Reblogged from Clever Homeopathy:

An exploration and critical analysis of the terminology used to describe ultra high dilution, the position of homeopathy in medicine and its relation to science – a demand for agreement on inter- and cross- disciplinary definition and vocabulary. Abstract In homeopathy there is a lack of consensus on the terminology used to describe it. The meaning of nomenclature is frequently not what we are expressing in words, because the terms we are using are not universal to the discipline of homeopathy. This …

Image via Wikipedia

Here is an exhaustive discussion about homeopathy and the need to really define homeopathy so that we stop having “homeopathic” supplements cause people problems. Uta does a wonderful job of calling the homeopathic community to task and also turns the whole homeopathy/conventional debate on its head by stating that homeopathy is the only truly scientific medical modality because of the process of its creation and its constant improvement upon itself. She says it much better, though.

Related articles

• Croup at 3 am: Why I Love Homeopathy Even Though I Don’t Believe In It. (alternativendhealth.wordpress.com)
• The disinformation myths against homeopathy (usapartisan.com)
• Homeopathy and Breast Cancer (christineonhomeopathy.wordpress.com)

Image by DBduo Photography via Flickr

I was taught that that RDA of Vitamin D, 400 IU, was adequate and that more might cause hypercalcemia.  Hypercalcemia could cause heart arrhythmias.

Later on, I learned that, despite the risk, psoriasis patients were given 50,000 IU of vitamin D.  The only doses the pharmacies stocked were 400 IU and 50,000 IU.  It didn’t make a lot of sense.

In looking through the literature, I was unable to find more than a couple anecdotal reports of patients consuming hundreds of thousands of IU of vitamin D and giving themselves reversible arrhythmias.

But what is the safe amount?  Well, we have a nice study of a small group of MS patients taking 20,000 units a day for twelve weeks.  None of them had heart problems, and none of them developed hyper or hypo calcemia despite their blood levels of vitamin D reaching an average of 380 nmol/L.  Their starting was 50 nmol/L, which seems high for the U.S. population (I think our lower cutoff is 18nmol/L for deficiency).

So I’m not going to be prescribing 20k for my patients, but I’m going to be a little less cautious than the RDA guys who have now moved the RDA to 800 IU.

Here’s the MS study.

How good is vitamin D for you?  Here’s a two page discussion of its effects on lupus and autoimmune diseases.

Related articles

• Vitamin D and Hypercalcemia (brassandivory.org)
• Vitamin D study suggests that pale people need supplements (cbsnews.com)
• Vitamin D and COPD (philadelphia.cbslocal.com)
• Bella Quiz: Do You Know Your ABCs. . .of Beauty Vitamins? (bellasugar.com)
• The Calcium Controversy (biosil.wordpress.com)
• Vitamin D – is it Really? (drkennethorbeck.com)
• Pale People at Risk for Vitamin D Deficiency (webmd.com)
• Pale Skin Is Pretty, But It Might Mean You Need More Vitamin D (blisstree.com)
• Vitamins – The adverse effects (intentious.com)
• Vitamin D: free teaching resource (brilliantbook.wordpress.com)

Image via Wikipedia

One of the greatest controversies about lyme is whether antibiotics resolve the infection entirely.  If they do, then chronic lyme problems “don’t exist.”

I’ve always found this an interesting sleight-of-hand.  No one asks if polio exists in patients with post-polio syndrome, and no one has the obnoxiousness to claim that those symptoms are “all in the patient’s mind.”

So, do the lyme spirochetes continue to exist after antibiotics?  Well, we can’t do human trials, because that’s not ethical.  And test-tube trials show that antibiotics do kill all the lyme.  But… now we have “human” trials on one of our nearest genetic relatives, the Rhesus Macaques.  And, when you infect them, inject them with antibiotics to kill all the spirochetes, and then try to get some spirochetes out of them, they continue to pass on the spirochetes to lab-bred ticks.  So the spirochetes continue to exist after antibiotic treatment.

Now, that brings up the question.  Not – does chronic lyme exist - which it does.  Now proven.  But why do most people not exhibit lyme symptoms despite a pretty good likelihood that they continue to have the spirochete in their systems?  In other words, why don’t many more people have chronic lyme?

I think the answer lies in the autoimmune sensitivity realm.  A piece of the spirochete may or may not trigger a massive autoimmune response within an infected individual.  It is that response as much as the presence of the spirochetes themselves, that generates the illness known as chronic lyme.

Here’s the Rhesus Macaques’ study.

Related articles

• Dog Lyme Disease (vetdepot.com)
• Cat Lyme Disease (vetdepot.com)
• How can Lyme disease be prevented and controlled? (medicalxpress.com)
• “Over the Edge” by Brandilyn Collins (Review and Free Game Download!) (onedesertrose.wordpress.com)
• How Effective is NutraSilver on Lyme Disease? (careman.wordpress.com)
• Top 100 Stories of 2011: #90: Chronic Lyme Patients Validated (discovermagazine.com)
• Lyme Disease – Always Learning. (biodork.wordpress.com)
• How can Lyme disease be prevented and controlled? (eurekalert.org)
• Crazy or just the Lyme disease? (barefairy.wordpress.com)
• Chronic Fatigue and Lyme Disease study (barefairy.wordpress.com)

Image by n0cturbulous via Flickr

In a big, big, slap in the face of all those old, extremely highly paid cancer researchers, a seventeen-year-old has found a cure for cancer.

Basically, it involves using a nanoparticle to drag a miniature plastic sack full of poison to the cancer cells.  Then you heat up the bag and the poison kills the cancer while missing the healthy cells.

It’s more of a greatly improved delivery system than a cure, but it’s like Fedex in a world where the current chemo model is to paper the entire body with poisoned leaflets and hope the cancer picks up enough before the healthy cells die.

So far, the treatment has only worked in mice, but they’ll hopefully be starting human tests.  Let’s hope it works in people as well.  Oh, and the student won a science prize for her project.

Related articles

• High School Student Might Have Found the Cure for Cancer (zazenlife.com)
• Why I Love What I Do: Melatonin For Cancer? And Venting. (alternativendhealth.wordpress.com)
• My Mother Has Cancer… (wegotkidz.com)
• Natural Cancer Cures Include Lifestyles that Address the Cause of Cancers (anthomas760.wordpress.com)
• Angela Zhang, High School Student Devises Potential Cancer Cure (huffingtonpost.com)
• On Our Radar: Gwyneth Paltrow Leads the Fight For the Cure (fabsugar.com)
• Many keep smoking even after cancer diagnosis (news.bioscholar.com)
• 17 Year Old Girl Devises Possible Cure For Cancer…Um WHAT?! (jack.radio.com)
• Cupertino Teen Devises Possible Cancer Cure (sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com)
• 17-year-old wins 100k for creating cancer-killing nanoparticle (geek.com)
• If You’re 17 And You Create Something That KILLS CANCER, You Only Get $100,000. Grats. (slightlyburnedpants.com)

Reblogged from To Your Health:

CDC researchers say mothers should stop breastfeeding to boost ‘efficacy’ of vaccines Saturday, January 21, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer (NaturalNews) Remember when it was considered crazy talk to suggest that mainstream medicine viewed humanity as being born lacking in pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, as if these synthetic inputs are necessary miracle nutrients for proper human development? Well, researchers from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently showed that they …

Ahhh, it’s nice to hear that the CDC has realized that breastfeeding lowers the immune response to vaccination. The unfortunate reality is that young mothers who are breastfeeding and slavishly following the recommended vaccination schedule are basically depriving their children of a full immune resonse to the vaccines. BUT…the vaccines won’t raise your child’s IQ, and the breast feeding will. So delay the vaccines until you stop breastfeeding.

Image by SewPixie via Flickr

Ok, so everyone know what melatonin is?  It’s a byproduct of stress in your head.  If you take it after flying, it can help with jet lag.  Good stuff.  But is it safe?

What are the side effects of melatonin?  What evil thing does it do to you?  Why – it lengthens your life if you have cancer.  No, really.  That’s the side effect.  It increases your response to other drugs, is totally safe to take along with your poison mustard-gas injection of nastiness they have the huevos to call a therapy, and helps you fall asleep.

No, you say.  There’s a catch.  There’s more that you aren’t telling me.  Yes, I’ll fess up.  It also reduced “asthenia, leucopenia, nausea and vomiting, hypotension, and thrombocytopenia.”  These are big words for not-so-nice things.  Oh, wait, that wouldn’t be a side effect, that would be a bonus, because you’d feel better.

Ok, so what are the side effects of melatonin’s competitor?  Ambien.  We all know it as mother’s little helper, the modern version.  It’s only been approved for “short periods” but everyone is on it forever.  I won’t go into the side effects, because they take up a page.  Here they are.

Can you imagine for one moment what the makers of Ambien would do if they had melatonin’s “side effect” picture?  After they finished doing the happy dance and throwing fistfuls of dollars in the air they’d be flooding the airwaves with “magic cancer cure!”

But we’re talking about an over-the-counter supplement.  So look for the follow-up to be absolutely nothing.  Ho hum.  Another magic cure from the non-patentable aisle.

Oh, time for a little venting about the state of cancer treatment today:

Quick, smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors.  None of that works!  You NEED us!  The only good medicine is the stuff we sell.  You’re sicker?  That has nothing to do with what you’re taking, take some more.

Oh look, the skeptics are marching.  Stop the melatonin madness!  You’re wasting your money!  Look, we’ll do a study that shows melatonin doesn’t work because we use too little of it from a bad batch we got from China.  See?  All that stuff is nonsense.

Don’t look at your fifteen-thousand dollar palliative chemo treatment and realize that you could spend your last days in luxury in Rio instead.  That’s worthwhile medicine even though it won’t save you and your oncologist can’t look you in the eyes.  Spend your last days vomiting like a sick dog in some dimly-lit hospital corridor.  It’s the American way.

And for goodness sake, don’t try diet or supplements or clean air and sunshine or any of that nonsense.  It might make you feel well enough you take the nasty tube out of your arm and go home to die with some dignity.

Ok, I feel better.

Related articles

• Natural melatonin extracted from the pineal gland of cows may contain germs (microphone-film.net)
• Using melatonin may worsen any disease that you are currently enduring so it is best to talk to your physician (microphone-film.net)
• Shift work may have less health risks than long night stints: Study (canada.com)
• Melatonin – When Good Sleep Really Matters! (getfitanna.wordpress.com)
• turn off the lights for beauty. (christleon.wordpress.com)
• Research Review: Melatonin and Sleep (appliedbehavioralstrategies.wordpress.com)
• Melatonin: Restful Sleep & Immune Support – Now $1 Off! (getfitanna.wordpress.com)
• Modern Shift Work Patterns May Be Less Harmful to Health (nlm.nih.gov)
• A Great Compounding Pharmacy in the Canton Michigan area just for you (clarkpharmacy.wordpress.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Sorry for the headline, but every time we see someone die in a ski accident, he or she seems to be wearing a helmet.  At some point one wonders:  did the helmet cause it?

Here in Maine helmets for skiers is a big deal and somewhat controversial.  It’s usually the snowboarders we see cruising down the slopes helmetless.  (Snowboarders have a greater risk of injury than skiers).  They don’t seem to need helmets, and love the feeling of the wind blowing through their icy hair.

What are the facts?  Is there a case for making helmets mandatory?

First, when you make helmets mandatory, you’d better make them mandatory for everyone.  When the Austrians made helmets mandatory for the under fifteen set, there was no real change for the under 15ers (most of them were wearing helmets anyway).  But helmet use DROPPED among the over 15s.  Guess it got cooler to not wear a helmet.  “Hey look, I’m sixteen and I don’t need a helmet!”  So it’s an all or nothing thing.

But do helmets work?  Yes, they reduce severe head injuries by about fifty percent.  To put it differently, out of 3277 injured skiers, 147 had potentially serious head injuries.  Those that did were better off with helmets.  In real terms, wearing a helmet reduces your risk of bad head injuries from about 5% to about 2.5% if you are injured.

What about cervical injuries because of the helmets?  A small study found no increase in risk of cervical problems or any change in collisions for the helmets vs. non-helmets crowd.  What they did find was the 50% reduction in serious injury for the helmeted.

A small study?  I want a meta-analysis!  You’ve got one.  The results?  Slightly less than 50% risk of serious injury overall for the helmeted crowd.  No increased risk in cervical injury from the helmets and possibly a lower risk of cervical injury.

Summary:  helmets good.

But don’t believe me, here are the studies:

JAMA. 2006 Feb 22;295(8):919-24.

Helmet use and risk of head injuries in alpine skiers and snowboarders.

Sulheim S, Holme I, Ekeland A, Bahr R.

Source

Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center, Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway.

Abstract

CONTEXT:

Although using a helmet is assumed to reduce the risk of head injuries in alpine sports, this effect is questioned. In contrast to bicycling or inline skating, there is no policy of mandatory helmet use for recreational alpine skiers and snowboarders.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the effect of wearing a helmet on the risk of head injury among skiers and snowboarders while correcting for other potential risk factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

Case-control study at 8 major Norwegian alpine resorts during the 2002 winter season, involving 3277 injured skiers and snowboarders reported by the ski patrol and 2992 noninjured controls who were interviewed on Wednesdays and Saturdays. The controls comprised every 10th person entering the bottom main ski lift at each resort during peak hours. The number of participants interviewed corresponded with each resort’s anticipated injury count based on earlier years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:

Injury type, helmet use, and other risk factors (age, sex, nationality, skill level, equipment used, ski school attendance, rented or own equipment) were recorded. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between individual risk factors (including helmet wear) and risk of head injury by comparing skiers with head injuries with uninjured controls, as well as to skiers with injuries other than head injuries.

RESULTS:

Head injuries accounted for 578 injuries (17.6%). Using a helmet was associated with a 60% reduction in the risk for head injury (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.55; adjusted for other risk factors) when comparing skiers with head injuries with uninjured controls. The effect was slightly reduced (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.59) when skiers with other injuries were used as controls. For the 147 potentially severe head injuries, those who were referred to an emergency physician or for hospital treatment, the adjusted OR was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.25-0.77). The risk for head injury was higher among snowboarders than for alpine skiers (adjusted OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22-1.91).

CONCLUSION:

Wearing a helmet is associated with reduced risk of head injury among snowboarders and alpine skiers.

PMID: 16493105

J Trauma. 2011 Oct;71(4):1085-7.

Impact of a ski helmet mandatory on helmet use on Austrian ski slopes.

Ruedl G, Brunner F, Kopp M, Burtscher M.

Source

Department of Sport Science, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. gerhard ruedl@uibk.ac.at

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

A helmet mandatory for people younger than 16 years was implemented in most Austrian provinces in the winter season 2009/2010. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a ski helmet mandatory on age-dependent helmet use.

METHODS:

We compared helmet use in people aged 15 years or less and older than 15 years of Austrian provinces with and without helmet mandatory between the 2008/2009 (n=16,342) and 2009/2010 (n=32,011) winter seasons.

RESULTS:

Helmet use in people aged 15 years or less in the 2009/2010 season increased by 16.2% in provinces with helmet mandatory and decreased by 2.1% in provinces without helmet mandatory (all p<0.001), respectively. However, provinces with and without helmet mandatory did not differ regarding mean helmet use in people aged 15 years or less (92.2% vs. 92.8%, p=0.506) in the 2009/2010 season. Helmet use in people older than 15 years in the 2009/2010 season had increased by 11.7% in provinces with helmet mandatory and by 17.9% in provinces without helmet mandatory (all p<0.001), respectively. Helmet use in people older than 15 years was lower in provinces with helmet mandatory compared with provinces without mandatory (63.1% vs. 68.1%, p<0.001) in the 2009/2010 season.

CONCLUSION:

A helmet mandatory for people aged 15 years or less may increase helmet use in involved age groups when helmet use is relatively low. However, public discussions and preventive helmet campaigns based on sound theories of health behavior change may also induce increases in helmet use in skiers aged older than 15 years without helmet mandatory.

PMID: 21986749

Inj Prev. 2002 Dec;8(4):324-7.

Effect of helmet wear on the incidence of head/face and cervical spine injuries in young skiers and snowboarders.

Macnab AJ, Smith T, Gagnon FA, Macnab M.

Source

Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. amacnab@cw.bc.ca

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To evaluate whether helmets increase the incidence and/or severity of cervical spine injury; decrease the incidence of head injury; and/or increase the incidence of collisions (as a reflection of adverse effects on peripheral vision and/or auditory acuity) among young skiers and snowboarders.

METHODS:

During one ski season (1998-99) at a world class ski resort, all young skiers and snowboarders (<13 years of age) presenting with head, face, or neck injury to the one central medical facility at the base of the mountain were identified. On presentation to the clinic, subjects or their parents completed a questionnaire reviewing their use of helmets and circumstances surrounding the injury event. Physicians documented the site and severity of injury, investigations, and disposition of each patient. Concurrently, counts were made at the entry to the ski area of the number of skiers and snowboarders wearing helmets.

RESULTS:

Seventy children were evaluated at the clinic following ski/snowboard related head, neck, and face injuries. Fourteen did not require investigation or treatment. Of the remaining 56, 17 (30%) were wearing helmets and 39 (70%) were not. No serious neck injury occurred in either group. Using helmet-use data from the hill, among those under 13 years of age, failure to wear a helmet increased the risk of head, neck, or face injury (relative risk (RR) 2.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 4.12). When corrected for activity, RR was 1.77 and 95% CI 0.98 to 3.19. There was no significant difference in the odds ratio for collisions. The two groups may have been different in terms of various relevant characteristics not evaluated. No separate analysis of catastrophic injuries was possible.

CONCLUSION:

This study suggests that, in skiers and snowboarders under 13 years of age, helmet use does not increase the incidence of cervical spine injury and does reduce the incidence of head injury requiring investigation and/or treatment.

PMID: 12460972

Related articles

• Mandatory helmets urged for skiers, snowboarders (cbc.ca)
• Make helmets mandatory on the slopes, doctors urge (ctv.ca)
• Helmets should be mandatory on the slopes: pediatricians (canada.com)
• Protect Yourself Against Ski and Snowboard Injuries (healthadel.com)
• Helmets should be mandatory for skiers and snowboarders, doctors’ group says (thestar.com)
• Helmet proposal gets high marks from skier’s brother (cbc.ca)
• Winter sportswear improvements ‘saving lives’ (confused.com)
• Easy Way to Reduce Tornado Injuries: Helmets (newser.com)
• Safety on the Slopes (abcnews.go.com)
• Helmet Pride! (peacelovebust.wordpress.com)

Image by timo_w2s via Flickr

It should be a beautiful evening, and look for Northern Lights tonight.  A massive solar flare is coming, which is either 1) random or 2) in response to something here on earth.  We’d all like to blame someone else, but let’s all take a moment to see how we can make ourselves personally responsible for this celestial event.  After all, everything on the planet does revolve around us personally.  Since it’s a good thing, I’d like to think it’s a direct response to my taking action on my taxes.  The sun saw what I was doing and said:  “Good show!  Here’s a solar flare to cheer you on!”  What’s your reason?

Related articles

• The American “Doomsday Prepper”: Solar Flares Underscore the Need to Prepare (prweb.com)
• Solar Status: Chance of M-Class flares from rotating sun spot (theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com)
• Is this the best aurora picture ever taken? (dailymail.co.uk)
• Solar Flare – How it can affect our earth? (geologyfreak.wordpress.com)
• Death to electricity – coming soon? (2012prophesy.wordpress.com)
• Why the World is (not) Going to End (poptropicalthunder.wordpress.com)

Image via Wikipedia

I was reading Walden the other day and I was struck by one passage.  Does any New Englander ever still raise their own breadstuffs and remain independent of the distant fluctuating markets?

It is hard to view ourselves as utterly dependent on distant lands for even the bread of our tables.  How did we all allow ourselves to become so divorced from the soil upon which we live?  Is there any man or woman alive today that can truly say they are self-sufficient?

Related articles

• Book #68: Walden by Henry David Thoreau (jillianreadsbooks2.wordpress.com)
• Henry Thoreau Smells Surprisingly Fresh (bellasugar.com)
• You Win This Round, Walden (imperfecthappiness.wordpress.com)
• The Spirit of Thoreau (theseagullsjourney.wordpress.com)
• Weatherwatch: The air sparkles as if there were crystals of ice floating in it (guardian.co.uk)
• On Thoreau: A Simpler, Freer Life (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)
• Burrough’s Assessment of Thoreau (aml4453uf.wordpress.com)
• 3.) John Burroughs – Digging for Gems in Thoreau (aml4453uf.wordpress.com)
• Question 3: Burroughs’ criticism on Thoreau (aml4453uf.wordpress.com)
• Unattainable Wilderness In Walden (aml4453uf.wordpress.com)

Image by MyEyeSees via Flickr

One of the myths that I still cling to is that having health insurance will save me from bankruptcy if anyone in my family should fall seriously ill.  It’s right up there with my hope that if I’m ever in the ER my doctor will look and act more like a doctor from ER than a doctor from Scrubs.

But I think I have to let this one go.  Elizabeth Warren‘s national survey showed that 62% of bankruptcies were due to medical costs.  This is up from 8% back in 1981.  But they were uninsured, right?  WRONG.  The study estimated that three-quarters of those filing for bankruptcy had health insurance.  So we’re all paying through the nose for something that -when push comes to shove- won’t be enough to cover the costs.

Furthermore, most of those filing for bankruptcy were well-educated and middle-class.  They had “done nothing wrong.”  They were following the standard model:  college, career, pay your premiums, and be safe.  So what happened?  Didn’t they buy their homes?  Nope.  Two-thirds were homeowners.

I can’t find anything that these people did that wouldn’t be true of anyone who doesn’t happen to be a multimillionaire.  It is a disturbing and sobering thought.

Here’s the study link.

Related articles

• Medical bills cause 62 percent of bankruptcies (dailykos.com)
• The 5 states with the best and the worst scorecards for health insurance (drjengunter.wordpress.com)
• I never file a health insurance claim, so what happens to my premiums? (quinnscommentary.com)
• What You Can Do To Prevent Bankruptcy Because Of Cancer (theinsurancebarn.wordpress.com)
• Why You Don’t Necessarily Have To Fear Health Insurance Premiums (theinsurancebarn.wordpress.com)
• Ways to Manage Your Own Healthcare Without Health Insurance (savings.com)
• October’s Financial Fact of the Month (jjscoach.com)