 |
Your Health is Our Commitment
August 2008 Health in the News Archive
Bacteria essential to a healthy immune system
August 28, 2008
The Wall Street Journal reports that "the human body swarms with more benign bacteria than ever imagined – more than 2,000 species, whose cells outnumber the body's own by a 10-1 ratio." The majority of these bacteria are needed for tasks, such as the digestion of nutrients, and the development of organs.
Until genetic technology advances were made, "scientists didn't realize the scale and diversity of our teeming microbial population, because most bacteria that live in the body can't be 'cultured'...in a petri dish." But now, a "growing number of biologists believe that, in addition to its protective role, the immune system acts as a master regulator of our microbial menagerie, working 'to maintain communities of bacteria in balance.'" If validated, the theory "could have wide-ranging consequences for medicine, because a growing number of health problems, from inflammatory-bowel disease to obesity, have been linked to bacterial communities out of balance, as opposed to a lone pathogen."
Dr. Grout’s Comment:
Amazing that this is considered a “theory.” For years, those of us in the homeopathic/complementary field have preached that intestinal bacteria are crucial to maintenance of our health. We take probiotics, we avoid antibiotics whenever possible, we eat food which is nourishing and avoid food that is loaded with chemicals and empty fat and carbohydrate calories. It is good to see that this information is beginning to appear in mainstream literature. Perhaps it will finally be picked up by our allopathic colleagues as well, so that they too can learn how to help patients heal in a way that supports and nourishes their bodies.
Technique to reverse stroke damage?
August 26, 2008
A new technique that jumpstarts the growth of nerve fibers may have the potential to restore function to patients weeks after a stroke, U.S. researchers said.
Dr. Gwendolyn Kartje of Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine in Maywood, Ill., said if a stroke patient doesn't get treatment within approximately the first three hours of symptoms, there's not much doctors can do to limit damage to the brain. "In the best-case scenario, this would open up the window of time that people could recover and go back to normal functional status," Kartje said in a statement.
Anti nogo – a protein that inhibits the growth of nerve fibers called axons – "offers the potential for stroke patients to recover, return to nearly normal functional status, and stay out of nursing homes."
A stroke on the left side of the brain can cause paralysis on the right side of the body. In such a patient, anti-nogo therapy would, it's hoped, spur the growth of axons from the healthy right side of the brain. These axons would then grow into the right side of the body and restore functions lost by the stroke.
Dr. Grout’s Comment:
At first glance, this looks like a great idea – promote the growth of nerve fibers to replace those that have been damaged in a stroke. But when we look a little deeper, what is it that we are actually doing? We are attempting to inhibit the production of protein which keeps nerve growth in check. We are not supporting growth of anything in any particular location; we are taking away the brakes. So what happens when you take the brakes away from a vehicle? If it is on level ground, nothing back happens. If it happens to be on a hill, pretty drastic things can happen, can’t they? Do we really want to risk producing neuroglioblastomas instead of having the after-effects of a stroke? Perhaps there is another way. If we stimulate the blood supply to the brain, perhaps this could help our own bodies build the nerve cells (or the new connections) which they need, without removing the very substance which prevents their growing wild. BrainAdvantage™ therapy has the potential to stimulate new growth without removing the brakes upon which our system of checks and balances depends.
Vitamin C Injections Slow Tumor Growth in Mice
August 12, 2008
Injecting high doses of vitamin C into mice with aggressive cancers slowed the growth of their tumors significantly without affecting normal tissues, researchers are reporting. While the potential anticancer effects of vitamin C (also known as ascorbate or ascorbic acid) have been studied for decades, the new findings provide "a firm basis" for advancing vitamin C as a pharmacologic agent for treating human cancer, they write in the August 5 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
To test vitamin C injections, researchers delivered high doses of ascorbate into the veins or abdominal cavities of mice with aggressive forms of brain, ovarian, and pancreatic tumors. The injections reduced tumor growth by approximately half compared with xenografts in untreated mice.
The delivery method appears to be critical for efficacy. When vitamin C is taken orally, the body prevents blood levels of ascorbate from exceeding a narrow range. This may explain why two previous NCI-sponsored clinical trials found no survival benefit from vitamin C given orally.
The new findings suggest that hydrogen peroxide formation, a result of the ascorbate treatment, is responsible for the anticancer activity.
Dr. Grout’s Comment:
Finally, recognition from the “establishment” that there might be something to all the work done by Linus Pauling, a Nobel Prize laureate. Many of us have been using high dose vitamin C with excellent results in improving health and decreasing oxidative stress, sometimes slowing tumor growth and sometimes even causing them to disappear. I am glad to see that the idea is now being researched more formally. Our medicine needs to come out of the dark ages, out of the state of mind which says “We never did it that way, therefore it’s wrong” into a state of mind which says “We never did it that way, but there is some theoretical basis for which this might work; let’s investigate it.” We administer vitamin C intravenously as part of our nutritional IV therapies.
Babies deficient in vitamin D
August 2008
The New York Times reports some experts fear that vitamin D deficiency may be more common than pediatricians realize and that rickets — perceived to be a 19th-century scourge that was wiped out with the fortification of milk — may be going undetected.
"We're finding so many mothers are vitamin D deficient themselves that the milk is therefore deficient, so many babies can't keep their levels up, said Dr. Catherine M. Gordon, director of the bone health program at Children's Hospital Boston and an author of several studies on vitamin D deficiency. "Babies may start their lives vitamin D deficient, and then all they're getting is vitamin D deficient breast milk."
Vitamin D deficiency may not be immediately apparent, even as it affects growth, muscle and bone mineralization, said Dr. Craig Langman, professor of kidney disease and pediatrics at Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago.
"It sort of sneaks up on you," he said. "So the worst scenario is the gas tank is empty and the car won't go — you have rickets. But at very low levels of gas the car doesn't perform very well and you start having intermittent loss of power and that sort of thing; as a result you may not be forming enough bone during childhood."
Dr. Grout's Comment:
When we are young, we build up bone for the rest of our life. A preponderance of babies deficient in vitamin D sets us up for some ugly problems down the road. Researchers are also linking vitamin D deficiency with other chronic diseases like diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and cancer.
The American medical establishment is behind the curve on this one. The Canadian Pediatric Society for example now recommends that pregnant women take 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day (10 times more than the 200 IU/day the National Institutes of Health recommends for pregnant women in the USA). According to the Canadian press, the Canadian Pediatric Society acted "to protect babies from a litany of illnesses later in life."
Just several generations ago, it was not uncommon to give babies cod liver oil. Today, doctors might think in terms of a vitamin D supplement. Don't wait for your pediatrician to bring up the subject of vitamin D deficiency.
Stanford University limits drug money to limit influence
August 2008
Stanford University, concerned about the influence drug companies may have on medical education, announced that it will severely restrict industry financing of doctors' continuing education at its medical school.
Nearly all doctors in the country must take annual refresher courses that drug makers have long paid for. While the industry says its money is intended solely to keep doctors up to date, critics charge that companies agree to support only classes that promote their products.
On Tuesday, Stanford plans to announce that it will no longer let drug and device companies specify which courses they wish to finance. Instead, companies will be asked to contribute only to a schoolwide pool of money that can be used for any class, even ones that never mention a company's products.
With its approach, Stanford becomes the sixth major medical school — including those at the universities of Massachusetts, Pittsburgh, Colorado, Kansas and California Davis — to form schoolwide pools for university contributions to medical education, according to the Prescription Project, a nonprofit organization that largely opposes industry financing of medical education. The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, meanwhile, has banned all industry support for its doctor classes.
Dr. Grout's Comment:
This news item gives the public a rare view into one reason why American medicine is so often focused on treatment with pharmaceutical drugs and why so many doctors are unaware of other treatment modalities.
It stands to reason that if drug makers design the medical curriculum, doctors will become drug pushers. It's that old expression: if you are a hammer, then you see everything in life as a nail.
Measles rates blamed on fear of autism
August 2008
More people had measles infections in the first seven months of 2008 than during any comparable period since 1996, and public health officials blamed growing numbers of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.
From January through July, 131 measles cases were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 15 states and the District of Columbia. Fifteen people, including four infants, were hospitalized. There were no deaths. Nearly all the cases resulted when people traveling abroad or visiting from a foreign country spread the illness to others.
Most of those who were sickened were unvaccinated or had an unknown vaccination status. Sixteen were younger than a year old, too young to have been vaccinated.
Nonetheless, vaccination rates have remained relatively high in the United States. In 2006, 95 percent of school-age children received at least one shot of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, according to the C.D.C.
Dr. Grout's Comment:
I'd be more concerned if this story were about a rise in bacterial meningitis because parents were avoiding the Hib vaccine. Unlike bacterial meningitis, measles is typically an innocuous childhood disease. When a child catches measles, the infection typically runs it course and then that person is immune for life – adult cases of measles are much more serious. A vaccine robs people of that lifelong immunity, and leaves them unprotected as adults since the vaccine confers immunity for approximately 8-10 years.
This news story didn't mention the vaccine is far from perfect. Studies confirm a high percentage of measles among vaccinated subjects. The Institute of Medicine has found evidence that this vaccine can cause anaphylaxis, thrombocytopenia, and acute arthritis. Other research has associated the vaccine with adverse effects on the nervous system gastrointestinal tract, and joints. I see no reason to vaccinate every child against measles or mumps – these are relatively innocuous childhood diseases against which natural, lifelong immunity is established by infection. Let Nature run its course.
FDA approves Irradiating spinach, lettuce to kill germs
August 2008
The government will allow food producers to start zapping fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce with radiation beginning August 22, 2008.
The FDA ruled that irradiation can kill food-poisoning germs and lengthen the greens' shelf life without compromising the safety or nutrient value of raw spinach and lettuce.
Irradiated spices and meat have been around for years, particularly ground beef that is a favorite hiding spot for E. coli.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association had originally petitioned the FDA seeking to expand use of irradiation to many more types of produce several years ago. But in wake of the 2006 E. coli outbreak from spinach — which killed three people and sickened nearly 200 — plus a list of lettuce recalls, the industry group asked the FDA to rule on the leafy greens first.
The FDA still is considering what other types of produce might be irradiated. Often mentioned as possibilities are tomatoes and peppers, which have been the focus of investigators trying to trace this summer's nationwide salmonella outbreak.
E. coli is fairly sensitive to radiation, but salmonella can require more energy. While it's not sterilization, the FDA ruled that food companies could use a dose proven to dramatically reduce levels of E. coli, salmonella and listeria on raw spinach and lettuce — a dose somewhat lower than meat requires.
Dr. Grout's Comment:
Rather than clean up the commercial feedlot practices which contribute mightily to the down steam flow of E.coli, salmonella, antibiotics and other contaminants, the FDA is voting to "sterilize" our vegetables. For those who enjoy the benefits of raw spinach and other vegetables, it won't be raw anymore when it has been irradiated. The delicate enzymes and nutrients that make raw food so valuable will be "zapped away" along with the potential germs.
Organic food is supposed to be exempt from irradiation. Food which has been irradiated is supposed to carry a little sign that looks completely innocuous, like a flower.
Lily to buy Monsanto's rBGH growth hormone
August 2008
Eli Lilly announced August 20th that it would pay $300 million for global rights to Posilac, the widely used Monsanto Co artificial hormone to boost milk production. The deal is expected to close near the beginning of the fourth quarter, Lilly said.
Monsanto has battled with consumer activists for more than a decade over whether Posilac, also known as rBGH or rbST, is harmful to human and animal health. The debate has heated up over the past two years, as a growing number of dairy and food companies have demanded that milk be free of Posilac.
Lilly said Posilac would expand its line of animal health products, provide dairy farmers more options and give consumers affordable choices.
"We remain focused on the health and care of the cow in working with farmers to increase global milk supply," Lilly said in a release.
"Eli Lilly is not helping its shareholders by buying a product that the marketplace is already abandoning," said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. "Consumers don't want to drink milk produced with artificial hormones, retailers don't want to sell it and fewer and fewer dairy farmers are using it."
Dr. Grout's Comment:
Kroger Co, one of the nation's largest retail grocery chains, said last year it was rejecting the synthetic hormone. So too has Wal-Mart, Starbucks and Dean Foods. And for more than a decade the European Union also has rejected imports of meat derived from hormone-treated cattle.
Consumer pressure to stop the use of this hormone reflects a growing concern among parents that it is better to be safe than sorry.
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., has been on the forefront of the battle to cease the use of this synthetic hormone. In his book, What's In Your Milk?, he makes 3 key points: rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1) which is readily absorbed through the gut. Excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated as a cause of breast, colon, and prostate cancers. And IGF-1 blocks natural defense mechanisms against early submicroscopic cancers.
Arsenic in drinking water may increase diabetes
August 2008
According to a study published in the August 20th issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, "exposure to low levels of inorganic arsenic...in drinking water may increase a person's risk of type 2 diabetes,"
The new findings also follow recent studies on contaminants, including hormones and antibiotics, making their way into U.S. public tap water. But, while previous research showed chronic exposure to high levels of arsenic could lead to diabetes, this new report is the first to show that even levels that meet U.S. regulations may be dangerous. To conduct their study, "researchers analyzed data from the 2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationwide health study that, for the first time, collected and tested arsenic levels in urine."
The researchers, led by Ana Navas-Acien, M.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, found that participants with type 2 diabetes had a 26 percent higher level of total arsenic in their urine than those without the disease.
Dr. Grout's Comment:
Scientists have long known that arsenic is linked to cancer. And now we see evidence of its contribution to the obesity epidemic.
With this kind of information getting into the mainstream news, it is harder to ignore that toxicity in our environment can have a huge impact on our health. Arsenic was associated with development of type II diabetes as early as the 1950s, when a patient was given IV arsenic for a sexually transmitted disease. Two primary sources of arsenic: non-organic chicken and groundwater naturally contaminated with arsenic – and heavy metals.
We are capable of eliminating the body burden of toxins and heavy metals. Perhaps the refusal of the medical establishment to consider therapy, and the refusal of the insurance establishment to cover the cost of reducing the body burden, is at least partly responsible for rising health care costs. The epidemic of diabetes goes hand-in-hand with higher rates of heart disease, strokes, amputations, and disability. At the Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine, we provide detox therapies and chelation.
FDA claims BPA in plastics is safe
August 2008
On Aug. 15, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said in a draft report that "bisphenol A, as used in those products, is not dangerous." The products referred to include unbreakable water bottles and cans made to hold food.
The Washington Post reported the next day that the FDA's finding "stands in contrast to more than 100 studies performed by government scientists and university laboratories that have found health concerns associated with bisphenol A (BPA). Some studies have linked the chemical to prostate and breast cancers, diabetes, behavioral disorders such as hyperactivity, and reproductive problems in laboratory animals."
Pete Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences, said the FDA "disregarded recent studies of bisphenol's effects included in the National Toxicology Program's April draft report."
Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council welcomed the findings of the new report.
Dr. Grout's Comment:
The FDA's finding is based largely on the strength of two industry-funded studies that found no problems. This underscores what many critics have said is an all too cozy relationship between the FDA and the industries it is supposed to regulate.
But consumers would rather be safe than sorry. Several retailers, including Wal-Mart and Toys R' Us, announced that they were phasing out baby bottles that used BPA. I've seen "BPA-free" water bottles now at REI sporting goods stores.
Monsanto gives up on rBGH hormone in milk
August 2008
Monsanto announced it is putting up for sale the division that produces bovine growth hormone, also known as rBGH or rBST.
Monsanto's Chrissie Chavis told reporters that Posilac, as it's known commercially, is a "solid successful product of significant value to dairy farmers."
But nationwide a growing number of consumers and dairy processors have felt otherwise. The Cancer Prevention Coalition's Dr. Sam Epstein says that the IGF-1 from rBGH treated milk is "supercharged" and can lead to an increased number of cancers in humans. Consumers Union cites that elevated mastitis rates among treated cows leads to additional antibiotic treatment in the animal.
In the last several years, major retailers such as Safeway and Kroger have decided to ban the artificial hormone in their store-brand milk. Starbucks has refused to purchase dairy from treated cows at its company-operated stores. Chipotle Mexican Grill has banned rBST in its company stores. In January, Kraft Foods announced it would offer a line of cheese made with rBGH-free milk. Dean Foods, the largest U.S. dairy company. now offers a line of rBST-free products.
Monsanto refused to divulge sales figures, but insists that one-third of the nation's cows receive injections of the growth hormone which boosts milk production.
Has pressure from consumers led to Monsanto's decision? Monsanto's Chrissie Chavis denies it. "Our core focus is in the seeds and trace business. Since 1994 it's (Posilac) been a very strong product for us. We've sold more doses this year than we sold last year. We see significant opportunity in the future in the U.S. as well as the international markets."
The company plans to continue sales outside of the country, particularly Mexico and Brazil. rBGH is approved for use in 20 countries, says the Monsanto spokesperson, although it is banned in all of Europe, Japan, Australia and other industrialized countries, with the exception of the U.S.
Dr. Grout's Comment:
This is being called a major victory for consumers. However, it is interesting to note how Monsanto is positioning its products in this time of high global food prices. Spokesperson Chavis positioned the new face of Posilac as a "green" alternative for farmers, saying the drug allows big savings in terms of feed and land.
"As the environmental pressure on agriculture gets greater, this allows dairy producers to produce more milk with less (sic) cows thereby reducing the overall carbon footprint of milk production," Chavis said.
Meanwhile, Monsanto is going to focus even harder on genetically modified foods which many of us physicians feel represents a huge threat to human health.
More than half of the U.S. soybeans and corn that make up roughly 70 percent of pre-packages grocery store items come from genetically engineered ingredients. Recently, rBGH has been tested on catfish and tilapia to increase growth.
More chemicals approved for our environment
August 2008
A New York Times editorial on August 4th says the U.S. Department of Labor "has shirked its responsibility to upgrade workplace safety. In seven years, it has issued but one major rule change protecting workers against a chemical toxin — and that was forced on it by court order. Now, it's taken a giant step beyond benign neglect. Political appointees at the agency have been discovered in a rush to duck public disclosure and jimmy into place a pro-industry rule making it more difficult to limit workers' exposure to poisonous chemicals."
The Washington Post brought the matter to light when it got curious about a brief, nine-word reference on a White House Web site. It turned out to be a proposal to weaken existing toxin risk standards by adding more opportunities to challenge rules, a change sought by industry. It also would water down the current standard of measuring accumulated toxin risk across a work career of 45 years.
"This is flat-out secrecy," said Peg Seminario, director of health and safety policy at the AFL=CIO. "They are trying to essentially change the job safety and health laws and reduce required workplace protections through a midnight regulation."
Seminario said she was stunned that the administration would consider the rule its top priority, when for years it has "slow-walked and stalled" safety rules that would reduce worker deaths and injuries from diacetyl and beryllium.
"It signals that the regulatory mess facing the next president continues to grow, since the stealth games at Labor are likely being duplicated in other agencies," the Times concluded.
Dr. Grout's Comment:
The medical community is becoming increasingly aware of the damage chemicals do to human health, and Environmental Working Group has documented what is inside all of us, the "body burden." This event demonstrates the need for us to rely less on government agencies to protect us, and to rely more on self-education. An excellent new book I recommend is The Autoimmune Epidemic by Donna Jackson Nakawzawa. This particular book got attention from homeopathic and holistic physicians because it looks at the linkages between environmental contaminants and the rise in all manner of autoimmune diseases. The book got endorsements from head people at the National Institutes of Health and John Hopkins – both mainstream organizations.
Bigger meals add up to bigger bodies
August 2008
The New York Times reports that in 1970, the average American ate about 16.4 pounds of food a week. By 2006, the average intake grew by an additional 1.8 pounds a week.
"Among other things, that's an extra half pound of fat weekly - mostly from oils and shortening. That doesn't count the fat in the extra quarter pound of meat Americans now eat every seven days. Those fats were somewhat offset by a steep drop in dairy consumption, the only major food group to have a decline, primarily in milk drinking."
This data was compiled from the U.S. Agriculture Department's 2006 "food availability" - the amount of food produced for the average American consumer after losses are factored in.
"The overall increase in eating does suggest a link with the rise in Americans' weight over the same period. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 15 percent of adults age 20 to 74 were obese by 1980. By 2007, that had more than doubled."
Dr. Grout's Comment:
Fat is not necessarily a bad thing. We need fat for energy, hormone production, cellular membranes, organ padding, and certain saturated fatty acids are also needed for important cellular signaling and stabilization processes in the body.
But as this data points out, we've increased consumption of the "bad" fats – vegetable oils and hydrogenated oils (trans fats) which harden cell walls and make them less able to take nutrients in and let out metabolic waste – toxins.
Good fats and fish oils need to be in our diet. And nutrition writers would do well to have a better understanding of naturally-occurring saturated fat found in grass-fed red meat that mankind has eaten for centuries. It has no strong links with disease, while industrially produced trans fats do. I stress grass-fed because healthy red meat, eggs and come from animals fed their natural diet. Unhealthy saturated fat comes from grain fed animals.
Our nurses use FirstLine Therapy to help our patients separate the nutrition hype from reality and learn how to eat good foods that the whole family will enjoy. Want to live without chronic disease? Let us teach you how to build a strong foundation with every bite you take.
New labels for sunscreens
August 2008
A senate bill introduced August 1 would compel the Food and Drug Administration to make final comprehensive rules on sunscreen.
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, (D-CT), said the FDA appeared to be moving at a deliberately slow pace for the benefit of sunscreen manufacturers. "The delay is happening for economic reasons," Senator Dodd said. "The F.D.A. knows better. It sounds like an industry reluctant to have a standard set because that may open the doors to insisting upon more accurate labels on certain other products as well."
Since 1978, sunscreens have used the SPF numbering system to rate protection against sunburn caused by the sun's shorter-wavelength ultraviolet B rays.
The new sunscreen rules would require manufacturers to test the efficacy of the products against the sun's longer-wavelength ultraviolet A rays, which also can damage skin. Sunscreen labels would be required to display both the familiar SPF number and a new rating for UVA protection.
Dr. Grout's Comment:
I think this misses the bigger picture. The amount of information coming out about the benefits of Vitamin D – the sunshine vitamin – is virtually snowballing. We have escalating rates of cancer and chronic disease, and studies show that low levels of vitamin D is to partly blame.
Because people have been told to fear the sun, there is a widespread vitamin D deficiency today. About 90 percent of the vitamin D in your body is made when your skin is exposed to sunlight.
This bill also does not address the sunscreen toxicity issue. A March 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control revealed that 97% of Americans are contaminated with a widely-used sunscreen ingredient called oxybenzone that has been linked to allergies, hormone disruption, and cell damage.
|

|
|
 |