Showing posts with label Washington Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington Post. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

FDA Pertussis Vaccine Study Shatters Illusion of Vaccine-Induced Immunity

Bordetella pertussis on Charcoal Agar - detail
Bordetella pertussis on Charcoal Agar - detail (Photo credit: Nathan Reading)
Recent vaccine research again reveals the gulf between what you’re told about vaccines—how they work and how effective they are at preventing infectious disease—versus what is truly known about naturally acquired and vaccine acquired immunity.
Nearly a century after the release of the whooping cough (B. pertussis) vaccine, mounting evidence suggests that widespread mandated use of the vaccine could potentially be doing more harm than good in the long term—in addition to having been found lacking in the effectiveness department. As reported by The Washington Post:1
“The research suggests that while the vaccine may keep people from getting sick, it doesn’t prevent them from spreading whooping cough — also known as pertussis — to others.
‘It could explain the increase in pertussis that we’re seeing in the US,’ said one of the researchers, Tod Merkel of the Food and Drug Administration...
Last year was the nation’s worst year for whooping cough in six decades— US health officials received reports of more than 48,000 cases, including 18 deaths... Some studies have concluded the newer vaccine doesn’t last as long as the old one. But the study by Merkel and his colleagues offers a new wrinkle.

New ‘Wrinkle’ Busts Major Hole in Pro-Mandatory Vaccination Argument

The “new wrinkle” revealed in the featured FDA baboon study is that while the vaccine can cut down on serious clinical disease symptoms, it doesn’t eliminatetransmission of the disease.2 This busts a major hole in the entire argument that vaccines achieve herd immunity, which is used as justification for mandatory vaccination campaigns.
According to the Washington Post:3
“'[I]t was thought that people only spread the disease when they had coughs and other symptoms,' said Dr. Erik Hewlett, a University of Virginia whooping cough researcher who was not involved in the FDA study but has collaborated with Merkel.
Health officials have sought to protect small children by vaccinating the people who are in contact with them such as grandparents and baby sitters— a strategy called ‘cocooning.’ But that may not work as well as hoped if infected people who don’t show any symptoms can still spread it, the research suggests. ‘This is a whole new way of thinking of the problem,’ Hewlett said.”

Whooping Cough Vaccination Makes You an ‘Asymptomatic Carrier

The study, titledAcellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model,”4 used infant baboons to test the hypothesis that "current acellular pertussis vaccines fail to prevent colonization and transmission" of B. pertussis.
The acellular pertussis vaccines that were licensed in 1996 for infants to replace reactive whole-cell pertussis vaccines contain lower levels of certain toxins (such as endotoxin) as well as purified antigens instead of all the components of whole killed B. pertussis bacteria.
The study concluded that infant baboons given Sanofi DTaP (Daptacel) vaccine at two, four, and six months of age were protected against developing outward clinical symptoms of pertussis after being exposed to B. pertussis at seven months of age, but they were still able colonize and transmit B. pertussis to other baboons.
The baboons that were vaccinated with whole cell pertussis (GlaxoSmithKline's Infanrix) also colonized B. pertussis upon exposure to B. pertussis, but they cleared the infection much faster than the acellular pertussis vaccinated baboons—in 18 days compared to 35 days.
Now, the researchers did not say that DTaP vaccine causes vaccine strain pertussis infection. B. pertussis vaccines (both whole cell DPT and acellular DTaP/Tdap) are inactivated vaccines and do not cause vaccine strain infection the way some attenuated live virus vaccines can—such as live oral polio (OPV) and varicella zoster (chickenpox) vaccines.
However, the lead author Tod Merkel did comment to the New York Times5 that when exposed to B. pertussis after recently getting vaccinated, you could be an asymptomatic carrier and infect others, saying:
“When you’re newly vaccinated, you are an asymptomatic carrier, which is good for you, but not for the population.”

Pertussis Vaccine May Not Curb Transmission of Illness

According to the researchers, acellular pertussis vaccine (Daptacel) induces high antibody titers, which is used to measure efficacy. Whole cell DPT (Infanrix) and natural B. pertussis infection also induce high antibody titers.
But, while acellular pertussis vaccinated baboons did not develop serious clinical disease symptoms—such as loss of appetite and cough—when they were directly challenged with B. pertussis (meaning exposed to the B. pertussis bacteria), they still colonized B. pertussis in their throats and were capable of transmitting the infection to other baboons.
Since acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccines are the only type of pertussis vaccines now given to American children at the ages of two, four, six and 15-18 months, as well as between the ages of four and six years and at 11-12 years, the researchers said:
"These data suggest that cocooning is unlikely to be an effective strategy to reduce the burden of pertussis in infants. However, it is important to note that our data in combination with human data show that vaccination with acellular pertussis provides excellent protection from severe pertussis.
Therefore, any short-term plan for addressing the resurgence of pertussis should include continued efforts to enhance acellular pertussis immunization. However, to protect the most vulnerable members of the population and achieve optimal herd immunity, it will be necessary to develop a vaccination strategy that effectively blocks pertussis infection and transmission."

What You Need to Know About ‘Herd Immunity’

The issue of “herd immunity” as it pertains to vaccinations is a widely misunderstood subject. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases describes vaccine-induced herd immunity (also labeled “community immunity” by public health doctors) as follows:6
“When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as ‘community immunity.’"
What many people don’t realize is that there is such a thing as natural herd immunity. The problem is that public health officialsassume that vaccines will work the same way. However, vaccines do not confer the same kind of immunity as experiencing and recovering from the natural disease.
The science clearly shows that there's a big difference between naturally acquired herd immunity and vaccine-acquired herd immunity, even as scientific knowledge about the biological mechanisms involved in naturally acquired and vaccine acquired immunity is incomplete. These facts are usually ignored because to openly acknowledge them opens the door to some very unwelcome questions about the overall effectiveness of mandatory vaccination programs.
Vaccines are designed to trick your body's immune system into producing an immune response that includes making protective antibodies that are needed to resist future exposure to the infectious viral or bacterial microorganism. However, your body is smarter than that. The artificial manipulation of your immune system by vaccines containing lab altered bacteria and viruses, as well as chemicals and other ingredients, simply does not exactly replicate the response that your immune system mounts when naturally encountering the infectious microorganism. This is one reason why vaccine policymakers say you need to get “booster” shots because vaccine acquired immunity is only temporary and wears off, sometimes rather quickly.
The featured study also provides evidence of this fact, showing that a vaccine-induced immune response differs from the immune response when naturally encountering the B. pertussis organism. The FDA researchers further suggested that there are also differences in immune responses to whole cell DPT vaccine, which contains the whole B. pertussis bacteria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, which contains lower levels of toxins and uses purified antigens. They said “Vaccination with wP [whole cell pertussis vaccine] and previous infection induced a more rapid clearance compared with naïve and aP[acelullar pertussis[-vaccinated animals.”
As reported by Medical Daily:7
“The researchers also found something revealing when they looked at the specific immune response of each group of monkeys. 'Although all vaccinated and previously infected animals had robust serum antibody responses, we found key differences in T-cell immunity,' the authors wrote in PNAS.
Specifically, previously infected animals and whole-cell-vaccinated animals both exhibited the same kind of boost in immune response while the acellular pertussis vaccination elicited a response that was slightly different. 'The observation that acellular pertussis, which induces an immune response mismatched to that induced by natural infection, fails to prevent colonization or transmission, provides a plausible explanation for the resurgence of pertussis...'"
Although the FDA researchers say they found differences between immune responses to the whole cell DPT vaccine acellular DTaP vaccine, they also admit that “neither vaccine was able to prevent colonization as well as immunity from a previous infection” and that “relative protection afforded by Th17 or Th1 responses in vaccinated or convalescent baboons or humans is not known.”
Bottom line: there are huge gaps in scientific knowledge about both B. pertussis vaccination and B. pertussis infections.

Which Is More Ideal—Permanent or Temporary Immunity?

To learn more, I urge you to listen to the following video, in which Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), discusses the concept of herd immunity. In it, she brings up some very important questions that need to be seriously considered and answered through rigorous scientific investigation—investigation that has so far been largely ignored:
" In most cases natural exposure to disease would give you a longer lasting more robust qualitatively superior immunity because it gives you both cell mediated immunity and humoral immunity... The fact that manmade vaccines cannot replicate the body's natural experience with the disease is one of the key points of contention between those who insist that mankind cannot live without mass use of multiple vaccines and those who believe that mankind's biological integrity will be severely compromised by their continued use.
The fact that manmade vaccines cannot replicate the body's natural experience with the disease is one of the key points of contention between those who insist that mankind cannot live without mass use of multiple vaccines and those who believe that mankind's biological integrity will be severely compromised by their continued use.
... [I]s it better to protect children against infectious disease early in life through temporary immunity from a vaccine, or are they better off contracting certain contagious infections in childhood and attaining permanent immunity? Do vaccine complications ultimately cause more chronic illness and death than infectious diseases do? These questions essentially pit trust in human intervention against trust in nature and the natural order, which existed long before vaccines were created by man."

What We Don’t Understand Can Hurt Us

My main point of contention with those who insist that vaccines are the best answer for disease prevention, without regard for constitutional differences between people, is that the science is still grossly lacking when it comes to safety. We simply do not know if vaccination is an ideal choice for all people, all the time—even though that’s what public health officials and others promoting one-size-fits all mandatory vaccination policies would like you to believe. The evidence weighs rather heavily againstsuch a blanket position, in my opinion.
Take the recent news of healthy teenagers dying following flu vaccination for example. In January of this year, a 14-year old Carly Christenson passed away from complications from influenza type-A, despite being vaccinated against the flu.8


Most recently, healthy 19-year old Chandler Webb became violently ill the day after receiving a flu shot—the first flu shot he had ever received.9, 10 His symptoms included violent shaking, headache and vomiting. He was hospitalized with encephalitis (brain inflammation). As the swelling of his brain progressed, Chandler’s doctors frantically tested him for various infectious diseases and treated him with broad spectrum antibiotics. Apparently, they did not think to consider whether he’d been recently vaccinated. His brain became so inflamed that doctors told his mother the massive swelling crushed his brain stem. He died 28 days after his first and last dose of influenza vaccine.
Chandler’s mother wants to raise awareness about the potential of vaccines to cause serious complications like brain inflammation and is urging medical personnel to consider vaccine reactions when searching for potential causes and treating encephalitis and other possible vaccine-related health problems. In this case, the doctors are now claiming they were not able to confirm the cause of Chandler’s death, and are declining to comment because they say they are legally prohibited from making any statements about the case.11

Main Take-Home Points and Limitations of the Latest Pertussis Vaccine Study

To recap, FDA researchers conducting the featured baboon study found that the whole cell pertussis vaccine (GSK's Infanrix DPT), the acellular pertussis vaccine (Sanofi's Daptacel DTaP), and natural pertussis infection all induced high antibody titers in infant baboons. High antibody titer after vaccination is currently the gold standard for proving that a vaccine confers “immunity” and inability to colonize or transmit infection.

However in this study, high B. pertussis antibody titers after vaccination did NOT correlate with immunity and inability to colonize or transmit B. pertussis infection to other baboons—effectively challenging the idea that high antibody titer following vaccination is evidence that vaccination will prevent infection in the vaccine recipient and the recipient will not be able to infect others. Furthermore, the study authors found that:
  • Baboons vaccinated with a whole cell pertussis vaccine (DPT) colonized B. pertussis upon direct challenge but cleared infection almost twice as fast as animals vaccinated with an acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP)—which is the type used by American children since 1996. This suggests that children recently given DTaP vaccine, who are exposed to B. pertussis may be astymptomatic carriers and transmitters of the infection for a longer period of time compared to children who get the older, more reactive whole cell DPT vaccine and clear infection more quickly.
  • Previous B. pertussis infection prevented colonization with B. pertussis in baboons better than having received either whole cell pertussis (Infanrix) or acelullar pertussis vaccine (Daptacel). In short, natural immunity offered greater protection against the ability to become infected and transmit infection after exposure to B. pertussis than either of the two vaccines.
That said, the researchers acknowledged the baboon study had limitations and among them were the fact that:
  • Baboons are not humans and the study authors admitted that "relative protection afforded by Th17 and Th1 responses in vaccinated or convalescent baboons or humans is not known."
  • Only one type of whole cell DPT and one type of acellular DTaP vaccine was used in this study but there are many different kinds of DPT and DTaP containing different components. Considering the known variability of measured efficacy and effectiveness of DPT and DTaP vaccines in clinical studies, the FDA study conclusions can only be limited to those two specific DPT and DTaP vaccines.

The Illusion of Vaccine-Acquired Immunity

The concept of vaccine induced herd immunity is built on the assumption that vaccination does protect the vast majority of vaccinated persons in a population from becoming infected with- and transmitting infection to others in the same way that naturally acquired immunity in a population protects acquisition and transmission of infection. The featured FDA research suggests this is not the case and offers a clue as to why whooping cough outbreaks have been occurring and spreading primarilywithin the vaccinated population. To quote NVIC’s Barbara Loe Fisher:
“In my opinion, this study in infant baboons suggests that pertussis vaccine-acquired immunity has been an illusion. Although the vaccines may protect against severe B. pertussis clinical symptoms of the disease—such as paroxysmal coughing—they do not prevent colonization of B. pertussis bacteria and transmission of the infection to others.
In this study at least, recovery from previous B. pertussis infection was more effective in preventing colonization with B.pertussis upon direct challenge than either whole cell DPT (Infanrix) or acellular DTaP (Daptacel) and that suggests transmission of the infection to others after exposure to B pertussis would also be less likely when there is a history of naturally acquired immunity.”

Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions

With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it's critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educating the leaders in your community.
THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.
National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact. It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.
Signing up for NVIC's free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your Smart Phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips.
So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don't share information and experiences with each other, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.
I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the "other side" of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.
We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than "statistically acceptable collateral damage" of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:
  • NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
  • If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
  • Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One That Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.
However, there is hope.
At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families who decline use of one or more vaccines.
So take the time to locate a doctor who treats you with compassion and respect, and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, December 6, 2013

WebMD Pockets Millions to Stimulate $1 Trillion in Drug Sales

4.If you are unsure whether your prescription ...
 (Photo credit: SafeMedicines)
By Dr. Mercola
According to the Washington Times,1 WebMD, the second most visited health site on the World Wide Web, has received a $4.8 million government contract to educate doctors about the ins and outs of the Affordable Care Act, colloquially dubbed “Obamacare.”
A similar contract for the public portal to educate consumers might also be in the works. However, the lack of transparency and disclosure of the contract has raised questions about potential conflicts of interest.
WebMD has defended against such allegations, saying that the government contract does not affect the company’s news operation, which is free to report what it wants about the health care plan. Still, as stated in the featured article:
“[F]ew if any news outlets earn millions of dollars in training fees from the government on topics they cover, putting WebMD in a unique spot in the media landscape as it navigates not only potential conflicts but also the appearance of conflicts.”
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has criticized the lack of transparency, telling theWashington Post:2
 “Disclosure and transparency would be a good practice for any recipient of federal funding to promote the administration’s health care plan.
Even if certain content is not produced with federal funding, but the same company takes federal government money to produce other materials, consumers would be better-informed by knowing the financial relationships.”

WebMD Charged with Educating Your Doctor on the Plan

According to the featured article,3 the contract includes training services aimed at physicians using the private portal, in the form of “lectures, articles, podcasts and ‘expert viewpoints’ in audio, video, or writing, among other presentations.” Doctors can also receive continuing education credits simply for watching the videos.
These services don’t come cheap. According to the Washington Post, a four- minute long video featuring the viewpoint of a medical expert can cost as much as $68,916 under the contract.
And an “exclusively sponsored” five- to eight-question quiz “to convey key sponsor messages” will cost the US government in excess of $140,000. That said, my criticism of this hidden association between the US government and WebMD does not revolve around their service fees.
The real problem is that WebMD has positioned itself as a primary source of independent and science-backed health information yet is financially dependent on pharmaceutical companies, and now the US government, which is trying to promote a widely contested and unpopular health care plan.
Not only that, but WebMD has in fact been caught red-handed promoting dangerous drug solutions on behalf of their sponsors to people who really don’tneed such treatment—cementing the notion that WebMD is beholden to its sponsors, even at the expense of the safety and well-being of its readers.

Drug Promotion Presented as a Health Screen...

You may recall that three years ago, WebMD was found to have created a depression screening test in which 100 percent of quiz-takers ended up having a “high likelihood of major depression,” and being asked to talk to their doctor about available treatment.4, 5 The test was sponsored by drug giant Eli Lilly, the maker of Cymbalta, and it’s quite telling that no one is found mentally healthy when Eli Lilly foots the bill...
The quiz was really nothing but direct-to-consumer advertising masquerading as a valid health screen. This is perhaps the most hazardous kind of drug advertising there is, as you don’t even realize they’re trying to sell you something. Seeing an advertisement on TV or in a magazine is one thing—you can recognize that as marketing.
But a health screening test on a well-respected health site? Most would fail to consider that such a test might be rigged to turn you into a consumer. It would probably have been more appropriate to present the test with a disclaimer stating: “For entertainment and time-wasting purposes only.”
That mental health screen debacle sounds awfully similar to the quizzes WebMD has now been contracted to produce under this government contract, “to convey key sponsor messages.” What might these sponsored messages be? In all likelihood, they will be related to the promotion of key drugs, such as cholesterol-lowering statins, now that the statin treatment guidelines have been updated to apply to twice the number of patients as previous guidelines.

Key for Successful Propaganda—The Illusion of Independent Corroboration

The drug industry has deep pockets, so it’s no surprise that their adverts would be splashed all over the WebMD website. Prescription drugs for every imaginable problem are listed on virtually every WebMD page, along with plenty of health-harming processed foods and snacks.
The revenue WebMD generates from advertising is considerable. According to a recent WebMD press release,6 the revenue from public portal advertising and sponsorship for the months of July through September, 2013 alone was $109.6 million, compared to $97.6 million for the corresponding quarter in 2012. That pencils out to nearly half a billion a year in ads from the drug companies.
WebMD is a great example of the brilliant marketing the drug companies are doing. They seek to provide you with the illusion of an independent objective third party that just so happens to confirm their solution is the best choice for your health issues. But when you draw back the curtain, you find it’s really the drug companies themselves that are crafting the message—not an independent entity.
It might be worth noting that WebMD is also partnered with the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration). This virtually assures that you will not learn about any alternatives besides those approved by the FDA for your condition, and further strengthens the promotion of sponsored drugs. By default, you will be kept in the dark about the strategies that can make a real and lasting difference.
The lack of independence among promoters and distributors of health information has become of tremendous concern. Due to a dramatic rise in scientific fraud, which is particularly prevalent in the medical literature, it’s more important than ever to be able to gain access to the full set of data before making or taking a recommendation. Not only are industry studies 400 percent more likely to show positive outcomes, negative findings are never published, and raw data is rarely publicly available. 
The sad fact is that before we can regain trust in the scientific method, science must be forthcoming with ALL the data. Every clinical trial should be registered before it begins, and all results and raw data should be provided at the conclusion.  At present, they’re not... as a result industry sponsored studies have a 400% increase in positive outcomes vs. independent studies, and on top of that the negative studies are never published at all.

Bias Pervades Scientific Reporting

The reality of biased reporting on science was recently highlighted yet again in a study7, 8 authored by John Ioannidis and colleagues at Stanford University. Ioannidis is one of the world's most important experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team of researchers have repeatedly shown that many of the conclusions biomedical researchers arrive at in their published studies are exaggerated or flat-out wrong.
Here, they did a meta-analysis9 of 160 other, previously published meta-analyses of animal studies for treatments of a variety of neurological disorders. This analysis ended up covering no less than 1,000 separate animal studies. As reported by Medical News Today:
“The authors' ‘meta-analysis of meta-analyses’ used the most precise study in each meta-analysis as an estimate of the true effect size of a particular treatment. It then asked whether the expected number of studies had statistically significant conclusions.
Alarmingly, the authors found that more than twice as many studies as expected appeared to reach statistical significance. The authors suggest that rather than reflecting willful fraud on the part of the scientists who conduct the original studies, this ‘excess significance bias’ comes from two main sources.
One is that scientists conducting an animal study tend to choose the method of data analysis that appears to give them the ‘better’ result. The second arises because scientists usually want to publish in higher profile journals; such journals tend to strongly prefer studies with positive, rather than negative, results. Many studies with negative results are not even submitted for publication or, if submitted, either cannot get published or are published belatedly in low-visibility journals, reducing their chances of inclusion in a meta-analysis.”[Emphasis mine]

Changes Are Urgently Needed to Protect Value of Medical Science

Ioannidis’ team speculate that, as a result of these kinds of biased animal studies being published and used as grounds for further research, inappropriate treatments have probably made it into human trials where, of course, the stakes are much higher. But no matter what type of research you’re talking about, scientific integrity and complete uncensored reporting of results matter dearly. As stated in a related editorial in PLOS Medicine:10  
“As early as 1990, Iain Chalmers, one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration, stated that, ‘Failure to publish an adequate account of a well-designed clinical trial is a form of scientific misconduct that can lead those caring for patients to make inappropriate treatment decisions.’”
Ultimately, when a researcher skews the results to fit a preconceived notion, whether it’s done for prestige or to please funders, consciously or unconsciously, it can eventually affect tens of thousands of patients. As reported by Medical News Today:11
“Adriane Fugh-Berman MD charges that basic science, not just clinical trials, is plagued by financial conflicts of interest. Fugh-Berman identifies evidence showing that industry-funded studies on animals and cell cultures can be as biased as industry-funded clinical trials, and can distort data on medical treatments.12
To remedy this dismal situation and get medical science back on the right track, Ioannidis’ team makes several suggestions, including:
  • Requiring animal studies to adhere to strict guidelines for study design and analysis
  • Pre-registering animal trials in the same manner as human trials, in order to ensure publication of results regardless whether it’s positive or negative
  • Making methodological details and raw data available in order to allow other scientists to verify the conclusions drawn
Another team of researchers in the Netherlands have drawn similar conclusions. In their essay, published in the journal PLOS Medicine,13 they too recommend study registration and data sharing to improve research quality and conduct. They also argue for the creation of a transparent system in which animal studies are routinely and systematically reviewed and replicated.

Estimates Show $1 Trillion Will Be Spent on Drugs Next Year

A staggering statistic can be found in a new report from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.14 According to this report, global expenditure for prescription drugs is estimated to hit $1 trillion next year, and as high as $1.2 trillion in 2017.  The main driver of increased drug sales is increased access to medical care across the world. In the US, the Affordable Care Act will likely lead to major spending increases, considering the fact that drugs are prescribed for virtually any ailment or complaint you might see a doctor for. As reported in Time Magazine:15
“[I]n a best case scenario of nearly complete enrollment [in the Affordable Care Act], increased demand from more insured people will push up prescriptions. Given the large pool of anticipated new enrollees, however, even if signups are lackluster, Michael Kleinrock, research director for the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics says, “We are still [going to] hit $1 trillion in 2014.”

Remember, You Can Take Control of Your Health

It's important to understand that our current medical system has been masterfully orchestrated by the drug companies to create a system that gives the perception of science when really it is a heavily manipulated process designed to manipulate and deceive you into using expensive and potentially toxic drugs that benefit the drug companies more than it benefits your health.
Across the board, drugmakers do an excellent job of publicizing the findings they want you to know, while keeping studies that don’t support their product hidden from you and the rest of the world.  
Also, I’m sure by now many of you can follow the dots and draw your own conclusions with circular maps and arrows marking the many conflicts of interest that exist between this unholy alliance of so-called independent health advisors, pharmaceutical companies, processed food companies, and the regulatory agency, the FDA. Folks, it’s time take control of your health, and that includes being able to discern real health advice from shadow marketing machines and propaganda that serves no one but the very industries responsible for much of the ill health in the first place.
It's important to realize that all research is NOT published. And it should come as no surprise that drug studies funded by a pharmaceutical company that reaches a negative conclusion will rarely ever see the light of day... And with so much data missing in action, what does the claim “scientifically proven” really amount to? It certainly cannot be construed as a guarantee of safety or effectiveness.
Likewise, if an alternative treatment has not been published in a medical journal, it does not mean it is unsafe or ineffective. There's a lot to be said for the tried-and-true remedies of old, even if they've not been rigorously studied by modern researcher. I recommend using all the resources available to you, including your own sense of common sense and reason, true experts' advice and other's experiences, to determine what medical treatment or advice will be best for you in any given situation.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Tree Nuts, Chockfull of Healthful Fats, May Help You Live Longer

English: a walnut and a walnut core
English: a walnut and a walnut core (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Many people needlessly shun raw nuts from their diet, believing their fat content contributes to weight gain. But mounting research suggests nuts such as pecans and macadamias may actually help you live longer—and help you lose weight to boot.
This isn’t so surprising considering the fact that tree nuts are high in healthful fatsthat, contrary to popular belief, your body needs for optimal function. Also, to optimize your health, weight, and longevity, you’ll want to shift your body from sugar-burning mode to fat-burning mode. One of the simplest and most effective ways to do this is to implement intermittent fasting.
In order for your body to begin burning fat as your primary fuel instead of sugar,it is helpful to swap non-vegetable carbohydrates like sugar and grains in your diet with high-quality healthful fats. Raw nuts are one source of such fats.

Nut Consumption Associated with Life Extension, Study Finds

A recent study published in NEJM was a large-scale, 30-year long study done at Harvard.1234 It found that people who regularly ate a small handful of nuts at least seven times per week were 20 percent less likely to die for any reason, compared to those who largely avoided nuts in their diet.
They also tended to eat more fruits and vegetables, and were leaner than their nut-eschewing counterparts. Nut eaters were more likely to exercise and take dietary supplements. As reported by the Washington Post:5
“Even those who ate nuts less than once a week had a seven percent reduction in risk. Consuming nuts at least five times a week corresponded to a 29 percent drop in mortality risk for heart disease, a 24 percent decline for respiratory disease and an 11 percent drop for cancer.”
The study does have its weaknesses. For example, participants only filled out dietary questionnaires once every two to four years. They also included all types of nuts (including peanut, which is not a nut but a legume and not nearly as health promoting as tree nuts).
The study also didn’t differentiate how they were prepared (i.e. raw or roasted, for example). That said, the result of the featured study has added support from previous research.
For example, a study6 published in the Annals of Internal Medicine earlier this year found that middle-aged women who followed a Mediterranean-style diet rich in nuts and vegetables were approximately 40 percent more likely to survive into later decades without developing some form of chronic disease—including age-related memory deterioration.
Healthful fats and antioxidants, obtained from nuts and vegetables respectively (although nuts also contain beneficial antioxidants, by the way), are both critical factors for brain health. Lead researcher of the featured study, Dr. Ying Bao, told Boston.com:7
“I’m fairly confident in our results. We have long known that nuts are nutritious foods filled with folate, potassium, fiber, good monounsaturated fats, and antioxidants.”

This is a Flash-based audio and may not be playable on mobile devices.

Tree Nuts—Good Sources of Healthful Fats

All nuts are not necessarily created equal, and tree nuts are, from a nutritional stand point, far preferable to peanuts, which is technically a legume. My main objections to peanuts are that they tend to:
  • Distort your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio as they are relatively high in omega-6
  • Be frequently contaminated with a carcinogenic mold called aflatoxin
  • Be one of the most pesticide-contaminated crops
My favorite nuts are macadamia and pecans, as they provide the highest amount of healthy fat while being on the lower end in terms of carbs and protein. Most nuts’ nutritional makeup closely resemble what I consider to be an ideal ratio of the basic building blocks—fat making up the greatest amount of your daily calories, followed by a moderate amount of high-quality protein and a low amount of non-vegetable carbs.
The main fatty acid in macadamia nuts is the monounsaturated fat oleic acid (about 60 percent). This is about the level found in olives, which are well known for their health benefits.
I have been consuming macadamia nuts and pecans almost daily since I started lowering my overall protein intake about a year ago. I primarily use raw macadamia nuts, but also enjoy pecans. They provide a great source of calories and are a phenomenal snack alternative.
To gain a better idea of what I’m talking about, please refer to my Food Pyramid for Optimal Health.
In the featured study,8 those who ate a one-ounce serving seven times or more per week appeared to benefit the most. One ounce of nuts equates to just over 28 grams, or about a small handful. The following list shows the nutrition facts9 in grams per one ounce for your most common tree nuts:
Tree Nut
Numbers are grams per ounce

Fat

Protein

Carbohydrates
Macadamias2224
Pecans2034
Pine nuts2044
Brazil nuts1943
Walnuts1844
Hazelnuts1735
Cashews1349
Almonds1466
Pistachios1368

More Nutritional Facts

Generally speaking, each type of nut will offer a slightly different mix of nutrients for your health, so it’s a good idea to include a variety of nuts rather than sticking to one at the exclusion of all others. For instance:
  • Raw macadamia nuts are a powerhouse of a nut, containing a wide variety of critical nutrients including high amounts of vitamin B1, magnesium, manganese, and healthful monounsaturated fat, just to name a few.
  • Pecans: Pecans contain more than 19 vitamins and minerals, and research has shown they may help lower LDL cholesterol and promote healthy arteries. One of my favorite treats is candied pecans in a salad at a restaurant. I know they have sugar, but a few grams or less a day is not going to cause a major problem provided you’re eating a healthy whole food diet, opposed to processed foods (which are loaded with hidden fructose).
  • Walnuts: Walnuts are good sources of plant-based omega-3 fats, natural phytosterols, and antioxidants that are so powerful at free-radical scavenging that researchers have called them "remarkable.”10 Plus, walnuts may help reduce not only the risk of prostate cancer, but breast cancer as well. They’ve also been shown to reverse brain aging in rats and boost heart health in people with diabetes.
  • Almonds: One of the healthiest aspects of almonds appears to be their skins, as they are rich in antioxidants including phenols, flavonoids, and phenolic acids, which are typically associated with vegetables and fruits. A study in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry11 even revealed that a one-ounce serving of almonds has a similar amount of total polyphenols as a cup of steamed broccoli or green tea. Be careful not to overeat almonds though as they are high in protein, nearly one gram per almond.
  • Brazil Nuts: Brazil nuts are an excellent source of organic selenium, a powerful antioxidant-boosting mineral that may be beneficial for the prevention of cancer.

To Become an Efficient Fat Burner—Eat More Healthful Fats

As mentioned earlier, one of the keys to optimal health is to switch your body from burning sugar to burning fat as its primary fuel. This requires a shift in diet, away from non-starchy vegetable carbohydrates toward foods that are high in healthful fats—such as those found in tree nuts. Many would benefit from getting as much as 50-85 percent of their daily calories from fats. Although this sounds like a lot, by volume the largest portion of your plate would be vegetables because they have so few calories. Examples of healthful fats would be:
AvocadosButter made from raw grass-fed organic milkRaw dairyOrganic pastured egg yolks
Coconuts and coconut oilUnheated organic nut oilsRaw nuts, such as almonds, pecans, macadamia, and seedsGrass-fed meats

Besides making sure you’re eating the right foods, intermittent fasting can be quite helpful for achieving this metabolic shift, and here’s why: It takes about six to eight hours for your body to burn the sugar stored in your body as glycogen. However, most of us never deplete our glycogen stores because we eat three or more meals a day. This teaches your body to burn sugar as your primary fuel and effectively shuts off your ability to use fat as a fuel.
Most people need several weeks of intermittent fasting, but some may need several months to teach their body to turn on the fat burning enzymes to effectively use fat as their primary fuel. It is important to understand though that once you teach your body to burn fat effectively and you are normal body weight without high blood pressure, diabetes or high cholesterol, you only need to do intermittent fasting occasionally. You can go back to eating three meals a day as long as you keep your ideal body weight.
I prefer to think of intermittent fasting as a lifestyle rather than a diet. You could even think of it as intermittent eating rather than intermittent fasting, as all you’re doing is restricting your eating to a smaller window of time each day rather than grazing from early morning to late at night. I restricted my eating to a 6- to 7-hour window each day until I became fat adapted and lost about 10 pounds. Now, I still rarely ever eat breakfast but will have some nuts. Many days I only eat one meal around 2-4 PM, but several days a week, I will have two meals.
Weight loss is not the only beneficial side effect of intermittent fasting. It has also been shown to generally extend lifespan much in the same way calorie restriction and extended fasting, but without the suffering that goes along with those methods. It is likely that calorie restriction works to increase longevity by improving insulin and leptin resistance and also inhibiting the mTOR pathway by protein restriction. Healthful fat does not impair any of these pathways and appears to be the solution to having a regular calorie diet and still reap the rewards of calorie restriction.

Reasons to Give Intermittent Fasting a Try

If you’re ready to start intermittent fasting, consider skipping breakfast, make sure you stop eating three hours before you go to sleep, and restrict your eating to an 8-hour (or less) time frame every day. In the 6-8 hours that you do eat, have a moderate amount of healthy protein, eliminate or severely minimize carbs like pasta, bread, and potatoes, and exchange them vegetables and  plenty of healthful fats. As already mentioned, this includes raw nuts and other foods like butter, eggs, avocado, coconut oil, and olive oil.
Remember, it will take a few weeks to a few months for your body to make the transition to fat burning mode, and you will need to exercise some willpower and self-discipline to get there. Just gradually extend the time that you start your first meal until it is in the afternoon.
Once your body has made the shift from carb burning to fat burning mode, you can expect cravings for sweets and food in general to rapidly decrease. This is a huge boon for most people, I’m sure. I know it was for me. For many, the desire for sweets and junk food will disappear entirely. Remember, it will typically take a few weeks, and you have to do it gradually, but once you succeed to switch into fat burning mode you’ll be easily able to go without food for 18 hours and not be bothered by hunger.
Another phenomenally beneficial side effect that occurs is that you will radically improve the beneficial bacteria in your gut.
Supporting healthy gut bacteria, which actually outnumber your cells 10 to one, is one of the most important things you can do to improve your immune system so you won’t get sick, or get coughs, colds, and flus. You will sleep better, have more energy, have increased mental clarity and concentrate better. Essentially every aspect of your health will improve as your gut flora becomes balanced.
Based on my own experience with intermittent fasting, I believe it’s one of the most powerful ways to shift your body into fat burning mode and improve a wide variety of biomarkers for disease. The effects can be further magnified by exercising while in a fasted state. For more information on that, please see my previous article “High-Intensity Interval Training and Intermittent Fasting - A Winning Combo.” Clearly, it’s another powerful tool in your box to help you and your family take control of your health, and an excellent way to take your fitness to the next level.

When Buying Nuts, Consider These Facts

To increase the positive impacts on your health, look for nuts that are organic and raw, not irradiated or pasteurized. If you choose to use almonds (remember that they are relatively high in protein), be aware that pasteurized almonds sold in North America can still be labeled "raw" even though they've been subjected to one of the following pasteurization methods:
  • Oil roasting, dry roasting, or blanching
  • Steam processing
  • Propylene Oxide (PPO) treatment (PPO is a highly toxic flammable chemical compound, once used as a racing fuel before it was prohibited for safety reasons)
There are generally no truly "raw" almonds sold in North America, so don't be misled. It is possible to purchase raw almonds in the US, but it has to be done very carefully from vendors selling small quantities that have a waiver from the pasteurization requirement. The key is to find a company with the waiver that is not pasteurizing them. When consumed with these guidelines in mind, raw, organic nuts are a convenient and enjoyable superfood to add to your diet. And this is precisely why they’re recommended as one of the best sources of healthy fats in my nutrition plan.
Enhanced by Zemanta