Low cholesterol 'link' to cancer

Dr. Green says:
The lie that cholesterol is bad was invented by the pharmaceutical industry to sell statin drugs and make billions of dollars a year off the fear they generate. There has never been a conclusive study to prove the high cholesterol levels causes heart disease. If you are worried about high cholesterol then quit eating carbohydrates. Your cholesterol levels will go to normal within a month.

This is a story from the BBC who print what corporations and the corrupt English govt want them to print. This article is a perfect example of the half-truth method of spin control. A good study comes out, they can't deny it, so they try and change the message with half-truth/half-lie.

BBC
Statins can reduce the risk of having a heart attack
People who significantly cut their cholesterol levels with statins may raise the risk of cancer, a study says.
The study of 40,000 people found those with little of the "bad" cholesterol LDL saw one more cancer case per 1,000 than those with higher levels.

Dr.Green says: That was the truth from a rather large study. Now the lies and spin begin.....

The Boston-based researchers could not say if this was a side-effect of the statin or due to the low cholesterol.

They also write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that the benefits of statins outweigh the risks.

"The analysis doesn't implicate the statin in increasing the risk of cancer," says lead author Richard Karas of Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. "The demonstrated benefits of statins in lowering the risk of heart disease remain clear.

"However certain aspects of lowering LDL with statins remain controversial and merit further research."

Reservations

Researchers looked at the summary data from 13 trials of people taking statins - a total of 41,173 patients.

These findings do not change the message that the benefits of taking statins greatly outweigh any potential risks
British Heart Foundation

They examined the relationship between low, medium and high doses of statins and rates of newly diagnosed cancer.

Higher rates of the disease - which were not of any type or location - were observed in the group with the lower levels.

The authors noted their findings were particularly important at a time when more and more trials show significant reductions in LDL levels can greatly benefit cardiovascular health.

Cancer Research UK was wary of the study.

Cancer information officer Dr Alison Ross said: "The findings of this study should be treated with caution - it is based on summary data from previous trials and, as the authors point out themselves, it does not prove that low LDL cholesterol levels can increase cancer risk.

"Much more research is needed before any firm conclusions can be made."

The British Heart Foundation said they had long known of a relationship between low cholesterol and cancer.

"While this highlights an association between low levels of LDL and cancer, this is not the same as saying that low LDL or statin use increases the risk of cancer," said June Davison, cardiac nurse.

"There is overwhelming evidence that lowering LDL cholesterol through statins saves lives by preventing heart attacks and strokes. These findings do not change the message that the benefits of taking statins greatly outweigh any potential risks."

Study Finds Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart Disease

By GINA KOLATA
The largest study ever to ask whether a low-fat diet reduces the risk of getting cancer or heart disease has found that the diet has no effect.

The $415 million federal study involved nearly 49,000 women ages 50 to 79 who were followed for eight years. In the end, those assigned to a low-fat diet had the same rates of breast cancer, colon cancer, heart attacks and strokes as those who ate whatever they pleased, researchers are reporting today.

"These studies are revolutionary," said Dr. Jules Hirsch, physician in chief emeritus at Rockefeller University in New York City, who has spent a lifetime studying the effects of diets on weight and health. "They should put a stop to this era of thinking that we have all the information we need to change the whole national diet and make everybody healthy."

The study, published in today's issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, was not just an ordinary study, said Dr. Michael Thun, who directs epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society. It was so large and so expensive, Dr. Thun said, that it was "the Rolls-Royce of studies." As such, he added, it is likely to be the final word.

The results, the study investigators agreed, do not justify recommending low-fat diets to the public to reduce their heart disease and cancer risk. Given the lack of benefit found in the study, many medical researchers said that the best dietary advice, for now, was to follow federal guidelines for healthy eating, with less saturated and trans fats, more grains, and more fruits and vegetables.

Not everyone was convinced. Some, like Dr. Dean Ornish, a longtime promoter of low-fat diets and president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, Calif., said that the women did not reduce their fat to low enough levels or eat enough fruits and vegetables, and that the study, even at eight years, did not give the diets enough time.

Others said that diet could still make a difference, at least with heart disease, if people were to eat the so-called Mediterranean diet, low in saturated fats like butter and high in oils like olive oil. The women in the study reduced all kinds of fat.

The diets studied "had an antique patina," said Dr. Peter Libby, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School. These days, Dr. Libby said, most people have moved on from the idea of controlling total fat to the idea that people should eat different kinds of fat.
{rest of article abridged]

Dr. Green says:
I edited the rest of the article because it was full of opinions, lies and spin from Big Pharma and Organized medicine. They couldn't bury the truth, that low fat diets are unhealthy, so they tried spin and half-truths in the rest of the article to limit the damage to their profits.

Low fat diets are unhealthy. Look at the king of Low-fat, high carb dieting- Nathan Pritikin. He looked unhealthy, like Dean Ornish, and when he got cancer from his low-fat diet he became depressed and committed suicide. Low fat diets cause depression and studies done recently show that the anti-cancer properties of fruits and veg DON'T WORK WITHOUT FAT IN THE DIET.

People like Dean Ornish have an agenda. No matter what the facts they won't change their mind. He has a vested interest in low-fat so he would rather see the entire world unhealthy from a low-fat diet than promote health through a low-carb, moderate fat and protein diet like Atkins.

The truth is your body needs fat. Your body needs protein. Your body can manufacture all the carbohydrate it needs all by itself. You don't have to eat any. All eating carbohydrates does it raise your insulin, make you fat, give you health disease, stroke, cancer and all the major killers of today. It also makes pharmaceutical companies and organized medicine rich.

Coke* - The Effects

From the ACA member mailing list:

Have you ever wondered why Coke comes with a smile? It’s because it gets
you high. They took the cocaine out almost a hundred years ago. You know
why? It was redundant.

* *In The First 10 minutes:* 10 teaspoons of sugar hit your system.
(100% of your recommended daily intake.) You don’t immediately
vomit from the overwhelming sweetness because phosphoric acid cuts
the flavor allowing you to keep it down.

* *20 minutes:* Your blood sugar spikes, causing an insulin burst.
Your liver responds to this by turning any sugar it can get its
hands on into fat. (There’s /plenty /of that at this particular
moment)

* *40 minutes:* Caffeine absorption is complete. Your pupils dilate,
your blood pressure rises, as a response your livers dumps /more
sugar/ into your bloodstream. The adenosine receptors in your
brain are now blocked preventing drowsiness.

* *45 minutes:* Your body ups your dopamine production stimulating
the pleasure centers of your brain. This is physically the same
way heroin works, by the way.

* *>60 minutes:* The phosphoric acid binds calcium, magnesium and
zinc in your lower intestine, providing a further boost in
metabolism. This is compounded by high doses of sugar and
artificial sweeteners also increasing the urinary excretion of
calcium.

* *>60 Minutes:* The caffeine’s diuretic properties come into play.
(It makes you have to pee.) It is now assured that you’ll evacuate
the bonded calcium, magnesium and zinc that was headed to your
bones as well as sodium, electrolyte and water.

* *>60 minutes:* As the rave inside of you dies down you’ll start to
have a sugar crash. You may become irritable and/or sluggish.
You’ve also now, literally, pissed away all the water that was in
the Coke. But not before infusing it with valuable nutrients your
body could have used for things like even having the /ability/ to
hydrate your system or build strong bones and teeth.

This will all be followed by a caffeine crash in the next few hours. (As
little as two if you’re a smoker.) But, hey, have another Coke, it’ll
make you feel better.

High Insulin decreases lifespan

Healthy weight link to longevity

Being overweight can lead to high blood insulin levels
Keeping a healthy weight may help people live longer by limiting brain exposure to insulin, say US scientists.
A study in mice found that reducing insulin signals inside brain cells increased lifespan.

Writing in Science, the researchers said a healthy lifestyle and weight reduce insulin levels in humans and may have the same effect.

Experts said, if proven, insulin would be just one of many factors, such as genes, that influence longevity.

Previous research in fruit flies and roundworms has suggested that reducing the activity of the hormone insulin, which regulates blood sugar levels, can increase lifespan.

The latest study looked at the effects of a protein, IRS2, which carries the insulin signal in the brain.

Mice who had half the amount of the protein lived 18% longer than normal mice.

Despite being overweight and having high levels of insulin, the mice were more active as they aged, and their glucose metabolism resembled that of younger mice.

The researchers said the engineered mice were living longer because the diseases that kill them, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease, were being postponed due to reduced insulin signalling in the brain, even though circulating levels of insulin were high.

They said, in the future, it may be possible to design drugs to reduce IRS2 activity to reproduce the same effect, although they would have to be specific to the brain.

Weighty problem

Study leader Dr Morris White, an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, said the simplest way to encourage longevity was to limit insulin levels by exercising and eating a healthy diet.

He said: "Our findings put a mechanism behind what your mother told when you were growing up - eat a good diet and exercise, and it will keep you healthy.

"Diet, exercise and lower weight keep your peripheral tissues sensitive to insulin.

"That reduces the amount and duration of insulin secretion needed to keep your glucose under control when you eat.

"Therefore, the brain is exposed to less insulin."


This is an interesting study as the work done on mice could suggest that insulin is playing a role in the ageing process
Diabetes UK

His team is now planning to look at possible links between IRS2 signalling and dementia, which research has shown is associated with obesity and high insulin levels.

Matt Hunt, science information manager at Diabetes UK, said: "This is an interesting study as the work done on mice could suggest that insulin is playing a role in the ageing process.

"Nevertheless, we are looking at numerous and extremely complex gene interactions in the brain and this research doesn't yet explain how this mechanism might be working."

He said that human longevity had been steadily increasing, despite rising levels of obesity and diabetes suggesting that insulin levels in the brain would be only one of many factors involved.

"We welcome the fact that this study supports our key message of the importance of leading a healthy lifestyle."

Mainstream Makes Adjustments

By Buzz McClain
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page HE01

The sound of cavitation is music to my ears. That's the popping noise made when a joint is taken past its normal range of motion and a bubble of gas emerges in the surrounding synovial fluid. Keep twisting or pulling and eventually the bubble bursts, relieving pressure on the joint.
And it feels good.

And here it comes again. I'm facedown on a brown padded table, my nose positioned in an opening so I can breathe. My arms hang loosely to the floor and my legs are extended behind me.

It's comfy here, and I could nap, except Glenn Loebig is probing a tender spot on my lower right back with one of his preternaturally muscular thumbs.
"There it is," he announces, making me wince with a poke. With his open hands, he presses on my lower back, leans in and with a swift push . . .

Ah, cavitation. And not just one pop but a short, quick sequence of them, creating a snap, crackle, pop effect. "That was a good one!" Loebig says enthusiastically, as if even he's surprised at the intensity. "That's going to feel better now."

Chiropractic medicine has been derided as a fringe practice or worse since founder Daniel David Palmer began adjusting spines just over a century ago. For decades, anyone who wanted chiropractic treatments for backaches or other ailments had to find them on his own and pay for them out of pocket. But times are changing. While the medical profession remains deeply skeptical of chiropractic as a comprehensive health-care approach, more doctors are referring patients to chiropractors to treat lower-back and other musculoskeletal pain.

"I'm an orthopedic spine surgeon, so I treat all sorts of back problems, and I'm a big believer in chiropractic," says William Lauerman, chief of spine surgery and a professor of orthopedic surgery at Georgetown University Hospital. "I'm more of a believer for acute problems like short-term back pain, although I know [chiropractic] can be helpful for some cases of more-chronic conditions."

Chiropractic treatment for short-term back pain -- "three or four days, can't get out of bed, that sort of thing" -- Lauerman says, "is one of the few things that has been demonstrated to significantly alter the natural history of acute back pain. . . . People get better quicker if they go to a chiropractor for a few visits."

An Uneasy Truce

Such referrals come despite the still-thin evidence for chiropractic's effectiveness. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) describes studies of chiropractic for back pain as of "uneven quality and insufficient to allow firm conclusions." A meta-analysis in the 2003 Annals of Internal Medicine found that spinal manipulative therapy relieved back pain better than sham therapy but no better than other standard treatments.

Chiropractic students study a minimum of 4,200 hours, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, with most states requiring a four-year undergraduate degree and four years of postgraduate training at an accredited chiropractic college. Chiropractors also must pass national and state licensing exams before practicing. But just as in mainstream medicine, sometimes things go wrong. In 2003, a 43-year-old woman in Mahopac, N.Y., suffered a stroke after a routine neck adjustment. The case is headed to court.
"[That stroke] is a rare occurrence, but it is something we have to be concerned about as a responsible profession," says William Morgan, one of two chiropractors at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center. "We'll study the risk and will do everything we can to minimize the risk."

Chiropractic patients now number about 22 million, thanks to medical referrals and the fact that "87 percent of all American workers who have insurance have plans that include chiropractic service," says Kevin Corcoran, executive vice president of the American Chiropractic Association, based in Arlington. The ACA represents 16,000 of the country's estimated 60,000 practicing chiropractors.

That doctors refer patients to any of them is a sea change from 1990, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a lower court's ruling that the medical establishment was trying to put the chiropractic industry out of business through a campaign of denigration. The case, Wilk v. American Medical Association, prompted the AMA to change its code of ethics in 1992 regarding chiropractors.

"I think the majority of MDs recognize the value chiropractors bring," Corcoran says.
The American College of Physicians, which includes about 120,000 internists and medical students, agrees the doctor-chiropractor relationship is no longer a hot topic. "It just isn't on our radar," ACP spokeswoman Susan Anderson says.

The AMA declined to comment beyond noting its revised policy, which says, among other things, "It is ethical for a physician to associate professionally with chiropractors provided that the physician believes that such association is in the best interests of his or her patient."

Chiropractors can't prescribe drugs or perform surgery, but "we are trained to recognize and diagnose and send patients to the appropriate care if it's something beyond our scope," says William Lauretti, an assistant professor at the New York Chiropractic College in Seneca Falls, N.Y., and a former chiropractor in suburban Maryland. Some cancers, for instance, "can present as low-back pain. We're trained to tell the difference when there's something more serious and more urgent than the basic muscle or joint problem."
Morgan, a former Navy petty officer, has been working under contract alongside staff physicians at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center for nine years, trying to relieve symptoms and reduce dependence on medication. In many cases, he's the first chiropractor his patients have ever seen.

"They trust their physician a great deal, and if they think I can help make them better, they'll trust me, too," he says. "And if I can't make them better, then we'll find someone who can."

Making Adjustments

When I stand up, I see that Loebig is right. It does feel better. What had been a nagging bundle of deadline tensions and bad posture knotted up on the inside of the right hip is now a pressure-free zone of happiness that gladly accepts its fair share of weight distribution. I twist from side to side. My hips glide with newfound ease.
A study conducted over seven years by a physician and a chiropractor and reported in June's Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics showed that patients who turned first to chiropractors and other alternative-medicine professionals for care were hospitalized and had surgery 60 percent less often and spent 85 percent less on pharmaceuticals than those with medical doctors as primary care providers.

And that's what I'm counting on. After three spinal surgeries since 2002, two lumbar and 2004's brutally intrusive cervical fusion, which put a piece of cadaver bone in my neck in a procedure that was supposed to correct chronic shoulder and arm pain -- and didn't -- I'm hoping to minimize my time under the knife.
My neurologist, who is trying to find the right combination of chemicals to control that pain, prescribed chiropractic as part of his treatment. Loebig focuses on my shoulder and arm, finishing each visit with adjustments to the neck and lower back.

"That should help your golf swing," Loebig says with a pat on the back as he makes marks on my chart.

I've been adjusted, and not just my back and golf swing but my outlook as well. I step into the bright sunshine outside Loebig's Great Falls office a little lighter on my feet, a little less aware of the chronic pain in my right shoulder. My head feels looser on my neck, and I feel taller. The sensation of well-being won't last, I know. It could be a matter of days, or even hours, before the pressure builds again and my joints stiffen with stress and tension. But for now, I'll take it.

Buzz McClain is a Washington area freelance writer

Music players 'in lightning risk'

Doctors say sweat and metal earphones can channel lightning.

Doctors in Vancouver, Canada, have warned that people who wear portable media players during a storm could be putting themselves at risk.

In a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine, they describe burns and hearing damage suffered by a patient hit by lightning while using his iPod.

The man, who was jogging in a storm, suffered burns to his chest and on his leg where he was wearing the player.

Doctors say the man's sweat and metal earphones helped channel the current.

Medical experts say electronic devices, such as music players or mobile phones, on their own do not attract lightning.

But in the Vancouver man's case, "the combination of sweat and metal earphones directed the current to, and through, the patient's head," wrote Drs Eric J Heffernan, Peter L Munk and Luck J Louis of Vancouver General Hospital.

The man's jaw was broken, probably by muscle contraction, say the doctors.

The current of electricity through his headphones caused the air in his ears to heat and expand, creating pressure waves which burst his eardrums.

The extra jolt of electricity through the wires of the man's music player caused second-degree burns all the way down his chest and to his left leg.

In addition, witnesses reported the man being thrown about eight feet (2.4m) after the lightning hit him, the doctors said.

The incident, which happened two years ago, has left the man with less than 50% hearing in both ears.

Several other cases of people suffering burns and hearing loss after being struck by lightning while wearing personal stereos have also been recorded.

Surgeon general was 'gagged by White House'

Note fm Dr. Green: Where there is a chance of politics involved, never trust what is said.

By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 12 July 2007

For generations of Americans, the surgeon general has been the "nation's doctor", the person they turned to for unbiased advice on everything from smoking to obesity and HIV/Aids. But not under President George Bush, it now emerges.

Damning testimony of Dr Richard Carmona, the surgeon general from 2002 until last year, has revealed that the Bush administration frequently censored him and tried to mould his public statements to fit political goals. He was even ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches.

US presidents have generally defended the surgeon general's right to address public health issues. Even Ronald Reagan resisted efforts to sack the much-admired Everett Koop for speaking out on Aids. But under President Bush, the independence of the surgeon general has been placed below industry lobbying and the demands of the religious right.

The Bush White House banned Dr Carmona from speaking or issuing reports on stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, prisons, mental health and international health issues, he has revealed. For years, the White House also tried to "water down" a key report on the dangers of second-hand smoke, he said. When it was published last year , the report stated that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke can cause immediate harm.

When Dr Carmona tried to address the subject of embryonic stem-cell research, deeply controversial among the religious right, he said he was "told to stand down and not speak about it". He explained: "Much of the discussion was being driven by theology, ideology, [and] preconceived beliefs that were scientifically incorrect... I thought, 'This is a perfect example of the surgeon general being able to step forward, educate the American public'... [but] I was blocked at every turn. I was told the decision had already been made - 'Stand down. Don't talk about it.' That information was removed from my speeches."

He was also told that global warming was a "liberal cause" and to decline invitations to attend scientific discussion meetings on the subject.

Dr Carmona is the latest in a long line of officials claiming that political considerations take precedence over scientific facts at the Bush White House.

His testimony to a congressional panel comes as the administration tries to appoint Dr James Holsinger as the new surgeon general. He stirred controversy with a report that concluded that homosexual sex was both unnatural and unhealthy.

Even the Special Olympics were deemed politically suspect, because they receive considerable support from the Kennedy family. "I was specifically told by a senior person, 'Why would you want to help those people?'" Dr Carmona testified.

Before becoming surgeon general, Dr Carmona, 57, was a highly decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, where he was in the Army special forces. He trained in medicine and was both a trauma surgeon and the leader of an Arizona Swat team. He was selected for the surgeon general's job because of his experience in preparing local authorities for terrorist attacks.

During a nine-month trial of the US tobacco industry, Dr Carmona was heavily leant upon not to testify. The same went for sex education: "However, there was already a policy in place that did not want to hear the science but wanted to preach abstinence only, but I felt that was scientifically incorrect," he said.

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalised or simply buried," Dr Carmona said. "There is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalising the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."

A White House spokesman denied the claims.

Tea 'healthier' drink than water

The researchers recommend people consume three to four cups a day
Drinking three or more cups of tea a day is as good for you as drinking plenty of water and may even have extra health benefits, say researchers.
The work in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition dispels the common belief that tea dehydrates.

Tea not only rehydrates as well as water does, but it can also protect against heart disease and some cancers, UK nutritionists found.

Experts believe flavonoids are the key ingredient in tea that promote health.

Healthy cuppa

These polyphenol antioxidants are found in many foods and plants, including tea leaves, and have been shown to help prevent cell damage.

Public health nutritionist Dr Carrie Ruxton, and colleagues at Kings College London, looked at published studies on the health effects of tea consumption.

They found clear evidence that drinking three to four cups of tea a day can cut the chances of having a heart attack.

Some studies suggested tea consumption protected against cancer, although this effect was less clear-cut.

Other health benefits seen included protection against tooth plaque and potentially tooth decay, plus bone strengthening.

Dr Ruxton said: "Drinking tea is actually better for you than drinking water. Water is essentially replacing fluid. Tea replaces fluids and contains antioxidants so it's got two things going for it."

Rehydrating

She said it was an urban myth that tea is dehydrating.

"Studies on caffeine have found very high doses dehydrate and everyone assumes that caffeine-containing beverages dehydrate. But even if you had a really, really strong cup of tea or coffee, which is quite hard to make, you would still have a net gain of fluid.

"Also, a cup of tea contains fluoride, which is good for the teeth," she added.

There was no evidence that tea consumption was harmful to health. However, research suggests that tea can impair the body's ability to absorb iron from food, meaning people at risk of anaemia should avoid drinking tea around mealtimes.

Dr Ruxton's team found average tea consumption was just under three cups per day.

She said the increasing popularity of soft drinks meant many people were not drinking as much tea as before.

"Tea drinking is most common in older people, the 40 plus age range. In older people, tea sometimes made up about 70% of fluid intake so it is a really important contributor," she said.

Claire Williamson of the British Nutrition Foundation said: "Studies in the laboratory have shown potential health benefits.

"The evidence in humans is not as strong and more studies need to be done. But there are definite potential health benefits from the polyphenols in terms of reducing the risk of diseases such as heart disease and cancers.

"In terms of fluid intake, we recommend 1.5-2 litres per day and that can include tea. Tea is not dehydrating. It is a healthy drink."

The Tea Council provided funding for the work. Dr Ruxton stressed that the work was independent.

Moles 'good indicator to ageing'

A sign of slower ageing?
The number of moles may offer an indication of how quickly the body ages, a study suggests.
King's College London scientists compared key ageing DNA with the number of moles in a study of 1,800 twins.
They found the more moles a person had, the more likely their DNA was to have the properties to fight off ageing.
The study, in the Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention journal, contrasts with the link between a high mole-count and high skin cancer risk.
Moles appear in childhood and disappear from middle age onwards.
When present in large numbers they can increase the risk of melanoma, a rare form of skin cancer. Moles vary significantly in numbers and size between individuals.

The average number of moles in people with white skin is 30 but some people may have as many as 400.
The reason for such differences between people is unknown as is the function of moles.
Since moles disappear with age, scientists looked at the relationship between the number of moles and telomere length in cells, which is a good indicator of the rate of ageing in organs such as the heart, muscle, bones and arteries.
Telomeres, which get shorter as we age, are bundles of DNA found at the end of chromosomes in all cells and assist in the protection, replication, and stabilisation of the chromosome ends.
They have been compared with the plastic tips on shoelaces because they prevent chromosome ends from fraying and sticking to each other.
'Exciting'
In the study, researchers found those with more than 100 moles had longer telomeres than those with fewer than 25.
The difference between the two mole groups was equivalent to six to seven years of ageing.
Lead researcher Dr Veronique Bataille said: "The results of this study are very exciting as they show, for the first time, that moley people who have a slightly increased risk of melanoma may, on the other hand, have the benefit of a reduced rate of ageing.
"This could imply susceptibility to fewer age-related diseases such as heart disease or osteoporosis, for example. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings."
Dr Kat Arney, of Cancer Research UK, said: "While this is an intriguing finding and deserves further investigation, it's important people know that having a large number of moles can increase your risk of skin cancer.
"It's especially important to enjoy the sun safely if you have lots of moles or burn easily." 


Cholesterol Does Not Cause Coronary Heart Disease

Cholesterol Does Not Cause Coronary Heart Disease, Statins Don´t Work by Lowering Lipids. The Role of Inflammation and Stress.

Paul Rosch; MD, FACP, Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New York Medical College, President, The American Institute of Stress, Honorary Vice President, International Stress Management Association, 124 Park Ave.Yonkers, NY 10703, USA.

1. Increased dietary fat intake does not significantly elevate cholesterol or lipid levels.

2. Elevated serum cholesterol and/or other lipids are not the cause of coronary heart disease.

3. Statins can have significant side effects that have been overlooked or deliberately suppressed. In addition to rhabdomyolysis and liver dysfunction, these include: muscle pain, weakness and fatigue and biopsy evidence of myopathy and tendinopathy in the absence of elevated CK, memory loss, global amnesia, difficulty in sleeping and concentration, erectile dysfunction, problems with temperature regulation, difficulty in managing diabetes, and peripheral neuropathy.

4. All statins have been shown to be carcinogenic in experimental animals in dosages that approximate those given to patients. Although the lag time between exposure to a carcinogen and clinical detection is often a decade or more, a disturbing increase in breast cancer has already been reported in the CARE trial as well as certain skin malignancies in the simvastatin trials. Statins could initiate and/or accelerate malignant growth by a) blocking the production of Coenzyme Q10, which has been shown to have anti-cancer effects; b) stimulating the growth of new blood vessels that malignancies require to promote their propagation; c) decreasing the cytotoxicity of natural killer cells; d) blocking the production of squalene, an intermediate cholesterol metabolite with anti-cancer activities in animal studies and currently used as adjunctive therapy in treating cancer; e) reducing the production of DHEA, which has been shown to have anticancer and immune stimulating effects in experimental studies.

5. Cardioprotective effects are seen regardless of baseline cholesterol or LDL levels or the degree to which they are reduced and are achieved far too rapidly to be due to lowering LDL. If statins worked by lowering LDL one would expect to see dose-response relationship, which has not been demonstrated in any statin trials. Cardioprotective effects are seen in the elderly where LDL or other lipids are not a risk factor for coronary heart disease and in the HPS study statin treatment also prevented ischemic stroke although high LDL is not a risk factor for stroke.

6. There is abundant evidence that reducing inflammation, thrombotic factors and endothelial
damage may explain the statin effects. For example, in the CARE, the outcome was related to the degree of inflammation but independent of any lipid response.

7. Most coronary events are not due to progressive blockage of a vessel by gradual accumulation of lipid material but to thrombosis and disruption of an asymptomatic fibrous plaque with minimal protrusion. Human atherosclerotic plaque bears little resemblance to experimental atherosclerosis in animals force-fed high-fat and high cholesterol diets, but has all the hallmarks of an inflammatory response to infection and there is considerable evidence to support such an etiology, particularly for chlamydia pneumoniae. Homocysteine, angiotensin II and a host of inflammatory agents have also been implicated.

8. Therefore, the current therapy goals of lowering LDL to arbitrary levels are not only inappropriate but also dangerous, since this will only lead to larger doses and more side effects.

Stress can contribute to the pathogenesis of coronary heart disease via a number of well documented neuroendocrine activities. With respect to inflammation, it should also be noted that CRP levels correlate best with abdominal obesity, which has been shown to be largely due to increased cortisol activities that increase adipocyte production of inflammatory cytokines. In addition to these chemical/molecular pathways there is an emerging paradigm of communication at a physical/atomic level that may help to explain other stress-related cardiovascular effects as well as the success of novel "energy treatment" effects.


http://www.thincs.org/WAPF2003.htm#Uffe

1.5m wrongly told they risk heart disease

Misdiagnosis has led to massive over-prescribing of drugs - BMJ study

Polly Curtis, health correspondent
Friday July 6, 2007
The Guardian

Thousands of people have been wrongly told they are in danger of developing life-threatening heart diseases because of flaws in the way doctors routinely calculate the risk, according to a study of more than a million people published today.
Current estimates of the number at risk of cardiovascular diseases are 1.5 million too high, the report says, suggesting the anti-cholesterol drugs statins are massively and needlessly over-prescribed, inflating the £2bn annual bill to the NHS.

The study in the British Medical Journal made a series of other significant discoveries. It found that white middle-aged men have a lower risk of heart disease than previously thought and women from poorer backgrounds have a significantly higher risk. It also found one in three women in their 60s are at risk of heart disease, a figure previously thought to be one in four.

Concern over the misdiagnosis of heart disease will be compounded by a separate study due today from the Healthcare Commission. It will raise concern over the way the 300 healthcare trusts in England and Wales are monitoring the problem. A third of them were unable to provide details of the treatment being given to patients.

The HC said the number reported as having heart failure was 140,000 fewer than expected. While it is unsure whether the shortfall is a statistical blip, the study from the BMJ highlights how many thousands of people will probably be given the wrong treatment anyway.

Julia Hippisley-Cox, lead author of the study, said: "We are potentially missing the right people for treatment. If we use this new score it would increase treatment to deprived areas and especially to women. They are being under-treated across the board." She added that research was urgently needed into the risks for people from ethnic minorities amid fears that the current assessment scores, which were originally modelled on white populations in the US, are discriminating.

The researchers tracked 1.28 million healthy men and women aged between 35 and 74 over a period of 12 years to April 2007 and used GP records from 318 general practices.

The traditional way of calculating the risk from heart disease involves a score based on smoking, blood pressure and "good" and "bad" cholesterol, along with age and sex. The BMJ study compared this measure against a new, more sophisticated test, which also takes into account social deprivation, genetic factors and weight. It found that the former over-predicted the number of people at high risk of developing cardiovascular diseases by 35%.

It concludes that 3.2 million adults under the age of 75 are at risk of developing cardiovascular illnesses compared with the 4.7 million previously estimated.

Statins are widely prescribed at £2bn a year to try to reduce some of the 100,000 annual deaths from heart illnesses. Michael Summer, of the Patients Association, said the scoring system needed revisiting: "Anyone with any doubts should go back to their GP with this study to make sure that they really need statins."

Prof Hippisley-Cox said: "If people are being put on treatment when they don't need it, not only could there be side effects but they will be experiencing unnecessary anxiety."

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence published recommendations last week that all people over 40 should be considered for statins and offered them if they are at a 20% risk of becoming ill within 10 years, though they should first be advised on healthy lifestyle programmes. Last night a spokesman said the BMJ study was published too late for the consultation. "We are currently looking at it [the research] and will determine what action to take."

June Davison, a cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: "The most important thing is that people go to their doctors and get their cholesterol and blood pressure tested."

Recent Health Review

Hypertension (Treatment) Kills

Doctors from the Boston Medical Center suggest in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society1 that aged patients who are aggressively treated for high blood pressure probably will die sooner or have a lower quality of life than their untreated counterparts. This study of more than 4,000 hypertensive patients 80 years and older found that “uncontrolled hypertension” (140/90 and above) exerted no effect on the longevity of these patients. Consequently, they say that the net effect of attempting to artificially lower their pressure to the population norms can cause more injuries and disability from the resulting decrease in blood flow to vital areas (such as the brain). They also cite other studies that demonstrate an elevated blood pressure can exert a protective effect on people with less-than-optimal circulatory function.

JAGS, March 2007.
Fatty Acid Depression

A report from Ohio State University College of Medicine2 concludes that a trend toward higher ratios of omega-6 fatty acids to the omega-3 may be responsible for increased incidences of inflammatory disorders (including heart disease) and depression in America, dating back to the beginning of the 20th century. Before industrialized food preparation, packaging and distribution, humans tended to consume two to three times as many omega-6 acids as omega-3s. Today, however, the ratio for the average Westerner is more than 15 to 1. This small study found the ratio in patients diagnosed with major depression at 18 to 1, compared to 13 to 1 in nondepressed individuals. The severity of depression, as well as blood levels of certain inflammatory compounds, tended to correlate to the higher ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 acids, according to this study.3 Omega-6 fatty acids are prevalent in the refined vegetable oils used in margarine, bakery items and fast foods. Omega-3s are found in fish, flaxseed oils and walnuts.

Psychosomatic Medicine online, March 30, 2007.
Reuters, April 17, 2007.
Omega 3s on the Brain

Another study from the University of Pittsburgh4 has found a correlation between the consumption of omega-3 fatty acids and the volume of gray matter (as determined by MRI scans) in the mood and emotional regulation areas of the brain. This research follows observations that suggested individuals with a lower intake of omega-3 fatty acids tend to be impulsive, have negative moods and sour dispositions.

Dr. Sarah M. Conklin and associates of the University of Pittsburgh; reported by Reuters, April 13, 2007.
Making Children Deaf

A Chinese doctor who oversees the care of deaf children is scolding doctors in that country for their indiscriminate use of antibiotics. According to his figures, 10,000 children lose their hearing each year because of overuse of the wonder drugs in prescriptions for colds and simple sore throats. In China, antibiotics account for about 30 percent of druggists’ medication revenues. A large part of the blame is placed on greedy doctors who receive kickbacks from their drug reps for pushing the preparations. China is making it harder for people to buy antibiotics, but many hospitals rely heavily on the drugs for their profits.5

You may find it interesting that in the United States, in 2000, drug companies spent $4.8 billion sending drug reps to detail their doctor clients.6

Reuters, April 13, 2007, citing statements from Chen Zhensheng, deputy director of the China Rehabilitation Research Centre for Deaf Children.
“Following the Script: How Drug Reps Make Friends and Influence Doctors.” Available online at: dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040150.
Vancomycin-Induced Hemorrhage

The New England Journal of Medicine7 reports a link between the antibiotic vancomycin and thrombocytopenia. The drug, used to treat infections that have become resistant to other antibiotics, can reduce the patient’s platelet count in some cases, leading to serious or fatal internal bleeding. This is in addition to its already-acknowledged effects on hearing and the kidney. Apparently, there is a blood test available that tests for antibodies specific to vancomycin. When this is positive, you can reasonably suspect that your bleeding problems are due to the drug.

NEJM, March 1, 2007.
An Apple a Day

A European study of almost 2,000 pregnant women and their offspring reports that asthma is less likely to develop in children whose mothers eat apples during the pregnancy. Four apples each week resulted in 53 percent fewer diagnoses of asthma, compared to those who ate one or less per week. The study looked at a wide variety of foods, with only apples showing the asthma benefit. The researchers also found a 43 percent lower incidence of eczema with a once-a-week fish meal.8

Thorax online, April 5, 2007.
Smokers’ Attention Deficit

Researchers from the Yale University School of Medicine9 report that teenagers who were exposed to cigarette toxins in utero, and subsequently take up smoking themselves, have a harder time concentrating than either nonsmokers or smokers who were not exposed to cigarettes before birth. The nonsmokers performed better in the tests than either of the smoking groups. The research suggests tobacco smoke exposure during crucial development times changes the neurological development of the child for the worse. In fact, there is some indication that the smokers’ brains even had to work harder to perform as well as they did.10 Males and females reacted somewhat differently, with the boys suffering mainly auditory effects, and the girls exhibiting both auditory and visual attention problems.

Led by Dr. Leslie K. Jacobsen.
Neuropsychopharmacology, March 21, 2007.
Tai Chi for Shingles

A study appearing in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society11 suggests tai chi exercises in the elderly helps to protect them from outbreaks of shingles. This study divided 112 elderly subjects into two groups. One group attended tai chi classes three times a week for three months; the other attended health education classes that taught good diet habits and stress management. After six months, the researchers determined that the tai chi group exhibited nearly twice the immune response to shingles as the others.

JAGS, April 2007.
Think Rehabilitation

Researchers from the University of Cincinnati’s Academic Medical Center report that they see better outcomes in stroke patients who mentally practice activities of daily living.12 This small study had patients end each physical therapy session with 30 minutes of “motor imagery,” wherein they visualized the motions normal activities would require. Compared to a control group that received a relaxation program, the imagery patients showed significant motor skill recovery.

Stroke, April 2007.
The Ultimate Smoke Break

A statistical analysis by a Dutch economist suggests cigarette smoking is responsible for a huge amount of missed work in Sweden.13 Using data logged by more that 14,000 workers between 1988 and 1991, he estimates that more than one-third of all sick days taken were the result of smoking. While nonsmokers in this study averaged 20 sick days a year (a level deserving its own study, I’m sure), smokers were absent a whopping 34 days annually. Ex-smokers fell in between, at 25 days. Males and females were similarly affected.

Tobacco Control, March 29, 2007.
Breastfeeding and HIV

A South African study14 of HIV-infected mothers who breastfeed suggests that if you’re HIV-positive and are going to breastfeed, don’t do it halfheartedly. Researchers found that the children were much less likely to contract the AIDS virus from their mother if they were exclusively breastfed for the first six months. The rate of mother-to-child HIV infection for exclusively breastfed babies was 4 percent. Supplementation with formula or animal milk during this time frame paradoxically doubled the risk of infection, and giving solid foods raised it 11-fold. If you’re thinking it’s better to avoid the breast altogether, consider this: Fifteen percent of infants who were not breastfed died within three months, compared to 6 percent of the exclusively breastfed group. The researchers suspect breast milk somehow reinforces gut immunity, and that solid food or other foreign substances facilitate virus transport across the intestinal barriers.

The Lancet, March 31, 2007.
Anesthesia-Induced Numbskulls

Laboratory experiments on rats and primates are raising some concerns at the FDA about the effects of anesthesia in children. A number of studies are finding that brain cells are dying and that the animals suffer prolonged behavior and learning problems.15 The effects are complex, and it appears that mixing different types of anesthesia multiplies the toxicity. The time of most susceptibility appears to be during rapid neural growth. For humans, this would span the time from the last trimester of pregnancy up to about age 3. The report is careful to state there is no solid evidence of harm in children (which basically means they have no evidence of any kind, pro or con), but some of the studies were done on rhesus monkeys, which to my way of thinking are close enough to children to make me concerned.

Anesthesia & Analgesia, March 2007;104:509-20.
A Breath of Fresh Air

Want to cut down on hospital-acquired infections? Try opening a window. According to a report in the Public Library of Science Journal,16 insufficient air flow is largely responsible for the spread of airborne infections in hospitals. This study found that 50-year-old hospital wards had better air circulation, resulting in less contagion, than modern hospitals. Naturally ventilated hospitals, with the older-style high ceilings and large windows, had an air exchange rate of about 40 air changes per hour. Newer hospitals, with windows you could open, produced about 17 changes per hour. Mechanically ventilated rooms – the high-tech versions where the windows generally are not opened – are designed to produce about 12 changes per hour. However, according to this study, they generally did not live up to that expectation. The researchers calculate that if you were to spend 24 hours in one of these modern rooms with an untreated TB patient, you would have a 39 percent chance of contracting TB yourself.

PLoS Medicine, February 2007;4(2):e68. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040068.