Updated July 2010

 

Article Page

 

Home Inspiration  Self help   Meditation Food for life Links Shop  

 

 
  

Cholesterol level 200 in US = 5. 2 UK

 

 

 

I don't know how, but homeopathy really does work
 Rachel Roberts guardian.co.uk, Thursday 15 July 2010 11.30 BST

More of a mystery is why scientists continue to debunk it despite mounting evidence that homeopathy is effective
Article history I was a dedicated scientist about to begin a PhD in neuroscience when, out of the blue, homeopathy bit me on the proverbial bottom. Science had been my passion since I began studying biology with Mr Hopkinson at the age of 11, and by the age of 21, when I attended the dinner party that altered the course of my life, I had still barely heard of it. The idea that I would one day become a homeopath would have seemed ludicrous. That turning point is etched in my mind. A woman I'd known my entire life told me that a homeopath had successfully treated her when many months of conventional treatment had failed. As a sceptic, I scoffed, but was nonetheless a little intrigued. She confessed that despite thinking homeopathy was a load of rubbish, she'd finally agreed to an appointment, to stop her daughter nagging. But she was genuinely shocked , within days she felt significantly better. I admit I ruined that dinner party. I interrogated her about every detail of her diagnosis, previous treatment, time scales, the lot. I thought it through logically – she was intelligent, she wasn't lying, she had no previous inclination towards alternative medicine, and her reluctance would have diminished any placebo effect. Scientists are supposed to make unprejudiced observations, then draw conclusions. As I thought about this, I was left with the highly uncomfortable conclusion that homeopathy appeared to have worked. I had to find out more


So, I started reading about homeopathy, and what I discovered shifted my world for ever. I became convinced enough to hand my coveted PhD studentship over to my best friend and sign on for a three-year, full-time homeopathy training course. Now, as an experienced homeopath, it is "science" that is biting me on the bottom. I know homeopathy works, not only because I've seen it with my own eyes countless times, but because scientific research confirms it. And yet I keep reading reports in the media saying that homeopathy doesn't work and that this scientific evidence doesn't exist. The facts, it seems, are being ignored. By the end of 2009, 142 randomised control trials (the gold standard in medical research) comparing homeopathy with placebo or conventional treatment had been published in peer-reviewed journals – 74 were able to draw firm conclusions: 63 were positive for homeopathy and 11 were negative. Five major systematic reviews have also been carried out to analyse the balance of evidence from RCTs of homeopathy – four were positive (Kleijnen, J, et al; Linde, K, et al; Linde, K, et al; Cucherat, M, et al) and one was negative (Shang, A et al). It's usual to get mixed results when you look at a wide range of research results on one subject, and if these results were from trials measuring the efficacy of "normal" conventional drugs, ratios of 63:11 and 4:1 in favour of a treatment working would be considered pretty persuasive. Of course, the question of how homeopathy works is another matter. And that is where homeopathy courts controversy.

It is indeed puzzling that ultra-high dilutions of substances, with few or no measurable molecules of the original substance left in them, should exert biological effects, but exert biological effects they do. There are experiments showing that homeopathic thyroxine can alter the rate of metamorphosis of tadpoles into frogs, that homeopathic histamine can alter the activity of white blood cells, and that under the right conditions, homeopathic sodium chloride can be made to release light in the same way as normal sodium chloride. The idea that such highly-diluted preparations are not only still active, but retain characteristics of the original substances, may seem impossible, but these kinds of results show it's a demonstrable fact. Surely science should come into its own here – solving the riddles of the world around us, pushing the frontiers of knowledge. At least, that is the science I fell in love with. More of a puzzle to me now is the blinkered approach of those who continue, despite increasing evidence, to deny what is in front of them. In the last few years, there has been much propaganda and misinformation circulated, much of it heralding the death of homeopathy, yet the evidence shows that interest in complementary and alternative medicine is growing. In February, the "sceptics" campaign had a breakthrough – a report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee recommended no further NHS funding for homeopathy, despite a deeply flawed hearing.

The Society of Homeopaths – the largest body representing professional homeopaths – was refused permission to give oral evidence. Also notable by their absence from the panel were primary care trusts who currently commission homeopathy and representatives of patients who use homeopathy. Yet oral evidence was heard from a journalist previously investigated by the Press Complaints Commission for unsubstantiated criticism of homeopaths, and a spokesperson for a charity that has long publicly opposed homeopathy. It is significant that one of the four MPs asked to vote on the report abstained due to concerns about the lack of balance in the evidence heard. Homeopathy is well-established in the UK, having been available through the NHS since its inception in 1948. More than 400 GPs use homeopathy in their everyday practice and the Society of Homeopaths has 1,500 registered members, from a variety of previous professions including pharmacists, journalists, solicitors and nurses. And yet the portrayal of homeopathy as charlatanism and witchcraft continues. There is growing evidence that homeopathy works, that it is cost-effective and that patients want it. As drugs bills spiral, and evidence emerges that certain drugs routinely prescribed on the NHS are no better than placebos, maybe it's time for "sceptics" to stop the witch hunt and look at putting their own house in order. It's all a far cry from the schoolgirl biologist who envisioned spending her life in a laboratory playing with bacteria 
 

         

Antidepressants:

They’re not as effective as we’re told after researchers suppress the ‘bad’ studies 17 January 2008 Doctors and the public may have been misled about the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs. They have both been victims of spin that researchers have put on their findings in order to present the drugs in the best possible light. Sometimes poor results have been suppressed, while even those that have been published have claimed the drug is far more effective than the findings suggest, new research has discovered. In virtually every case, the drug trial has been paid for by the manufacturer, researchers from Oregon Health and Science University found. They analysed 74 separate trials into antidepressant drugs that had been registered with America’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Of these, a third was never published, and this was usually because the study discovered the drug was either not effective or was more dangerous than first thought. Of the trials that were published, 94 per cent of them came up with a positive outcome about the effectiveness of the drug, and yet the FDA’s independent analysis of the same trials concluded that just half were positive.

(Source: New England Journal of Medicine, 2008; 358: 252-60).  

Big blow for big pharma's war against vitamins

02 June 2010
Big pharma and other powerful groups have suffered a major blow in their efforts to strangle the vitamin industry. A US court has ruled that a manufacturer can make general health claims about its product – a decision that threatens draconian new laws that will be introduced across Europe next year. A US district court has overturned a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bar on a manufacturer of selenium supplements from stating that the mineral helps reduce the risk of cancer. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle upheld complaints from the Alliance for Natural Health USA and others that the FDA ban went against the First Amendment that allows free speech. She said there was credible scientific evidence to demonstrate that selenium helps protect against cancer, and so the manufacturer should be allowed to include the fact in promoting the product. The surprise decision is a blow for European laws that will impose similar restrictions on the sale of vitamins in Europe. Under the Nutrition & Health Claims Regulation, manufacturers will not be allowed to make general health claims about their vitamin and dietary supplements. Rob Verkerk, executive director of ANH International, said: “The verdict in our case against the FDA should be sending shock waves across the Atlantic. If European authorities implement the regulation, it is the European consumer that will be the main loser. Disease prevention using good diets and nutrients will effectively be thrown out of the window.” (Source: ANH Press Release, May 31, 2010).

 

 

Flaxseeds as good as a drug for lowering cholesterol 07 April 2010


A few tablespoons of flaxseeds every day can be as effective as a powerful drug in lowering your cholesterol levels, a new study has discovered. The seeds, which are rich in omega 3 fatty acids and in lignans, a phytoestrogen, reduced cholesterol levels in a group of men by around 10 per cent in just three months. Cholesterol-lowering drugs usually achieve a reduction of between 10 and 20 per cent, but often with side effects. For the study, 90 men with high cholesterol consumed 150 milligrams – that’s three tablespoons – of flaxseeds every day for the three months, usually by sprinkling the seeds on the food they were eating. Strangely, the flaxseeds didn’t help women reduce their cholesterol levels. The researchers from Iowa State University reckon that the lignans in the flaxseeds are the active ingredient, and their ability to protect the heart has been proven in earlier studies, too. (Source: American Society for Nutrition annual meeting, April 24-28, Anaheim, California).  

 

This text will be replaced by the player
 

 

Controversial Anti-Smoking Drug Makes Headlines Yet Again

Dear Reader,

I was shocked when I read the following newspaper headline recently: ‘Actor cleared of beating girlfriend and throwing her naked into street after he blames behaviour on anti-smoking drug.’

The culprit behind this terrifying story?

Champix, of course.

Dangerous mix

For those of you who might have missed this story, here’s the background information:

A television actor was accused of assaulting his girlfriend but escaped trial after blaming the attack on the anti-smoking drug, Champix.

The actor was found not guilty of assault and causing actual bodily harm, after experts said the drug, combined with alcohol and a history of depression, could have caused him to lose control.

So, in this instance, it seems that ‘other factors’ also came into play... However, this does not clear this smoking cessation drug from it’s already severely tainted reputation.

Bad boy on the block

The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been reviewing Champix’s (Chantix in the US) safety since 2007, after receiving hundreds of reports of unpredictable, aggressive and suicidal behaviour following its use.

From May 2006 through to December 2007, the FDA received 227 domestic reports of suicidal acts, thoughts or behaviours, 397 cases of possible psychosis and 525 reports of hostility or aggression. These totals included 28 cases of suicide and 41 mentions of homicidal ideation, 60 cases of paranoia and 55 cases of hallucination. The categories were not mutually exclusive.

Champix contains varenicline that helps smokers stop smoking. It is designed to stimulate a type of nicotine receptor in the brain while preventing nicotine from binding to another receptor.

In the 4th quarter of 2007 alone, varenicline accounted for 988 serious injuries in the US according to reports received by the FDA, more than any other individual drug in this period.

Consequently, almost exactly a year ago, the FDA ordered Pfizer Inc – the manufacturer of Champix - to add a strong "black box" warning on its anti-smoking drug to highlight the risk of serious mental health problems.

Yet, in spite of this, the drug is still widely available. In the UK, it is approved for use on the NHS with a recommendation to be prescribed ‘only as part of a programme of behavioural support’. Pfizer insists that a direct link between Champix and psychiatric problems has not been established in clinical trials. I wonder how it explains away all the adverse effects that have been reported following its use????

Word on the street

Here at the Daily Health we’ve reported on the adverse side effects of Champix on numerous occasions. In fact, our article ‘Champix Side Effects – Dangers of Popular Drug Used to Quit Smoking’ published back in January 2008, caused quite a stir (to put it mildly!) among our readers... and up to 1,000 of you wrote in to share your experiences of the drug.

 

Things worth knowing about Diabetes

 

Pesticides

could be a major cause of ADHD 19 May 2010 Pesticides could be a major cause of the alarming rise in ADHD (attention deficit hyperactive disorder) in our children. The worrying factor about the latest study is that the children who were monitored were not all living in farms or in rural areas. Some of the 1,139 children who participated in the study were from urban areas, which suggest that the pesticides – and especially the organophosphates – are in the air we breathe, as well as on the foods we eat. Previous studies have found that pesticides may contribute to hyperactivity and cognitive problems in animals, but the new study, from the University of Montreal and Harvard University, is one of the first to demonstrate that it affects humans, too. (Source:Pediatrics, 2010. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-3058).  

Statins

Doctors urged to lower statin dose after new health scare 26 May 2010 Doctors are being urged to choose the lowest-possible dose when they prescribe cholesterol-lowering statins after a study discovered the drugs cause a range of health problems, including serious liver and kidney failure. Statins have been considered to be a safe drug group, and are routinely prescribed to the over-50s to prevent heart disease – but a new study from Nottingham University has discovered that they are an unsuspected cause of serious liver and kidney dysfunction and failure, and they can also be a cause of myopathy, the muscle disease, and cataracts. The risks were similar across the whole range of statins, although the risk of liver disease was highest among patients taking fluvastatin. (Source: British Medical Journal, 2010; 340: c2197).  
      
        

 

This text will be replaced by the player
 

 

Probiotic drink

Reduces infections in small children 26 May 2010 A probiotic yoghurt drink can dramatically reduce the number of common sicknesses and infections in children. The children who had the drink every day suffered fewer outbreaks of ear infections, flu, diarrhea and sinusitis. The drink, DanActive, was tested on a group of 638 healthy children, aged between three and six, who attended school every day. They either drank DanActive every day or a standard yoghurt drink that did not contain any probiotics. The DanActive children had 19 per cent fewer infections overall, including 24 per cent less gastro-intestinal problems, and 18 per cent fewer ear infections, sinusitis or strep. DanActive contains the probiotic strain L.casei DN-114 001. (Source: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010; May 19: doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2010.65).  

Red Wine

How red wine protects you from a stroke 12 May 2010 A glass of red wine can protect you against a stroke – and now researchers think they know how it works. While scientists already know that resveratrol in red wine – and in the seeds and skin of red grapes – has a protective effect, they have now discovered that it increases the levels of an enzyme that shields nerve cells from damage. As well as protecting against stroke, moderate red wine drinking may also reduce your chances of cardio-vascular disease. And it seems to be the wine that helps deliver the amounts of resveratrol that matter. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, who carried out the latest research, say that you may not get the same benefits from taking resveratrol supplements or by eating red grapes. (Source: Experimental Neurology, 2010; doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2010.03.032).  

 

This text will be replaced by the player
 

 

Hunger May Simply Be Thirst--For Water, That Is

Have you ever considered the fact that the diet sweeteners keep you hungry, and that your hunger may simply be thirst--for water that is, not drinking more diet soda?

Those extra calories you save with that diet cola won't make much difference if you eat chocolate chip cookies three hours later because you're starving - again or worse yet, consuming more diet products. If constantly using diet sweeteners is actually increasing your appetite, why use them? Common sense tells me that proper diet and exercise are more beneficial than dieting for losing body fat and maintaining a low body weight. Even if you believe that artificial sweeteners help your dieting, is this worth risking your health?

Drinking water can often satisfy that chronic hunger according to Dr. F. Batmanghelidj, M.D. In his book, Your Body's Many Cries for Water, he writes, "Many persons confuse their thirst as hunger. Thinking they have consumed enough 'water' from their soda, they assume they are hungry and begin to eat more than their body needs for food. In due time, dehydration will cause a gradual gain in weight from overeating as a direct result of confusion of thirst and hunger sensations.

"It is primitive and simplistic thinking that one could easily lace water with all sorts of pleasure-enhancing chemicals and substitute these fluids for the natural and clean water that the human body needs. Some of these chemicals, caffeine, aspartame, saccharin and alcohol, through their constant lopsided effect on the brain ... [program] the body chemistry with results opposite to the body's natural design."

Ellington Darden, PhD, states in his book, A Flat Stomach ASAP, that super hydration through sipping large amounts of water each day is an important dietary guideline.

Rumor has it that the diet sweeteners actually cause weight gain because you never feel satisfied or full. That's correct, and scientific research has proven why:


  1. A sweet taste triggers your brain to expect calories and carbohydrates (incoming sugar). When you fake out your body with artificial sweeteners and real nutrients are never delivered, your body activates a "hunger response," which creates a constant need for food. Hence, you stay hungry because your "hunger response" never shuts off.
  2. Laboratory animals showed the urge to eat more food up to ninety minutes after ingesting artificial sweeteners. Researchers documented that when blood levels for insulin production were normal (high levels of insulin are believed to be the cause of hunger), the animals that were fed chemical sweeteners consumed more food than the ones who did not eat artificial sweeteners.
  3. Besides affecting insulin, serotonin and your body's hunger response, chemical sweeteners also increase cravings by altering your blood sugar. This can be dangerous to people with diabetes or epilepsy and can cause fluid retention, giving the body a puffy and bloated appearance, and it increases cellulite, too.
  4. Most artificial sweeteners enhance appetite, which increases short-term food intake. Researchers report, "After ingestion of aspartame, the test volunteers were left with a residual hunger compared to what they reported after eating glucose (sugar). This lingering hunger led to increased food consumption."
  5. Your brain retains the urge to eat when the taste buds are stimulated without "real" nutrients having actually entered the body.

So, the next time you think that you want a "sugar-free snack" or another diet cola, drink a glass of water instead and see if your hunger goes away. I bet it does. Then go snack on a carrot.

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

Consuming even modest amounts of a sweetener commonly found in food and drink products could increase your risk of high blood pressure by as much as 77 per cent, researchers have found. Scientists from the University of Colorado examined nutritional data for 4,500 adults with no history of hypertension. They found that men and women who consumed 74 grams of High Fructose Corn Syrup experienced a 77 percent increased risk of Stage 2 hypertension (160/100 mmHg) To put it simply, this means that drinking two and a half cans of fizzy or fruit drinks a day containing HFCS will almost guarantee that one day you'll develop seriously high blood pressure. And, for many of us, that day may be a lot closer than you think. According to a major study last year, men who consumed a diet high in fructose experienced a spike in blood pressure after just TWO weeks. Yes, after just 14 days of eating foods filled with this sweetener, many of the men had serious blood pressure issues. Yet, when the men eliminated the fructose from their diets, their blood pressure returned to normal. More and more manufacturers are sneaking HFCS into their food products - anything from bread, cereal, biscuits, yogurt, ketchup, and even tomato soup. First off, it's cheaper than sugar. Secondly, it extends a product's shelf life. And, lastly, it’s highly addictive! So, if you already suffer high blood pressure, you definitely need to start reading the labels on products right away.