 164 men to take 400 IU of vitamin D a day and another group to take a placebo pill every day between October and March, when cold and flu season peak and when the lack of sunshine leads to a dip in people's vitamin D levels.
The researchers saw no obvious distinction in the average number of days missed from military duty because of respiratory illnesses (including bronchitis, sore throat, pneumonia and sinus and ear infections) between the two groups. The recruits who took the vitamins were out sick about two days and those who took the placebos missed about three days because of a respiratory infection.
The difference wasn't statistically significant. But the fact that those who took daily vitamin D were less likely to have a single day missed from work than those who didn't indicates the supplement does have some benefit in guarding against colds, the flu and related sicknesses.
The extent of the potentially positive impact of the vitamin on respiratory health wasn't able to be determined, as those who took it weren't less likely to report having cold-like symptoms at some stage while the study was being conducted, according to Reuters.
In addition, other studies on the subject have been inconclusive and contradictory, with some finding no difference in the risk of respiratory infections between groups who take a daily D supplement and those who don't.
Laaksi suggested that more clinical trials be done using varying amounts of the vitamin to more conclusively determine whether it can in fact protect against colds and other respiratory illnesses.
29 Mart 2011 Salı
Longterm Steroid Use Causes Problems
Long-term anabolic steroid use may weaken heart more than previously thought
ScienceDaily (2010-04-28) -- Long-term anabolic steroid use may weaken the heart more than previously thought, a new study finds. Steroid-related heart impairment is severe enough to potentially increase the risk of heart failure. The left ventricle, the heart muscle primarily responsible for pumping blood throughout the body, was significantly weaker among steroid users. ... > read full article
Along with the understanding I have because of my many years of pharmacology in college, grad school and continuing education, I continue to wonder why today's physicians and other prescribers fail so frequently to inform patients about the side effects and risks of drugs.
This alert is from Johns Hopkins. I do not agree with all of their recommendations because they offer no natural or nutritional options, however, it is worth reading.
The higher the steroid dose, the more likely that side effects -- cataracts, osteoporosis, diabetes, high blood pressure, muscle weakness, hair loss -- may occur.
As a growing number of people with lung disease are living longer, more people are taking long-term oral steroids for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and other chronic lung conditions.
Long-term use of oral steroids can cause serious side effects, ranging from osteoporosis to cataracts to high blood pressure and diabetes. If you’re taking an oral steroid, it’s critical to talk with your doctor about how to minimize these steroid side effects.
Corticosteroids can prevent or reverse inflammation in the airways, making them less sensitive to triggers. If you have severe asthma and you have tried high doses of inhaled steroids without success, your doctor may recommend oral steroids. Some people take oral steroids because they have COPD that other medications can’t relieve.
If you take daily oral steroids for months or years, particularly in moderate to high doses, you are at increased risk for developing any of a variety of side effects: cataracts, osteoporosis, diabetes, high blood pressure, muscle weakness, easily bruised skin, hair loss, facial hair growth in women, weight gain, and puffy cheeks. Other possible side effects include hyperexcitability, insomnia, and (in a small number of patients) aggressive behavior or even psychosis.
Steps you can take to avoid osteoporosis and other side effects:
* Ask your doctor about getting regular bone scans to detect osteoporosis.
* Get about 1,500 mg of calcium daily through nutrition or supplements. Because vitamin D helps the body absorb calcium, it may help to take 800 international units (IU) daily of vitamin D.
* If you are diagnosed with osteoporosis, your doctor will recommend medication.
* If you take moderate to high doses of corticosteroids, have regular eye exams to check for glaucoma.
* Ask your doctor whether you can reduce your oral steroid dose by adding other medications.
* Have your blood pressure checked regularly.
* Also have your blood sugar checked frequently. Use of high dose steroids has been associated with the development diabetes.
Labelling Journalism
" It seems a bit strange to me that the media carefully warn about and label any content that involves sex, violence or strong language — but there's no similar labelling system for, say, sloppy journalism and other questionable content.
I figured it was time to fix that, so I made some stickers. I've been putting them on copies of the free papers that I find on the London Underground. You might want to as well. "Enjoy
And thank you to Gary Schweitzer for the lead...
Health Risks and Industrial Wind Turbines
Perhaps Barry is ignorant of the risks of wind turbines.
SAVE OUR SOUND announces law suits to be filed
ORIGINAL POST 1/24/09
Dr. Magda Havas Ph.D., Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Peterborough’s Trent University and one of the world’s leading research experts in the areas of electromagnetic pollution, radio frequency radiation, ground current and dirty electricity delivered alarming warnings about the dangers to human and animal health, posed by Industrial Wind Turbines.
full article
Wind Farm raising issues on Nantucket Sound
UPDATE: 3 March, 09
Wind Turbine Syndrome
28 Mart 2011 Pazartesi
Compartment Syndrome Conundrum
19 Oregon Football Players Hit With 'Very Weird' Illness, McMinnville
Health Insurance Reform: ACTUARIAL IMPACT ON MEDICARE
by GoozNews ~ 27 Aug 2010 09:02am
Reed Abelson over at the New York Times' Prescription blog has an interesting reporton a new study questioning Detroit's strategy of relying on health care to bolster its lagging economy. I posted the following comment:
Detroit is merely a microcosm of the nation as a whole. Health care is the only sector that has added jobs throughout the Great Recession, just as it added jobs throughout the previous two decades (see my article in The Fiscal Times here).
What nobody wants to look at is how it continues to do so regardless of economic conditions. The answer is simple. There are no constraints on spending. Providers through insurers pass on rising costs to businesses and consumers in a marketplace where demand elasticity is very low because demand is dictated by the supply side (i.e., doctors/hospitals/input industries prescribe, patients obey).
It's like Keynesian stimulus with one vital exception, which turns it into its opposite. When the government engages in deficit spending to stimulate demand, it borrows from the future. When the health care sector engages in automatic demand-driven cost increases, it takes its cash in real time from every other sector of the economy, including the government. That may be acceptable when the rest of the economy is growing. During recessions, like now, it becomes a major drag that hampers economic recovery.
UPDATE: 25 August
Anthem Blue Cross allowed to move ahead with rate hikes
California insurance regulators cleared the way Wednesday for Anthem Blue Cross to implement scaled-back rate hikes after a previous rate increase was canceled amid an uproar over its size.
Anthem said it intends to put the new rates -- averaging 14% and as high as 20% -- into effect Oct. 1 for nearly 800,000 individual California policyholders.
The Woodland Hills company backed off its initial plan to increase premiums in March as much as 39% after consumers, regulators, lawmakers and even President Obama criticized it. Insurance regulators say the six-month delay saved policyholders $180 million. Anthem is the state's largest for-profit insurer.
from John Goodman's Health Policy Blog, 21 August
For the first time in Medicare history, the Medicare Chief Actuary has called the projections in a Medicare Trustees Report “unreasonable” and “implausible” and encouraged everyone to ignore them and view instead an “Illustrative Alternative” report. The alternative opens this way:
The Trustees Report is necessarily based on current law; as a result of questions regarding the operations of certain Medicare provisions, however, the projections shown in the report do not represent the “best estimate” of actual future Medicare expenditures.
and from the FDA
Slight Increase for Medicare Drug Premiums Next Year
Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D will pay an average of $30 per month for their prescription drug benefit premiums in 2011, a $1 increase over what they paid this year, according to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) officials.
Premiums stayed relatively stable because of a discount program in the the healthcare reform law, Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator of CMS' Center for Medicare, told reporters Wednesday.Cost will remain about steady, and so will benefits, said CMS Administrator Don Berwick, MD.
The low rates will "add stability" to the Medicare Part D program, which has an enrollment of about 27 million seniors, Berwick said.
When Part D first began, the program was projected to cost $634 billion for fiscal 2004 through 2013. Instead, it will cost $373 billion for those same years, Paul Spitalnic, of CMS' Office of the Actuary told reporters.
The main reason for the program coming in $261 billion under projected costs is that the rising costs of prescription drugs slowed in the early 2000s and more people switched to generics, explained Spitalnic.
In addition, Part D plans have been able to negotiate more drug rebates than anticipated, and fewer beneficiaries enrolled than the government originally predicted.
Anthem said it intends to put the new rates -- averaging 14% and as high as 20% -- into effect Oct. 1 for nearly 800,000 individual California policyholders.
The Woodland Hills company backed off its initial plan to increase premiums in March as much as 39% after consumers, regulators, lawmakers and even President Obama criticized it. Insurance regulators say the six-month delay saved policyholders $180 million. Anthem is the state's largest for-profit insurer.
Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D will pay an average of $30 per month for their prescription drug benefit premiums in 2011, a $1 increase over what they paid this year, according to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) officials.
Premiums stayed relatively stable because of a discount program in the the healthcare reform law, Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator of CMS' Center for Medicare, told reporters Wednesday.Cost will remain about steady, and so will benefits, said CMS Administrator Don Berwick, MD.
The low rates will "add stability" to the Medicare Part D program, which has an enrollment of about 27 million seniors, Berwick said.
When Part D first began, the program was projected to cost $634 billion for fiscal 2004 through 2013. Instead, it will cost $373 billion for those same years, Paul Spitalnic, of CMS' Office of the Actuary told reporters.
The main reason for the program coming in $261 billion under projected costs is that the rising costs of prescription drugs slowed in the early 2000s and more people switched to generics, explained Spitalnic.
In addition, Part D plans have been able to negotiate more drug rebates than anticipated, and fewer beneficiaries enrolled than the government originally predicted.
27 Mart 2011 Pazar
EWG publishes new food list
CLEAN 15
Onions, Avocado, Sweet Corn, Pineapple, Mango, Sweet Peas, Asparagus, Kiwi, Cabbage, Eggplant, Cantaloupe, Watermelon, Grapefruit, Sweet Potato, Honeydew Melon
DIRTY DOZEN (BUY ORGANIC)
Celery, Peaches, Strawberries, Apples, Blueberries, Nectarines, Bell Peppers, Spinach, Kale, Cherries, Potatoes, Grapes (Imported)
Why Should You Care About Pesticides?
The growing consensus among scientists is that small doses of pesticides and other chemicals can cause lasting damage to human health, especially during fetal development and early childhood.
Scientists now know enough about the long-term consequences of ingesting these powerful chemicals to advise that we minimize our consumption of pesticides.
What’s the Difference?
EWG research has found that people who eat five fruits and vegetables a day from the Dirty Dozen list consume an average of 10 pesticides a day. Those who eat from the 15 least contaminated conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables ingest fewer than 2 pesticides daily. The Guide helps consumers make informed choices to lower their dietary pesticide load.
Will Washing and Peeling Help?
The data used to create these lists is based on produce tested as it is typically eaten (meaning washed, rinsed or peeled, depending on the type of produce). Rinsing reduces but does not eliminate pesticides. Peeling helps, but valuable nutrients often go down the drain with the skin. The best approach: eat a varied diet, rinse all produce and buy organic when possible.
How Was This Guide Developed?
EWG analysts have developed the Guide based on data from nearly 96,000 tests for pesticide residues in produce conducted between 2000 and 2008 and collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. You can find a detailed description of the criteria EWG used to develop these rankings and
the complete list of fruits and vegetables tested at our dedicated website.
THE POWER OF INFORMATION
Headquarters 1436 U St. N.W., Suite 100 Washington, DC 20009
(202) 667-6982
Learn More at FoodNews.org
Another Health Reform Bill Conundrum
As you may know the issue of pre-existing conditions was a major PR focus in the efforts to ram this bill through Congress, and get the citizenry to think they were really getting something.
What's missing is this tiny detail I fell upon in the past day or so about exactly what happens to one of the Big Insurance carriers that will be allowed in the "pool" to sell you something that will continue to give their CEO at least $13 million a year in salary without perks.
And you might end up not getting your claims paid if you happen to have one of these items, obscure and otherwise, deemed "pre-existing" by insurance profiteers.
It just so happens that whomever has been writing this bill, and of late it always seems that industry is writing the legislation, they sure seem to favor industry over Joe or Jane Citizen.
The slap on the hand for denying coverage for "pre-existing" is a paltry $100 a day. To Big Insurance the $100 a day fine doesn't even measure up to pocket change.
In the interim, you or a loved one could die.
Don't you think it might be a good idea to start taking back responsibility for your health?
See also "health care problem is far from solved"
26 Mart 2011 Cumartesi
Energy Drinks: Again!
Our organic tea blend can be an excellent substitute for the commercially available products, and it carries with it real nutritional support and healthy sweetening.
herbalYODA's sportZtea is an all-organic blend of herbs that you brew yourself. You can add organic apple juice or enjoy it plain as it has some natural sweetness. For those who like it extra sweet we recommend Just Like Sugar or natural stevia ( link to both in the right column).
Energy drink caffeine = 14 cans of Coke
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., Aug. 20 (UPI) -- Energy drinks can contain as much as 505 milligrams of caffeine in a single container, or the equivalent of 14 cans of Coca-Cola, U.S. researchers say.
Study authors Stephanie Ballard of Nova Southeastern University and colleagues Jennifer Wellborn-Kim and Kevin Clauson say energy drinks typically feature caffeine and a combination of other ingredients -- including taurine, sucrose, guarana, ginseng, niacin, pyridoxine and cyanocobalamin -- but most of the performance-enhancing effects can be linked to caffeine.
"There is conflicting evidence of the impact of energy drinks on weight loss, although some data suggest that combining energy drink use with exercise may enhance body fat reduction," Ballard says in a statement. "Increases in burning calories and losing weight are likely subject to diminishing returns as users become habituated to caffeine."
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration limits caffeine in soft drinks to 71 mg/12 fluid ounces, but energy drinks can have as much as 505 mg of caffeine in a single container, Ballard says.
"Caffeine has been reported to cause insomnia, nervousness, arrhythmia, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, pregnancy and childbirth complication, gastrointestinal upset and death," Ballard says.
The findings are published in journal The Physician and Sportsmedicine.
Selections from a dozen or more posts - Natural Health News:
There are healthy energy drinks
Mar 27, 2009
Commercial energy drinks are all the buzz and have been for a number of years now. Those quick energy poppers at the grocery check out are probably in the same class. Most of these contain sucralose (a toxic hydrochlorocarbon) or a ...
Energy Drinks
Sep 30, 2008
Energy drinks are soft drinks (meaning without alcohol) that contain caffeine and other stimulants such as ephedrine, guarana, and ginseng. The beverages may not contain more calories than normal soft drinks, but they are often believed ...
Learn More Facts About Energy Drinks
Oct 13, 2009
For some time we have been writing about energy drinks, and out most recent update gives you information along with the several other articles we have posted about energy drinks here on Natural Health News. Safe Energy Drink ...
Ignorance and Sports Drinks
Apr 06, 2009
The popular energy drinks sipped by many athletes to increase stamina contain levels of acid that can cause tooth erosion, hypersensitivity, and staining, according to the findings of New York University dental researchers. ...
25 Mart 2011 Cuma
Selecting Fruits and Vegetables for Your Best Health
'Pick the right veg' for health
Obvious choices of fruit and vegetables are not necessarily the healthiest, say researchers.
According to US experts, making simple swaps like eating sweet potatoes instead of carrots and papaya rather than oranges could make a difference.
Foods, like raspberries, watercress and kale, are richer in phytonutrients which may help prevent disease, they told a US meeting.
UK nutritionists said a balanced diet is essential to good health.
The British Nutrition Foundation warned that relying on eating a few select food types to boost health was ill-advised and said there was no such thing as a "superfood".Experts recommend five portions a day of fruit and veg in a healthy diet.“No one food can give you everything you need”
Dr Emma Williams of the British Nutrition Foundation
Plant foods are known to contain "phytonutrient" chemicals that can protect the heart and arteries and prevent cancers.
But the most popular varieties may not be the best, according to US researchers.
They analysed data from US health surveys of people's dietary habits to look at the most common sources of phytonutrients.
They found that for 10 of the 14 phytonutrients studied, a single food type accounted for two-thirds or more of an individual's consumption, regardless of how much fruit and veg they ate overall.
Carrots were the most common source of beta-carotene, oranges and orange juice the most common source of beta-cryptoxanthin, spinach the most common source of lutein/zeaxanthin, strawberries the most common source of ellagic acid and mustard the biggest provider of isothiocyanates.
However, for each of these phytonutrients there was a richer food source available.
Richer foods
Switching from carrots to sweet potatoes would nearly double beta-carotene intake, say the researchers.
Similarly papaya contains 15 times more beta-cryptoxanthin than oranges, while kale has three times more lutein/zeaxanthin than spinach.
Raspberries have three times more ellagic acid than strawberries and one cup of watercress contains as much isothiocyanate as four teaspoonfuls of mustard.
Study leader Keith Randolph, who is a technology strategist for the supplement company Nutrilite, said: "These data highlight the importance of not only the quantity but also the significant impact the quality and variety of the fruits and vegetables you eat can have on your health."
Dr Emma Williams of the British Nutrition Foundation said: "They are right that some foods are richer sources of phytonutrients.
"But at the end of the day, to be healthy you need to make sure you have a varied and balanced diet.
"No one food can give you everything you need."
The findings were presented at the 2010 Experimental Biology conference in Anaheim, California.
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/8645104.stm
Published: 2010/04/27 02:43:11 GMT © BBC MMX
ICE CREAM: Keep it GMO Free
No More Genetically Engineered Hormones!
John Robbins on ice cream
Trauma Care, the effective medical care
We know also, according to many studies, that only about 20 percent care is effective. The 20 percent is trauma care!.
Trauma care effective, and cost-effective
BALTIMORE, Aug. 19 (UPI) -- Trauma center treatment is expensive but the benefits, in terms of lives saved and quality of life-years gained, outweigh the costs, a U.S. researcher says.
Ellen MacKenzie of The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Center for Injury Research and Policy in Baltimore says the added cost of treatment at a trauma center versus non-trauma center is $36,319 for every life-year gained or $790,931 per life saved. By way of comparison, a cost of $50,000-$100,000 a year is often cited as acceptable for renal dialysis.
The report found trauma center care is cost-effective for all patients taken together, and is of particular value for people with very severe injuries and those younger than age 55.
To determine cost-effectiveness, the researchers calculated the cost per life saved, cost per life-year gained and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. A total of 5,043 patients contributed to the cost-effectiveness analysis from 69 participating hospitals -- 18 trauma centers and 51 non-trauma centers -- in 14 states.
"Taken together with our previous work demonstrating the effectiveness of trauma centers in saving lives, the results unequivocally support the need for continued efforts and funding for regionalized systems of trauma care in the United States," MacKenzie said.
The study is published in the Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection and Critical Care.
© 2010 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
24 Mart 2011 Perşembe
Chili Counters Pain
Learn more
To me it is interesting that news of the well known - for a very long time - benefits of cayenne as a pain remedy reports as if no one has ever heard of this benefit.
But in case you've been in the dark on this wonderful substance for pain, here's the newest -
Studying chilli peppers is helping scientists create a new type of painkiller which could stop pain at its source.And if you'd like to get some of our great cayenne ointment, just send us an email for more information and ordering.
Drugs Don't Work!
This is an old and enduring fact!
Snippet-
Drug companies firms overstate the benefits of patented medicines, spend vast amounts on getting doctors to prescribe them and underplayed serious side-effects, says Prof Donald Light of the University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey, US. When the "toxic side-effects" of prescription drugs were taken into account, and their misuse, he claimed they were "a significant cause of death". Cholesterol-lowering statins were a classic example of the drugs industry overselling a product as a wonder-pill to prevent heart attacks, despite evidence that they could do more harm than good. He said drug cos spend 2-3 x more on marketing than on research. He has written in both the Lancet & BMJ.
Complete ArticleEdward Priestly comments: These sentiments have been expressed many times by experts including Dr. Allen Roses, Chief of Genetics at GlaxoSmithKline who said in Dec. 2003 to the world "Most Drugs Are a Waste of Time".
House and Senate Ramming Through Secret Bill Add-Ons to Block Supplements
ACT NOW TO CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO STOP THIS
TAKE ACTION
Natural Health News has been covering CODEX now for more than a decade. For KEY information on this issue check our posts here from 2005 and the main resources on this concern, Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) and IAHF
LEF is monitoring the legislation and they sent this comment 29 April: The threat of a regulatory stranglehold over dietary supplements has intensified.More from LEF, 3 April - Here is a link to the exact text of HR 4173, along with a link discussing of the implications of Waxman's proposal. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4173 If you have any additional questions, please e-mail us or call the advisor helpline at (800) 226-2370.
Earlier this year, Sen. John McCain introduced a bill that would have given the FDA draconian new powers. A citizen’s revolt ensued that caused that bill to be sidelined. We are being watchful that Sen. McCain does not try to slip some of his oppressive original proposals into another Senate bill. SEE UPDATE ON THIS BILL
The urgent issue we face today is language Rep. Henry Waxman snuck into the already passed Wall Street Reform Bill (H.R. 4173) that he hopes to get into the Senate bill. This language would give unelected FTC bureaucrats arbitrary authority to impose crippling requirements that will drive up the costs of supplements or remove them from the market entirely.
Make sure Case:[197196] is in the subject line of all correspondence.
For Longer Life,
Life Extension
Related article: Lovaza ShuffleCongressman Waxman Slips Obscure Anti-Supplement Measure into Wall St. “Reform” Bill Passed by the House; Please Take Action to Prevent Same Thing Happening in the Senate!
Similar issues surround the biologically active form of pyridoxine (vitamin B6 or P5P) and B9 (folic acid). Make sure you are connecting the dots.
Posted By ANH-USA On April 27, 2010 @ 6:34 pm In Attacks on Integrative Medicine, Food Safety, The Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA)
[1]The American public is becoming fed up with “sneak” provisions tacked onto largely unrelated bills that are likely to pass. A glaring recent example was tacking onto the Healthcare bill a complete change to student loans. Often the “sneak” provision is so buried that hardly anyone is aware of it.
The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 4173), recently passed in the House of Representatives, includes language going far beyond finance inserted by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA). This language could be used for an end run around the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), the legislation that governs dietary supplement regulation by the FDA.
The Senate is expected to vote on its finance “reform” bill as early as this weekend. We need your help to ensure that it is not amended to include a similar provision going far beyond finance that could be used against supplements. Please take action now.
Congressman Waxman is well known as an opponent of the dietary supplement industry. This is somewhat ironic: his district includes Hollywood and presumably many of his closest supporters are health store shoppers and supplement users. Most of these people simply don’t know what Waxman is doing in this area.
This powerful Congressman, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (which includes health as a subcommittee), would appear to want supplements regulated like drugs, a step that would effectively eliminate them. He is determined and has stated: “One enduring truth about Washington is that no issue is ever settled for good.”
ANH-USA has been on alert to see how Waxman would use his committee chairmanship to strike at DSHEA. He is very clever and we knew a covert attack was a possibility.
A direct attack on supplements would take the form of an amendment to DSHEA, since that legislation governs FDA regulation of supplements. In this case, Waxman has left DSHEA alone, and has instead inserted language in the Wall St. “reform” bill that gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) important new powers that could be used to circumvent key supplement protections in DSHEA.
To see how this would work, let’s see how the FTC operates today. Its chief mission is to combat commercial fraud. It has full authority to pursue companies making fraudulent claims. But the FTC can’t go beyond that, can’t set other regulatory requirements, without advance approval of Congress. The FTC once had this regulatory “rule-making” authority. It lost it in the 1980’s because Congress thought the Agency was abusing it.
At the present time, if the FTC moves against a dietary supplement company for false or misleading advertising, the FTC typically requires the company, as part of a consent decree agreed to by both parties, to back up its claims by undertaking at least two random controlled human trials. This is done on a case-by-case basis and is legal because the targeted company has agreed to it.
If the FTC had general rulemaking authority, which Waxman’s language reinstates, the Agency would be expected to create a new legal requirement for all supplement companies. Such companies would have to perform at least two of these human studies before making any claims for their products.
Why should we care whether supplement companies are required to perform two random controlled human trials for each product? Because such trials take a long time and would be beyond the financial means of most supplement companies. Even if the companies could find the money, the FTC could require more and more costly versions of these studies, or more of these studies. At each stage, fewer supplements would be available, and those available would cost more and more, until they became as costly as drugs.
Supplements are not drugs. In most cases, drugs are non-natural and therefore patentable substances. Why patentable? Because no company will spend a billion dollars on studies and FDA approval trials without the monopoly provided by the patent. To insist that supplements be treated like drugs is really to sound the death knell for the supplement industry, something that drug companies would be delighted to see, because they know that supplements are their chief potential competition, are often more effective than drugs, are often less toxic, and are always much less expensive.
Supplements are already regulated by the FDA under DSHEA. If the Waxman provision is included in the final Wall St “reform” bill, the FTC will gain the power to override the limited protections for supplements that already exist under DSHEA. The FDA would still have to respect DSHEA, but the FTC would not be so constrained.
Five unelected FTC commissioners would issue binding regulations in a wide range of areas, including the regulation of dietary supplements. And companies that did not comply with the new FTC rules could effectively be put out of business.
According to renowned constitutional attorney Jonathan Emord, “The provision removing the ban on FTC rulemaking without Congressional preapproval contained in H.R. 4173 invites the very same irresponsible over-regulation of the commercial marketplace that led Congress to enact the ban in the 1980s. FTC has no shortage of power to regulate deceptive advertising; this bill gives it far more discretionary power than it needs, inviting greater abuse and mischief from an agency that suffers virtually no check on its discretion.”
The bottom line is that FTC would be given power to regulate areas they don’t understand, and their first order of business would likely be to regulate supplements, an area far outside their area of expertise.
The Senate Wall St “reform” bill, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (S. 3217), doesn’t contain the Waxman provision yet. But we know that Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) may offer an amendment including Waxman’s language. Please help us stop this. Please take action now to help us maintain access to low cost, high quality supplements. Tell your senators not to support any amendments that give FTC unchecked power to over-regulate areas they don’t understand, including dietary supplements.
URL: http://www.anh-usa.org/congressman-waxman-slips-obscure-anti-supplement-measure-into-wall-st-%e2%80%9creform%e2%80%9d-bill-passed-by-the-house-please-take-action-to-prevent-same-thing-happening-in-the-senate/
Copyright © 2010 Alliance for Natural Health - US. All rights reserved.
And now from Orthomolecular Medicine -Multivitamins Dangerous?From CP -
Latest News from the World Headquarters Of Pharmaceutical Politicians, Educators and Reporters
(OMNS, Apr 29, 2010) The following purports to be a transcript of a recent meeting at the World Headquarters Of Pharmaceutical Politicians, Educators and Reporters [WHOPPER]:
"All right, all right! Please come to order, ladies and gentlemen. We know how excited you all are over the recent flood of anti-vitamin news coverage. But please have a seat! Thank you.
"First of all, congratulations on a job well done. We now have the public totally flummoxed about vitamins. We have persuaded the media that high doses of supplements are dangerous, and that low doses are also dangerous. We have scared the people away from taking any nutrients at all. Why, we have even sold the idea to the press that a once-daily multivitamin is dangerous. Nice work, everyone!
"Funny thing about multivitamin supplements: if you look at each individual nutrient in a multivitamin, it is of course good for you. Thousands upon thousands of research studies confirm the body's absolute need for each and every vitamin. So, we urge people to eat a "balanced diet" to get all their various vitamins from food . . . while simultaneously convincing them that a balanced multivitamin supplement is bad! Essential vitamins from foods are good; essential vitamins from pills are not. Then, truly a stroke of marketing genius, we push processed foods devoid of vitamins, advertising day and night.
"We hardly have to spell it out, now do we? The fewer nutrients people consume, the more sick they will become. The more illness, the more drugs the public will have to take. After all, if vitamin therapy is "dangerous," what's left? Us, that's who. Our pharmaceutical plants running 24/7 can produce millions of pills a day, for pennies apiece, to retail at ten dollars per tablet. Ching-ching!
"Even better, the government will pay for it all. "National health care," as you already know is really "national pharmaceutical insurance." The Feds will pay all right. After all, we sold them on the flu vaccine, didn't we? Even when it was shown that the vaccine was worthless at best? (1)
"You can see other ways that the Feds listen to us. We have set it up so that Food Stamps cannot be used to buy vitamins. (2) A bag of cookies or a box of donuts, yes. But not vitamins. The ban includes supplemental vitamin D, which is widely known to prevent bone diseases in children and the elderly, and to prevent lung cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, and a dozen other cancers. (3)
"Is it just me, or have you noticed how hot it is in here? Well, at any rate, you have all done one Hell of a nice job. Our Boss is proud of you."
The FDA is once again considering banning a safe, affordable nutritional supplement. Last year, a pharmaceutical company convinced the FDA to outlaw supplements of pyridoxamine—a form of vitamin B6 known to stop the damaging process called glycation—so that the company could sell them as a prescription drug. Now another pharmaceutical company has petitioned the FDA asking that pyridoxal-5-phosphate (P5P), another form of vitamin B6, be banned so that the company can turn this supplement into an expensive drug.
I urge you to contact your senators and representatives to ask them to stop this theft of P5P from the public domain.
After all, what’s next? The FDA banning the sale of safe, natural foods like walnuts?
As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what’s next as the FDA recently sent a warning letter to Diamond Foods, Inc. proclaiming that walnuts sold by the company cannot be legally marketed because the walnuts “are not generally recognized as safe and effective” for the medical conditions mentioned on Diamond Foods’ website. The FDA warned the company that these walnuts are now classified as “drugs” and could be subject to government “seizure or injunction.”
The good news? Within weeks, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are expected to introduce the Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010. The bill will ensure that the FDA will fully fund and implement the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), the legislation that regulates dietary supplements. The new bill is intended to fund all DSHEA regulatory provisions, serving as a rebuttal to the argument by supplement opponents that the industry isn’t really regulated due to a lack of funding.
Although there is a chance the legislation will backfire and that the FDA will misuse the funds to persecute supplements, the more hopeful option is that for the first time some FDA employees will consider their jobs as being funded by supplements. If supplements disappear, their jobs would disappear.
I will keep you updated on this bill when it is introduced.