September 2009 Health in the News Archive

[ Monthly Index of New Briefs ]

Michael Pollen's essay on health care versus the food industry

September 11, 2009

Michael Pollen, author of the Omnivore's Dilemma, wrote in the New York Times: "To listen to President Obama's speech on Wednesday night, or to just about anyone else in the health care debate, you would think that the biggest problem with health care in America is the system itself — perverse incentives, inefficiencies, unnecessary tests and procedures, lack of competition, and greed.

"Even the most efficient health care system that the administration could hope to devise would still confront a rising tide of chronic disease linked to diet.

"That's why our success in bringing health care costs under control ultimately depends on whether Washington can summon the political will to take on and reform a second, even more powerful industry: the food industry.

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, three-quarters of health care spending now goes to treat "preventable chronic diseases." Not all of these diseases are linked to diet — there's smoking, for instance — but many, if not most, of them are.

"The American way of eating has become the elephant in the room in the debate over health care … reforming the food system is politically even more difficult than reforming the health care system … The health care industry finds it more profitable to treat chronic diseases than to prevent them. There's more money in amputating the limbs of diabetics than in counseling them on diet and exercise. As for the insurers, you would think preventing chronic diseases would be good business, but, at least under the current rules, it's much better business simply to keep patients at risk for chronic disease out of your pool of customers."

Dr. Grout's Comment:

Once again, Michael Pollen hits the nail right on the head. This is a wonderful essay and worth reading in its entirety: Big Food vs. Big Insurance

Autism rates have gone up dramatically

September 11, 2009

David Kirby, author of Evidence of Harm, recently wrote in the Huffington Post that a pair of federally funded studies on autism rates will discard the conventional wisdom that the rate of autism is one in 150. The soon to be released studies show that somewhere between one in 63 to 1 in 100 of all US children currently have an autism spectrum disorder. The rate is even higher boys, according to data from one of the new studies.

But there was also some surprisingly good news. According to the National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH), a large number of children shed the ASD label as they get older. Among boys, 34.6% reportedly do not have the diagnosis now and the percentage of girls who apparently lost their original label was 44.5%.

The second study is coming from the CDC's Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring network (ADDM), and has been eagerly anticipated for quite some time. Ginger Taylor reported on the Adventures in Autism blog that the CDC is about to release data showing ASD prevalence rates along the lines of 1 in 100. The new stats had been mentioned at the Autism Society of America (ASA) meeting in July by Lee Grossman, ASA President and CEO.

"I told people we were about to get hit by two separate studies that will be published in the near future," Grossman told Kirby. "Did the numbers really go up, or is it better data collection? I don't know the answer."

One partial explanation for the increase is the expansion of the ASD classification within the public schools to include not only full-blown autism, but also milder forms of ASD such as Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) and Asperger's Syndrome. Another explanation is that environmental factors are at play.

"A person with an autism spectrum disorder has a number of underlying and seemingly unnoticed immunological, inflammatory or mitochondrial issues happening, and there could be any number of factors that trigger this," Grossman said. "And it is certainly plausible that vaccines are one of those triggers … But until we know what is going on, we should treat everything as a plausible factor, and study it to the point where we have a much better understanding. For example, why do some people have a severe reaction to vaccines and why do some not have that reaction? To me, it is appalling that those studies have not happened."

Grossman said it was "terrible" that research into the causes of autism has been so heavily weighted towards genetics, at the expense of studying environmental factors. "And my message is: 'Wake up.' But if this doesn't wake people up, then I don't know what will."

Dr. Grout's Comment:

According to this latest data, the odds that your infant will develop some form of ASD looms larger than ever. If you have a boy, the chances of ASD are a staggering one in 38.

The fact that a large percentage of kids seem to outgrow their form of ASD suggests that environmental factors are primary; genetics are secondary.

At the Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine, we get results when we treat autism and Asperger syndrome as a disorder caused by a combination of genetic susceptibility and exposure to more toxins than the system can handle, either before or after birth. The result is dysfunctional neural processing and significant social deficits. Studies by the Environmental Working Group and the CDC reveal that children are born with some 200 man-made chemicals, downloaded from the mother during pregnancy. We know that the recommended childhood vaccination schedule, age 0 to 6 years, has grown from 10 vaccinations in 1983, to 36 in 2008. Much corn now is a genetically modified food, and corn products are found in everything from baby formula to talcum powder. The central nervous system of a newborn infant is particularly susceptible to toxic influences and there are simply more of them out there since the 1980s.

If the new data will shift the focus onto environment factors, that could really help move forward the prevention of autism.

Abuse of ADHD drugs nearly doubles among kids

September 10, 2009

The rate of the abuse of prescription ADHD drugs has been increasing along with the increased number of prescriptions written.

Researchers queried the American Association of Poison Control Center's National Poison Data System for the years of 1998–2005 for all cases involving people aged 13 to 19 years, for reports of intentional abuse or misuse prescription medication used for ADHD treatment.

"The sharp increase, out of proportion to other poison center calls, suggests a rising problem with teen ADHD stimulant medication abuse," researchers wrote in the August 24 issue of Pediatrics. "Case severity increased over time. Sales data of ADHD medications suggest that the use and call-volume increase reflects availability, but the increase disproportionately involves amphetamines."

Between 1998 and 2005, ADHD prescriptions increased 80 percent. And abuse of the meds increased by 76 percent during the same time period.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

So the more ADHD drugs are prescribed, the more people are turned into addicts and suffer, as all addicts do, from the poisonous effects of the drugs.

ADHD drugs are essentially "uppers;" on the street uppers are called "speed." These drugs now must carry "black box" warnings, an FDA requirement because they have significant risk of serious or even life-threatening adverse effects. Peter Breggin, a medical doctor and Harvard-trained psychiatrist, wrote, "The 'therapeutic' effects of stimulants are a direct expression of their toxicity." The drugs are addictive. And over time, the drugs become less effective. There is another way.

We find that children with ADHD often have under-developed neural pathways in the part of their brains that direct and focus their attention; they are distracted by everything they see. HEG neurofeedback makes new connections so they can stay focused on the person talking to them, for example, rather than the cars going by in the background.

If you are battling brain fog, if your memory seems to fail you a lot, if ADHD is an issue, you can use our BrainAdvantage™ program to revitalize your brain. BrainAdvantage has an integrated set of technologies that address a wide assortment of brain issues in only twenty sessions – as short as 3 ½ weeks. The program can increase your peak performance, as well as compensate for traumatic brain injury, loss of memory, impulsivity, attention and focus issues.

Novel ad campaign reveals sugary drinks are fattening

September 5, 2009

The New York City Health Department launched a new ad campaign this week targeting liquid calories. In an attempt to get New Yorkers to think twice about what and how much they drink, the ads go right for the gross-out effect, showing soda and other sugary drinks turning into revolting frothy chunks of fat.

The press release says, "It's hard to overeat without noticing it. By contrast, soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages can sneak up on you, adding hundreds of calories to your diet each day without ever filling you up. In a new effort to highlight the health impact of sweetened drinks, the Health Department is confronting New Yorkers with a bold question: Are you pouring on the pounds? The agency's new public-awareness campaign includes posters in the subway system and a multilingual Health Bulletin." The ads are scheduled to run for three months.

"Sugary drinks shouldn't be a part of our everyday diet," said New York City Health Commissioner Thomas A. Farley. "Drinking beverages loaded with sugars increases the risk of obesity and associated problems, particularly diabetes but also heart disease, stroke, arthritis and cancer."

On average, Americans now consume 200 to 300 more calories each day than we did 30 years ago. Nearly half of these extra calories come from sugar-sweetened drinks.

The Health Department advises parents not to serve their kids punch, fruit-flavored drinks or "sports" and "energy" drinks. Most of them are low in nutrients and high in empty calories.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

Kudos to a government agency for talking honestly about sugar! Obesity and diabetes are now epidemic, and sugar-laden drinks are a major factor driving that. Usually, the immense power of the advertising dollar and the sugar lobby keeps this kind of thing from happening.

Here's another chart from the NYC Health Department's press release:

New study shows cell phones are dangerous

September 3, 2009

A new study says cell phone use increases brain tumors and that studies funded by the Telecom industry purposefully underestimate the risk of brain tumors.

"Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern - Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone," was released August 25. Groups affiliated with the report include Powerwatch and the Radiation Research Trust in the U.K., and in the U.S., EMR Policy Institute, ElectromagenticHealth.org and The Peoples Initiative Foundation. Download the report.

Lloyd Morgan, lead author and member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society said, "Exposure to cellphone radiation is the largest human health experiment ever undertaken, without informed consent, and has some 4 billion participants enrolled. Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of cellphones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia."

The cell phone industry's position has been that "the peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk."

However, this new report details eleven design flaws of the Telecom-funded Interphone study. The Interphone study, begun in 1999, was intended to determine the risks of brain tumors, but its full publication has been held up for years. Components of this study published to date reveal what the new study calls a 'systemic-skew', greatly underestimating brain tumor risk.

The design flaws include categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cellphones,) as 'unexposed', exclusion of many types of brain tumors, exclusion of people who had died or were too ill to be interviewed as a consequence of their brain tumor, and exclusion of children and young adults who are more vulnerable.

Dr. Grout's Comment:

It just keeps coming. Last year, a well-circulated Swedish study found that people using cell phones doubled their risk of developing brain cancer and acoustic neuroma (a tumor that damages your hearing nerve). The study also showed that people who started using cell phones before the age of 20 were more than five times as likely to develop brain cancer.

Brain cancer has surpassed leukemia as the number one cancer killer in children, and increasingly, the reason for this is thought to be the growing use of wireless devices. Children have thinner skulls than adults, and nervous systems that are still developing.

Last year, Toronto's department of public health advised that because of possible side effects from radio frequency radiation, children under 8 should only use a cell phone in emergencies, and teenagers should limit calls to less than 10 minutes.

In 2005, the British-based National Radiological Protection Board suggested children younger than age 8 should not be given a cell phone as it risks exposing their young bodies to harmful radiation.

England, Belgium, Germany, France, and Russia have also introduced precautionary policies regarding cell phone usage due to potential health risks.

At one medical conference I attended this summer, several doctors proposed that EMF exposure plays a huge role in escalating rates of chronic disease. The heart, the brain, and all the cells communicate with electric signals. The chaotic energy emitted from "Energy Star' appliances, cell phones, Wi-Fi networks, etc., is not the same as what the body uses. When the DNA within each cell decides the EMF vibration is something foreign, then the cell thinks it is under attack and closes its "doors" which means nutrients don't get in, and toxins don't get out. The medical term is oxidative stress. Because the cells are not releasing the toxins, you get a free radical buildup and DNA repair is disrupted. This was proposed as the path for the development of tumors associated with cell phone usage. Several doctors also felt EMF exposure plays a role in autism and other chronic diseases.

September is National Cholesterol Education Month

September 1, 2009

From the National Institutes of Health: "September is National Cholesterol Education Month, a good time to get your blood cholesterol checked and take steps to lower it if it is high. National Cholesterol Education Month is also a good time to learn about lipid profiles and about food and lifestyle choices that help you reach personal cholesterol goals.

"The higher your cholesterol level, the greater the risk. You can have high cholesterol and not know it. Lowering cholesterol levels that are too high lessens your risk for developing heart disease and reduces the chance of having a heart attack or dying of heart disease.

"The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute offers helpful resources to use during National Cholesterol Education Month … Cholesterol lowering is important for everyone–younger, middle age, and older adults; women and men; and people with or without heart disease … Saturated fat and cholesterol in the food you eat make your blood cholesterol level go up..."

Dr. Grout's Comment:

This press release is a classic example of why more and more Americans are beginning to distrust government agencies who blatantly promote the pharmaceutical industry.

Cholesterol screening fails to identify 50 percent of the people who have heart attacks in the United States each year, because their total cholesterol is either normal or only moderately elevated. Cholesterol IS NOT the cause of heart disease.

The body, in its wisdom, uses cholesterol as a band aid over arterial plaque and lesions, which generally result from inflammation and turbulence in the arteries. Cholesterol can be a marker, but it is not a cause of heart disease – unless you want to confuse people to sell statins.

Med school 101: Most of the cholesterol in our bodies is made by the body; only a little comes from what we eat. Humans simply need cholesterol a lot. It is a potent anti-oxidant. It is a major player in athletic performance, regulating blood sugar, controlling blood pressure, regulating mineral balance, maintaining libido, and building muscle mass. It is also the raw material from which vitamin D, CoQ-10 and all the adrenal and sex hormones are made.

Do you really want to artificially suppress the body's output of a natural hormone with drugs? Cholesterol forms 50 percent of the nervous system. A deficiency of cholesterol results in fatigue, obesity, nervous and emotional disturbances, digestive difficulties, impotence or inability to conceive and/or complete a pregnancy, menstrual syndromes and masculine traits in women, effeminate traits in men, blood pressure irregularities, fluid imbalances, nutritional deficits and imbalances, and more.

Homocysteine levels are more valuable than cholesterol levels in providing an accurate assessment of cardiovascular health. So too is a measurement of C-reactive protein (CRP). This marker is produced by the liver as a response to injury or infection and is a sign of inflammation in the body. Chelation is an excellent tool to lessen the inflammation.

Heart disease is the number one killer of women and men in the United States and will likely continue to lead the list until those who send out press releases promoting the sale of drugs switch gears and begin to educate the public responsibly.

I have two really good articles you can print out and share with your family:

http://www.arizonaadvancedmedicine.com/articles/heart_disease.html
http://www.arizonaadvancedmedicine.com/articles/cholesterol.html

© Copyright 2007 - 2012. All Rights Reserved. Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine.
Serving the Phoenix metro area including Scottsdale, Mesa, Glendale, Chandler, Tempe,
Paradise Valley, Peoria, Cave Creek, Carefree, Fountain Hills, Ahwatukee, Queen Creek