497 Water Memory and Homeopathy

I first wrote about Homeopathy nine years ago [#36 Homeopathy, 2 Nov 2009] and explained its two paradoxical principles: that “like cures like”, and the more dilute the remedy, the stronger its effect.

Because these principles are opposite of conventional medicine, homeopathy is often maligned as having a placebo effect at best. An example is this quote from a Scottish “bioethics expert”: Homeopathy is utterly implausible. Homeopathic preparations are so thoroughly diluted that they contain no significant amounts of active ingredients, and thus can have no effects on the patient’s body.

Surprisingly, some water science physicists believe there is a plausible explanation for homeopathic medicines. They have shown that the preparation of homeopathic remedies – successive dilution and shaking – does indeed alter the structure of the water in such a way that it can carry medicinal information. Two Nobel Laureates and other eminent scientists recently presented at a London conference titled New Horizons in Water Science – The Evidence for Homeopathy?

Brian Josephson of the U. of Cambridge said that liquid crystals, which can maintain an ordered structure while flowing, support homeopathic theory. He went on to explain that biomolecules (such as hormones) also function at very dilute solutions and can operate at a distance by electromagnetic signaling rather than chemical bonding. Josephson poked fun at critics of homeopathy, saying that chemical analysis of homeopathic remedies tell you no more about their properties than chemical analysis of a CD will tell you about the music on it.

Vladimir Voeikov from Moscow State University described decades of research in Russia on the biological effects of ultrahigh dilutions. Dr. Gerald Pollack, professor of bioengineering at U. of Washington, Seattle, and author of The Fourth Phase of Water, presented his research on the crystal-like structure of water on membrane surfaces. The other Nobel winner Luc Montagnier ended his presentation by saying “It [homeopathy] is not pseudoscience. It’s not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study.”

I don’t begin to understand the physics of water memory but if these scientists insist that there is something to it, it would be sheer arrogance (and ignorance) on my part to claim otherwise.

Source: mercola.com Water and Homeopathy, Oct 31, 2018

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

496 Miller’s Review [5 Nov 2018]

Vaccines have been thoroughly tested for safety, reactions are rare, and no published studies show vaccines cause harm. That is the position of the pharmaceutical industry, our governments, and their health organizations. But is it true?

A recent book by Neil Miller “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies – 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers” (mentioned in last week's post "The Wakefield Study") summarizes research that your pediatrician or community health nurse won’t tell you about (and most likely are unaware of themselves). These studies are published in peer-reviewed medical journals and all 400 provide evidence questioning the safety or efficacy of vaccinations. Here are just a few examples.

Few studies compare vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. One such was published just last year comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated 3 to 5 month olds in the West African country of Guinea-Bissau during the introduction of DPT and oral polio vaccine in the early 1980s. The study found the death rate of all causes was a shocking five times higher in the DPT vaccinated group (keep in mind that these African infants may be malnourished and in a previously unvaccinated population so the results may not translate to North America). Previously a live measles vaccine was withdrawn after clinical trials in West Africa found that it, along with DPT, increased mortality 33% in children 4-60 months of age.

Since 1986 the American Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has received over 500,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccinations, with 30,000 added each year. A study of this data analyzed 38,000 severe reactions (involving hospitalization or death) and found a statistically significant increase in risk as the number of simultaneous vaccines given increased, from one right up to eight.

A CDC study found that the increased risk of autism for boys getting the MMR before age 36 months was 1.69 times higher than those who got their shot after 36 months; for African American boys the rate was 3.36 times higher. The data were manipulated to hide these findings and the study concluded there was no link.

To make informed decisions about your family’s health you need all the information. This book, Miller’s website, and other resources like the National Vaccine Information Center will complement the information you receive from your doctor or health nurse.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner. Find this article on my website for links to sources and further reading.

495 The Wakefield “Study” [29 October 2018]

Almost everyone has heard of Andrew Wakefield, the British gastroenterologist who wrote a fraudulent study in 1998 linking vaccines and autism. Wakefield was accused of falsifying data and having undisclosed financial conflicts of interest. In 2010 the Lancet retracted his paper and he lost his license to practice.

The conventional position is that vaccines have been thoroughly tested with no link ever found with any health problem including autism. The retraction of Wakefield’s study is considered further proof that any vaccine-autism link has been totally debunked.

But is all of that true?

First, the 1998 Lancet paper was not a “study”, it was a “case study”. A case study is merely a reporting of one or a group of patients with unusual symptoms. It does not make any claims or even propose a hypothesis. You can read the entire retracted paper here. The paper’s conclusion read “We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases [8 of 12], onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps and rubella immunization. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.”

As to the fraud charges, David Lewis, a research microbiologist with the National Whistleblowers Center in Washington, reviewed Wakefield’s files regarding the Lancet paper and concluded that Wakefield had not intentionally misinterpreted the data, and that the BMJ’s fraud theory was “more tabloid news than science”. Wakefield has written a book (2010) called “Callous Disregard” in which he tells his side of the story.

In any case, the Wakefield paper is hardly the only evidence for vaccine safety concerns. A recent book by Neil Miller “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies – 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers” summarizes research that you won’t find on the CDC website. Many show increasing risk of adverse reactions with vaccinations at an earlier age and with multiple vaccinations (both of which were a concern of Wakefield’s). We’ll look at some of these next week.

Whether you think Wakefield is a discredited fraud or a demonized hero, you can’t fault him for asking for more research into such an important health issue.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner. Find this article on my website for links to sources and further reading.

493 The Cochrane HPV Review [15 Oct 2018]

I have previously written about bias in health science: #204 Scientifically Proven? about the built in bias in medical research; #429 Confirmation Bias and #456 Cognitive Dissonance about everyone’s bias in dealing with new information that conflicts with our beliefs; and #383 Blocking the Truth and #469 CFS – The Cover-Up about the CDCs questionable actions. So I wasn’t that shocked to read the 2015 book Vaccine Whistleblower – Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC by Kevin Barry. But I was really saddened to learn of recent occurrences at Cochrane.

Cochrane (formerly the Cochrane Collaboration) is a highly renowned network of scientists from around the world that publish hundreds of meta-analyses using the highest standards of evidence-based medicine. Cochrane has maintained its very high reputation for integrity – until now.

In May of this year Cochrane published a review of the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine. The human papilloma virus (HPV) is associated with (but not proven to cause) cervical cancer. The review looked at 26 studies and gave the vaccine a strongly favorable report.

In July Peter Gøtzsche, a Danish researcher, Cochrane board member, and a founder of the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993, along with two colleagues wrote a critique of the review “The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias” which was published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. Among the criticisms were: the review missed nearly half of the eligible studies; all of the studies selected used another vaccine as a placebo; women with a history of immunological or nervous system disorders were excluded (but are freely given the vaccine); all of the studies were industry funded; adverse effects were incompletely assessed; and serious conflicts of interest were not revealed.

The critique concluded “We do not find the Cochrane HPV vaccine review to be “Trusted Evidence” [Cochrane’s motto] as it was influenced by reporting bias and biased trial designs [and] … does not meet the standards for Cochrane reviews…”.

Instead of redoing the review to a higher standard, Gøtzsche was expelled from the board. In protest, four other scientists on the 13 man science board resigned (read their letter here).

Sadly it seems that, at least for certain health topics, there is no one left we can trust.

Sources: "Cochrane Board Expels Critic of Group's HPV Vaccine Review" Medscape 17 Sept 2018. If link doesn't work, copy and paste www.medscape.com/viewarticle/902062
"Leading Institution for Science-Based Health Advice Implodes After Industry Bias is Revealed" mercola.com 3 Oct 2018

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

483 The Placebo Effect [6 Aug 2018]

In the first few chapters of her 2016 book “Cure – a Journey into the Science of Mind over Body”, Jo Marchant explores the placebo effect.

The placebo effect is stronger and more widespread than I had realized. An enlightening example was the 1996 discovery that the enzyme secretin dramatically improved some autistic children, which when tested (in 1999) was found to work no better than a placebo. It did work, but so did the placebo (a saline injection); both groups improved significantly.

Another example is the surgical technique vertebroplasty (essentially gluing cracked vertebrae) which in a controlled study was found to be no better than placebo (a sham surgery). Again both groups improved significantly in mobility and pain relief.

So the placebo effect is more than just random improvement – there is a measurable beneficial effect due to patients’ expectations. And studies are discovering physiological changes in the body in response to these expectations which likely account for most of the favorable results. Some examples: a Parkinson’s drug placebo increases dopamine production; and a placebo pain killer increases production of endorphins (our body’s natural painkillers). Patients aren’t imagining the improvements – they are real.

The benefits of placebos are, however, limited to effects the body can control. A placebo can reduce pain, anxiety and depression, improve sleep, and lower blood pressure, but can’t replace insulin, shrink a tumor or lower cholesterol.

The author believes that any benefits from many alternative medicines and treatments like homeopathics and Reiki are due to the placebo effect. But she also reports that half of 53 surgical procedures studied in 2014, and most antidepressant drugs like Prozac, work little better than placebo. Valium for example only works if the patients know they are taking it. These drugs are still being marketed, and vertebroplasty surgery is still being performed. The author even proposes prescribing placebos, with the patients’ knowledge, in certain cases.

I’d love to see more controlled studies of natural products to learn how well they really work compared to conventional treatments. But I would still sell products that proved no better than placebo – if the customer asked for them and it was safe to do so. Why not harness the power of the mind to improve our health?

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

473 The Missing Vitamins [28 May 2018]

We all know about vitamins A, C, D, E and K and the B vitamin family of B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), B3 (niacin), B5 (pantothenic acid), B6 (pyridoxine), B7 (biotin), B9 (folic acid) and B12 (cobalamin). Did you ever wonder what happened to the missing vitamins F through J and Bs 4, 8, 10 & 11?

The early and mid 20th century was an exciting time for nutritional science. New vitamins and their deficiency diseases were being discovered every decade. The deficiency diseases, like scurvy and beriberi, were, of course, known for centuries but their causes remained elusive. Part of the problem was that a disease caused by NOT eating something was unheard of. The discovery of microbes as a cause of disease was well accepted by then (although that too was a hard sell in its day – see my story about Semmelweis, #021 July 2009) and all diseases were thought to be caused either by a pathogen or a toxin.

By 1912 (the year biochemist Casimir Funk coined the term “vitamine”) the idea was just starting to become accepted that scurvy, rickets, beriberi and pellagra were each caused by a deficiency of some unknown substance. The next few decades led to the discovery and naming, in alphabetical order of discovery, of the current family of 13 vitamins. To be classed as a vitamin it must meet two criteria: 1) be essential for health; and 2) not be synthesized in the body so must be obtained through diet.

The missing letters and numbers are compounds that were initially thought to be a new vitamin but turned out not to be. Vitamin F turned out to be essential fatty acids which were given their own nutrient class. Vitamin G was vitamin B2; and vitamin H was B7. Vitamin I was a nickname for the drug ibuprofen, so was passed over in the naming sequence. Vitamins J and L were found to be synthesized by the body. Vitamin M turned out to be B9. Vitamins O, P, S and U are all also synthesized by the body. Similarly vitamins B4, B8, B10 and B11 were also disqualified from vitamin status due to synthesis in the body.

To complete this discussion, pseudovitamins are a small group of compounds that act like vitamins but don’t meet the strict definition. This group includes inositol, choline, lipoic acid and PABA. A good B complex supplement will include all or most of these.

Source: Accidental Medical Discoveries – How Tenacity and Pure Dumb Luck Changed the World. Robert W Winters, MD, 2016

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

469 CFS – the Cover-Up [30 April 2018]

Last week I explained how Dr. Judy Mikovits discovered a likely viral cause for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), and I hinted at a cover-up. What happened and why?

Shortly after the publication of her 2009 Science paper, Dr. Mikovits turned her attention to autism. She became curious about a possible connection between CFS and autism when her preliminary data found a higher than expected number of children with autism among CFS patients and families. She speculated (publicly) that if children were asymptomatic carriers of the XMRV virus, a vaccination could trigger the sudden development of the disease. Retroviruses like to hide in the B and T lymphocytes, the very cells that vaccinations are designed to stimulate. This effect is well known for the HIV virus – babies born to HIV positive mothers must be treated with anti-viral drugs before their first vaccination.

In September 2011 Mikovits was suddenly fired from her position as Research Director at Whittemore Peterson Institute. A few weeks later she was arrested and her home searched (without a warrant), accused of stealing her research notebooks (which she was required by federal law to maintain and protect). She was held for five days in jail without bail or a formal charge ever being laid.

The Science study was retracted in September 2011 and an editorial was published discrediting her work (which included the police mugshot from her arrest). The CDC quickly initiated a follow-up study to confirm her findings. Mikovits protested that it was deliberately designed – in choice of subjects, handling of blood samples, and in the narrow control standard – to avoid finding a retrovirus in CFS patients. The best way to test for contamination would be to retest the same patients using her meticulous methodology, but this was not done. She was disappointed but not surprised when the studies found no correlation and concluded (erroneously she believes) that her previous study samples were contaminated. Another study had already confirmed her findings but it too was discredited and later retracted.

This raises the question: why would research institutions not want to find a viral cause of CFS? Possibly fear of public panic or class action lawsuits. But I suspect the reason is that it offers a plausible explanation for the connection between vaccinations and autism. What happened to Dr. Mikovits was, in her own words, “… a clear message to anyone in research who dared stand by data that revealed an inconvenient truth about corruption in public health.”

Sources

Book: Plague – One Scientist’s Intrepid Search for the Truth about Human Retroviruses and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Autism, and Other Diseases. Kent Heckenlively and Judy Mikovits, 2014

Hillary Johnson, Discover magazine March 2013 Chasing the Shadow Virus

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

456 Cognitive Dissonance [29 January 2018]

An article on the Vitamin D Council’s website inspired this column. It begins with two quotes. “All progress requires change; those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” (George Bernard Shaw) and “Science progresses one funeral at a time” (Max Planck).

Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort or psychological stress occurring when new information conflicts with long held beliefs. To relieve the tension people usually reject or ignore the new information in favor of the original belief.

The article’s author, founder and current medical director of the Vitamin D Council, John Cannell, is expressing his frustration at the lag time for medical discoveries to be put into the practice of saving lives. Specifically he mentions Vitamin D as a treatment for preeclampsia of pregnancy and autism. There are more than one hundred peer-reviewed published studies showing the effectiveness (and safety) of vitamin D for each of these two conditions (and many more) which are being ignored by the medical industry. Almost without exception these studies end with a call for more and larger studies before making any recommendations. This is especially true for pregnancy. But how much grant money and how many dead women are required? Are the 46,000 deaths from preeclampsia in 2015 not enough?

We know from many studies that optimum vitamin D levels in pregnant mothers reduce the risk of their baby developing autism. Why aren’t all pregnant women tested for vitamin D in their first trimester and supplemented when indicated to bring their levels up? There is no risk in doing so and a terrible risk in not.

Cannell blames the lag time on cognitive dissonance. Those in the medical industry responsible for developing and carrying out treatment protocols can’t fit the growing pile of new information on natural health products with what they have been taught to believe, so they ignore it. And all we can do is wait for their funerals.

The notion that natural health products are somehow “unscientific” makes it easier to ignore them. Why synthetic chemicals should be considered more scientific than vitamins and minerals is perplexing. The problem as I see it is not that they are “natural” but rather that they are not patentable. Without the profit from patent protection few corporations are willing to cover the cost of getting these products approved. I see a strong role here for governments and charities to fund the necessary research, since it is the people, and governments paying for health care, who will benefit from safer, more effective, and less expensive treatments.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

431 More on Lectins [31 July 2017]

The lectin theory of disease, while new to me, has been around for a few years now. I just bought two more e-books on the topic (Amazon’s “Buy with 1-Click” feature is too handy!) The first is Cure Your Autoimmune and Inflammatory Disease by Gregory Barton, July 2010, which, according to the author, was the only book on the subject at the time. Barton’s book has a more detailed scientific explanation of lectins than Steven Gundry’s The Plant Paradox.

Barton is an environmental and agricultural historian and devotes much of the book to the effect agriculture has had on human health. While recognizing that agriculture was responsible for the development of civilization – including the amazing advances of science – it is also responsible for much of our chronic modern diseases. And vested commercial interests plus our own reluctance to change – particularly when it comes to our food – prevent scientists from investigating dietary cures for disease and the rest of us from implementing them.

Optimistically Barton proposes that with the new knowledge of lectins we can still enjoy our modern lifestyle while avoiding the diseases of civilization. He developed the first low-lectin food list and then cured his own health problems which had started with a nagging backache and progressed from there. Here are the results in his own words: “Within a few weeks I cleared up entirely, 100%. The arthritis went away, the sore muscles disappeared. I began to gain muscle weight again, felt stronger, looked better, and had boundless energy… I was a new man…”

So, if lectins are in almost all our foods, how are any of us still healthy? Well we all have a certain tolerance for low to moderate amounts of lectins. And some of us appear to have a greater tolerance to lectins than others. If we discover foods that we are particularly intolerant (or even allergic) to, we try to avoid them. Too often however we fail to make the connection, keep eating the foods, and take antacid pills for our indigestion, pain relievers for our headaches, massage treatments for our muscle pain, and drugs or supplements for our many autoimmune diseases.

Next week I’ll discuss how lectins affect our health and who could most benefit from a low lectin diet.

By the way, this book is only $1.03 at Amazon.ca for the Kindle edition. Even if you don’t have an e-book reader, you can still read it on your computer.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

429 Confirmation Bias [17 July 2017]

One of the sources for my column last week about saturated fat safety was an article by Gary Staube with the strange title “Vegetable oils, (Francis) Bacon, Bing Crosby, and the American Heart Association”. The article raised an issue I wanted to follow up on – bias in science.

Francis Bacon first articulated the problem of bias in 1620, nearly 400 years ago:

The human understanding, once it has adopted opinions…draws everything else to support and agree with them. And though it may meet a greater number and weight of contrary instances, it will, with great and harmful prejudice, ignore or condemn or exclude them by introducing some distinction, in order that the authority of those earlier assumptions may remain intact and unharmed.

The Bing Crosby connection is the lyrics to his hit song “Accentuate the positive, Eliminate the negative…” which is what we do when sifting information about an issue on which we have a position. It is what lawyers do when arguing for their client in court, but not what scientists should be doing in seeking the truth. And what, Staube argues, the American Heart Association did in selecting the studies to support their now outdated position on saturated fat and heart disease.

Elizabeth Kolbert in a February 2017 article in The New Yorker “Why facts don’t change our minds” describes modern psychological experiments which support what is called “confirmation bias”. We readily believe information that agrees with our thinking and disregard anything to the contrary, spotting weaknesses in our opponents’ arguments but not in our own. Furthermore even when we realize that what we thought is not true we are unable to effectively reverse our first impression.

A classic Peanuts cartoon strip illustrates this perfectly: Lucy and Linus see something on the sidewalk and Lucy says “Look a big yellow butterfly…they fly up from Brazil and they…” Linus interrupts to point out that it’s a potato chip not a butterfly. Lucy looks closer and then exclaims “So it is! I wonder how a potato chip got all the way up here from Brazil?”

Confirmation bias has polarized almost every issue in politics, religion, and health science (and many more). At least part of the solution is to recognize this bias – in ourselves as well as others – and critically examine both sides of issues.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

410 Apple Cider Vinegar – Hype & Science [6 March 2017]

This morning as I was searching for a topic for this week’s column I found two emails in my inbox relating to apple cider vinegar (ACV). One, from the Institute for Natural Healing (INH), linked to an article which describes apple cider vinegar as “no doubt the most beneficial natural health tonic ever known to man”.

The other was the Nutrition Action newsletter published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) which said the only thing “special” about apple cider vinegar is “good marketing”.

First, the hype. The INH article claims that.apple cider vinegar: promotes weight loss; kills cancer cells; alkalizes the body; balances blood sugar; supports the heart and other organs; builds strong bones and teeth; improves digestion; eases nausea; cures heartburn; relieves nerve and joint pain; flushes out toxins; and boosts immunity.

The INH article also said that research is starting to validate the “mounds of anecdotal evidence that ACV is … effective”. But does it? According to Nutrition Action, the studies, what few there are, don’t hold up to the claims. It concedes that there is some evidence that ACV could help lower blood sugar in prediabetes. But in the Japanese study quoted by INH on weight loss, obese adults lost only four pounds in three months taking ACV. There are no ACV studies on cancer.

So what conclusions can we draw from these opposing views? First don’t believe everything you read, especially on the internet. Someone trying to sell you something is unlikely to provide a balanced view of the research. Second, just because there are no studies doesn’t mean that something doesn’t work, just that it hasn’t been proven yet (but still should not be used in advertising!).

Apple cider vinegar was one of the first “health foods” and was popular back in the 1960s along with wheat germ, alfalfa tablets and brewer’s yeast. I suspect that the greatest benefit from ACV comes from the bacterial culture in “the mother”, the cloudy mass at the bottom of the bottle. We learn more every year about the importance of healthy gut flora. Will ACV live up to all the claims? Probably not. But it shouldn’t hurt you (just rinse your mouth with water after drinking to protect your tooth enamel). Try it if you want; if you feel better, great; if not then quit.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

383 Blocking the Truth [22 Aug 2016]

I’m normally skeptical of claims of media bias by people who disagree with a published news item. Recently I came across a book that opened my eyes on the extent of corporate and government influence on mainstream news in the USA (and I’m sure in Canada too).

Sharyl Attkisson is a 30 year veteran investigative journalist (and with 5 Emmys, must be a good one!). She was the reporter who in 2009 exposed the CDC’s cover-up in the H1N1 Swine ‘Flu “epidemic”. She has exposed many other scandals and controversies under both Republican and Democratic US governments.

Her 2014 book “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington” tells the story of her growing frustration in getting her stories aired on CBS TV. She reports her own experiences and puts it in perspective of the larger picture of “the decline of investigative journalism and unbiased truth telling in America today”. CBS upper management began blocking publication of certain stories. Her telephone was tapped and computers infected with a spyware owned by the CIA and FBI. In frustration she finally left CBS after 20 years to work independently. The book “Stonewalled” is one result.

How does this relate to health? It’s not just government that influences media – corporate sponsors also have undue influence with their advertising dollars. Pharmaceuticals and biotech industries particularly have a long history of quashing unfavorable stories. Here are some of the issues that, according to Attkisson, mainstream media will no longer touch:
• Vaccination safety – this one is particularly taboo
• GMO & glyphosate safety – look what they did to Dr. Oz last year
• Side effects of pharmaceuticals – especially popular ones like statins

So don’t assume because you see or hear nothing on these issues on TV or in the daily newspaper that they are unquestionably safe. Rather it’s because no one is allowed to question them. We can no longer depend on mainstream media to provide unbiased reporting.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

374 Vitamin D & Heart Disease [20 June 2016]

I have previously written about vitamin D and cancer, MS, Alzheimer’s, fetal brain development, autism, preventing fractures, and preventing falls in elderly. Studies on vitamin D in preventing heart disease have been equivocal (inconclusive or conflicting) with some studies showing benefit and others not.

In January 2014 I wrote several columns on the importance of correct study methodologies for nutrients, which are different than for drugs for a number of reasons. In his blog Dr. Cannell of the Vitamin D Council has explained the failures to find benefit with many vitamin D studies as due to poor study design. In 2005 Cannell and colleagues published a list of guidelines for vitamin D studies in order to obtain meaningful results.

The guidelines included:
• use the D3 form with daily dose of 3,000 – 10,000 IU
• ensure that blood levels reach 40-65 ng/ml in the test group, and
• run the study for at least 5 – 9 months.
Additional guidelines mentioned in his blog post:
• use subjects that are D deficient for both test and placebo groups
• test blood levels before, during, and at the end of the study
• use objective measurements of improvement.

So what happens when researchers follow these guidelines? In a June 2016 blog post Dr Cannell reported on a study by the Leeds Institute in England, published March 24 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which followed their guidelines. What did they learn?

Chronic Heart Failure (CHF) is a common heart condition with a 50% five-year mortality rate. Approximately 90% of patients with CHF are vitamin D deficient. The randomized controlled study divided 223 subjects with CHF who were already on “optimal standard treatment” into a test group given 4,000 IU daily and a placebo group. The average vitamin D levels at the beginning was 10 ng/ml; the treatment group increased to an average of 46 ng/ml during the study. Small but significant improvements in cardiac function were measured in the test group for heart size and blood volume pumped by the left ventricle. The authors concluded:

“We have demonstrated that high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation is safe, well-tolerated, and associated with a clinically relevant improvement in cardiac function in CHF patients …”

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

310 No Consensus on GMO Safety [16 March 2015]

A key position of the biotech industry and government regulators in the approval of GMO crops is the “overwhelming consensus” on their safety. A paper published in January in Environmental Sciences Europe refutes this belief. The paper titled “No scientific consensus on GMO safety” was developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers from around the world.

In the introduction it reads:

Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature…the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired [by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators and journalists].

In [this] statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated...

The paper discusses the following seven points (read full paper here):

1. There is no consensus on GM food safety. [The evidence is far from conclusive; many scientists have serious concerns.]
2. There are no [zero!] epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health.
3. Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO safety are exaggerated or inaccurate.
4. The EU research project [cited widely by proponents as evidence of safety] does not provide reliable evidence of GM food safety.
5. A list of several hundred studies [frequently cited as evidence of safety] does not show GM food safety [most do not address safety, some provide evidence of lack of safety, and most are too short to examine long-term effects].
6. There is no consensus on the environmental risks of GM crops.
7. International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GM foods and crops.

The conclusion reads in part:

In a time when there is major pressure on the science community from corporate and political interests, it is of utmost importance that scientists working for the public interest take a stand against attempts to reduce and compromise the rigour of examination of new applications in favor of rapid commercialization of new and emerging technologies that are expected to generate profit and economic growth

Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims by an internal circle of likeminded stakeholders that a scientific consensus exists on GMO safety.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

266 The Retracted GMO Study [5 May 2014]

Back in December of 2012 I reported on a French animal study published that September in Food and Chemical Toxicology that showed significantly increased kidney and liver toxicity, including large tumor growth, in rats fed genetically engineered (GE) corn. Then in November 2013 this study was retracted by the editor.

While I’m sure proponents of GE crops viewed this as a vindication of the safety of their technology, anti-GE lobbyists like J. Mercola and J. Wright saw it as the capitulation of science to pressure from big business. Just what was wrong with the study that merited its retraction?

In response to a large number of letters to the editor questioning the validity of the findings, the Editor-in-Chief reviewed the study examining all aspects of the peer review process and even requested the raw data from the authors (which was supplied). He found no evidence whatsoever of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data but did have concerns about the small number of animals (200) and the strain of rats used (tumor-susceptible), both of which had been noted in the original peer review process. He concluded that “the results presented while not incorrect are inconclusive” and on that basis decided to retract the paper.

The authors later published, in the same journal, a detailed response to all the criticisms received. They noted that 75% of the first week’s letters critical to their mammalian toxicology study came from plant biologists (not animal toxicologists) and Monsanto employees. The strain of rats used was the same as in the only previous study done on one of the corn varieties (which used 400 rats but lasted only 90 days). They reiterated that their work remains “the most detailed study involving the life-long consumption of an agricultural GMO… and the first long term detailed research on mammals exposed to a highly diluted pesticide in its total formulation”.

It seems to me that this study, representing the longest (lifespan) GMO study to date, is worthy of publication, even if its results are inconclusive. I have seen many studies that are inconclusive and call for bigger or better studies. I am sure, though, that the industry will not be in any hurry to repeat this one.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

252 Some Positive Nutrient Studies [27 January 2014]

Over the last few weeks I have explained why flawed nutrient intake studies can show little or no benefit. Rather than belabor the point further (and I could, discussing dosage, nutrient form, etc) this week I am listing some of the hundreds of studies that have shown benefit from nutrient supplementation. This is just a small sample:

• A UCLA study in 1990s, with 11,000 men over 10 years found that 800 mg daily vitamin C reduced cardiovascular mortality by 42%, adding an average 6 years to their life.
• The Physician’s Health Study II found that taking a multivitamin was associated with reduced risk of death, over 11 years, of 12% from cancer and 39% from heart attacks.
• Supplementation in Vitamins and Mineral Antioxidants Study found a 31% reduction in total cancer incidence in men taking a multivitamin.
• A 2013 study of 77,446 adults found an inverse relationship between dietary selenium and the risk of pancreatic cancer.
• A 2007 study of 81,184 people found low B6 intake associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer.
• A 2012 study on 23,943 people found that taking an antioxidant multivitamin reduced the risk of death from cancer by 48% and from any cause by 42%.
• A 2009 German study found that vitamin D3 supplementation reduced the risk of falls by 27% (more on this next week)

Note that some of these are “observational studies” that discover a relationship but do not necessarily show cause and effect. But when random controlled prospective studies fail to show the expected results, the researchers should first look for possible causes before concluding that supplementation is useless.

Sources:
“Are Multiple Vitamins and Minerals Really Worthless?” unpublished article by Dr. Zoltan P. Rona
Call to clinicians: Report vitamin D data by John Cannell, MD 20 Jan 2014

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

251 Nutrient Co-Factors [20 January 2014]

Last week I explained how the unique features of the dose-response relationship for nutrients can skew the results of nutrient intake studies towards showing no benefit. Another reason why nutrient studies often find little or no benefit is that adequate levels of cofactors are rarely ensured. Unlike drugs, nutrients work better together, and often don’t work at all without certain others. To accurately test the effect of a single nutrient on a particular process (eg bone-building), all the other nutrients required for that process must be adequately available. For example, to test the effect of calcium supplementation, all the other nutrients required for bone building must be available in adequate amounts: vitamin D, vitamin K2, magnesium, protein, and certain B vitamins. Without ensuring adequate levels of these co-factors, the study results will be meaningless and misleading.

Most nutrient studies are designed following the drug model which attempts to eliminate the effect of all other variables. But instead of eliminating the effect of cofactors by ensuring adequate levels, they are too often simply ignored. The results may be accurate for what is actually being tested – e.g. that calcium supplementation alone does not significantly increase bone formation, but to conclude that calcium is worthless would be erroneous. Instead, further studies are required to determine the optimum levels of each of the other co-factors.

The failure to consider cofactors, along with the location on the dose-response curve discussed last week, is likely responsible for the “equivocal and sometimes contradictory” vitamin D trials referred to in the Editorial “Enough is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements” (J Annals Int. Med, 17 Dec 2013). In one sense I agree with the authors of this editorial when they state “…further large prevention trials [of vitamins] are no longer justified.” Conducting more poorly-designed nutrient trials that are incapable of testing what they purport to be testing would not only be a waste of time and money but their erroneous conclusions may dissuade many from actions that might improve their health.

Source: Robert Heaney – Some Rules for Studies Evaluating Nutrient Effects

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

249 Multivitamins – a Waste of Money? [6 Jan 2014]

Did you see any of the news headlines a few weeks ago like “Multivitamins a waste of money” or “Vitamin, mineral supplements offer no benefits”? These were newspaper reports of an editorial in the December 17 Annals of Internal Medicine which was commenting on three studies published in the same issue. The first was a review of 27 trials of single or paired vitamins which found no clear evidence of benefits on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease or cancer. The second was a large 12 year controlled study of elderly physicians which found no difference in cognitive decline between multivitamins and placebo. The third found no significant difference in recurring cardiovascular events (heart attack) with the use of a “high dose 28-component multivitamin”.

Based on these three studies, with vague reference to previous research with similar results, the editors concluded that effects – either beneficial or harmful – of multivitamins are too small to be detected with such small trials and, while conceding that there may be small benefits or harms in a small subgroup of the population, conclude that the “case is closed” and “…vitamins should not be used for chronic disease prevention.” The editors go beyond that, warning about certain harmful vitamins and even describing vitamin D studies (which have shown clear strong benefits in many different health areas) as equivocal and contradictory. What surprised me most though was their call to halt research: “…large prevention trials are no longer justified…” which scientists almost never do. Journalists (and their editors) with little science and no nutritional expertise then take these opinions (which is what an editorial really is) and run with them, concocting the misleading headlines, with accompanying articles, mentioned above.

This editorial raises so many important issues that it will require several columns for an adequate response. Next week I will discuss the nutrient paradox – how it can be that nutrients, by definition essential for life, frequently show little benefit in supplement studies. In later columns we’ll examine the three above-mentioned studies in more detail. Stay tuned! By the way I am still taking my vitamins.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.

221 Barry Marshall story [17 June 2013]

Barry Marshall won the 2005 Nobel Prize for his discovery that ulcers were caused by the bacteria Helicobacter pylori. In his online autobiography he tells the story of his discovery and the path that led to the Nobel Prize.

One factor favoring his discovery was his general medicine training – he hadn’t been indoctrinated into the gastroenterology specialist dogma (for example that bacteria cannot live in the acidic stomach). Thus he was able to draw logical conclusions from his observations (that H. pylori occurred in all the ulcer patients and in few others). He then went about testing his theory, including infecting himself with the bacteria to see what would happen (he got very sick). By 1984 he was successfully treating ulcer patients with antibiotics and bismuth.

Naturally Marshall was anxious for his discovery to be quickly accepted so that millions of other ulcer patients could also benefit. Instead he became frustrated with the opposition he faced from the medical community. In his words: “I was met with constant criticism that my conclusions were premature and not well supported. When the work was presented, my results were disputed and disbelieved, not on the basis of science but because they simply could not be true.”

Proctor & Gamble, an American pharmaceutical company which made a bismuth drug, came to his rescue and helped Marshall patent and promote his work. Gradually his theory became more accepted and finally in 1994 it became the standard treatment for duodenal and gastric ulcers. The following year he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Although those 10 years of opposition must have seemed like a long time to Marshall, he was really very fortunate to have such a revolutionary idea accepted so quickly. I wonder how many other health discoveries are being ignored (or worse) because “they simply could not be true” or because there is too much money being made with the status quo.

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner. See

205 Calcium, Vitamin D & Fractures [25 February 2013]

Last week we looked at certain built-in bias that favors drugs being tested. I have previously discussed how studies and/or their news reports can be slanted to discredit natural health products (#112 A Sabotaged Cancer Study, #176 Nutrition in the News). In August 2012 (#177 Preventing Fractures) I reported on a critique of the 2012 USPSTF meta-analysis study which concluded that calcium and vitamin D supplementation at RDA levels provided no benefit and were best avoided due to slightly increased risk of kidney stones. Among the noted flaws were the low dosage of vitamin D; the poorly-absorbed form of calcium used; and missing cofactors for bone formation including magnesium, vitamin K2, and various trace minerals. A similar study with similar conclusions was recently re-analyzed leading to a completely different conclusion.

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a large controlled study of more than 36,000 post-menopausal women over 7 years, examined the effects of supplementation with 1000mg calcium and 400iu vitamin D on bone density and fractures. The original analysis, published in the New England J. of Medicine in 2006, concluded that the supplementation provided no significant reduction in hip fractures and only a small improvement in bone density.

A recent re-analysis of the WHI data by Dr. Ross Prentice and colleagues from the Fred Hutchinson Research Center in Seattle, published in Osteoporosis International 24(2) in February 2013, came up with a different conclusion. The authors found that the original analysis didn’t account for women who were taking supplements prior to the study and for women who quit partway through. After adjusting for these data, the researchers found significant reductions of fracture risk: 29% and 38%. They concluded “…long-term use of calcium and vitamin D appears to confer a reduction that may be substantial in the risk of hip fracture among postmenopausal women”. Just imagine the benefits they might have found had they used optimum supplementation levels and included all the co-factors!

For more information on this or other natural health topics, stop in and talk to Stan; for medical advice consult your licensed health practitioner.