I have been preparing a follow-up blog on heart disease but thought, given current concern over the swine flu problem, that the following might be more timely.
The recent outbreak of swine flu-bird flu hybrid has many people concerned about natural steps that they can take to strengthen their immune systems and fight off the latest flu bug. I hope that fears of a flu pandemic are overreactions However, it seems possible that the swine flu may spread to epidemic or pandemic proportions. The Center for Disease Control announced on April 25 that containment of the virus is "highly unlikely". Besides washing your hands frequently, taking mega doses of vitamin C and avoiding large groups of people what else can you do?
Vitamin D
Many Americans, especially young children, are alarmingly deficient in vitamin D. Most people know that vitamin D is essential for bone and central nervous system health. In addition it a critical role in enabling the immune system to successfully defeat viruses of all kinds. Cannell JJ et al (2006) demonstrated that vitamin D is extremely effective in fighting standard influenza strains. It is more important than ever that you drastically increase your intake of this critical vitamin. You can purchase vitamin D supplements over the counter, from health food stores, or get it from my favorite source Swanson Health Products (I am just one of their many satisfied customers) at http://www.swansonvitamins.com/.
Elderberry Syrup
Sambucol, a standardized extract of elderberry, has been shown by repeated scientific studies to fight standard strains of influenza. Elderberry has natural compounds that are safe for children and even infants and which appear to reduce the duration of colds and flu by several days. This means Sambucol is a must-have for surviving pandemic flu.More importantly, studies of elderberry syrup's efficacy have specifically focused on H5N1 bird flu, one of the core components of the swine flu pandemic's biology. Laboratory trials have confirmed that elderberry extract effectively defeats H5N1 avian flu with up to 99% efficacy (see H. Friel et al., 2006 for example). I ordered four bottles of Elderberry extract from Swanson for my family last night.
Selenium
Selenium is a trace mineral and only relatively small amounts are needed for selenium to accomplish its biological role. Unfortunately it, like many other minerals, is not available in food in the quantities that it used to be because of mineral-depleted farm land. As a result many people are selenium deficient. Selenium is as important as more popular immune-stimulating supplements in preventing serious illnesses. In vitro studies have confirmed that selenium, like elderberry syrup, can effectively fight the H5N1 strain of avian flu.
Other immune-stimulating herbs and compounds, including the "classic" immune-boosters Echinacea, goldenseal, zinc, and vitamin C, may also be effective in preventing illness during an epidemic. While single supplement or combination of supplements is likely to completely eradicate swine flu, avian flu, or any other form of flu pandemic a balanced diet, common-sense precautions, and a combination of herbal and nutritional supplements, you may be able to protect yourself and your loved ones during a catastrophe.
Sources:
CDC Release- Swine Flu. Accessed 25 April 2009.
Cannell JJ et al (2006). "Epidemic influenza and vitamin D". Epidemiol. Infect.134 (6): 1129-40.
H. Friel et al. (2006)A nutritional supplement formula for influenza A (H5N1) infection in humans☆ Medical Hypotheses, Volume 67, Issue 3, Pages 578-587
Monday, April 27, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Statin Drugs and Heart Disease
Statin drugs like Lipitor (atorvastatin), Zocor (simvastatin), Mevacor (lovastatin) and Pravachol (pravastatin) have been around for almost a decade so I thought that it would be interesting to see what research reports have to say about their effectiveness in combating heart disease.
The 20 year Honolulu Heart Program (Schatz, et al. 2001) report indicated that, “Our data accord with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases risk of death. Thus, the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death.” Yes, you read that right. They report that low cholesterol levels increase the risk of death. Their report also states that “Those individuals with a low serum cholesterol maintained over a 20-year period will have the worst outlook for all-cause mortality.” I’ll write more about the cholesterol hypothesis in my next blog so come back for more.
The 2001 study “aptly” named MIRACL (Schwartz, et al, 2001) followed 3,086 patients in hospital after angina or non-fatal MI for 16 weeks to test the effect of Lipitor. This study found that the only significant difference between the control group and the group receiving 80 mg/day of Lipitor was a significant reduction in chest pain requiring rehospitalization. There was no significant difference in re-infarction rate or the need for resuscitation from cardiac arrest.
One of the largest North American cholesterol-lowering trials was ALLHAT (2002) which used data from 10,000 participants over a 4-year period. Of the 5,170 participants that received Lipitor, 28 percent showed a reduction in cholesterol levels. The other 5,185 participants used a “usual care” protocol of maintaining proper body weight, no smoking, and regular exercise. Guess what? Both groups showed the same rates of death, heart disease, and heart attack. The mortality rates of the treatment and control groups were identical after three and six years.
PROSPER (Shepherd, et al. 2002) studied the effect of Pravachol compared to a placebo on two older populations. There were no differences between the treatment and control groups in measures of total health impact, total mortality and total serious adverse events. The only overall statistical difference was that the treatment group (those receiving Pravachol) had increased cancer.
The Japanese Lipid Intervention Trial (J-LIT, Matsuzki et al. 2002) was a six year study that followed 47,294 patients treated with Zocor. The participants were divided into three groups, those with no reduction in LDL levels, those with a moderate fall in LDL levels and those with a very-large reduction in LDL levels. There was no correlation between the amount of LDL lowering and death rate at five years. In fact, those with LDL lower than 80 had a death rate just over 3.5 at five years and those with LDL levels above 200 had a death rate of just over 3.5 at five years.
A meta-analysis of 44 trials involving almost 10,000 patients (Hecht and Marmon, 2003) found that the death rate was identical at 1 percent in each of three groups, those taking Lipitor, those taking other statin drugs and those taking nothing.
Another widely publicized meta-analysis (PROVE-IT, Cannon et al., 2004) conducted by researchers at Harvard Medical School was serious flawed because it did not include a control group. Rather it compared the effect of two statin drugs, Lipitor and Pravachol. While those taking Lipitor had a great reduction in LDL levels it is not possible to draw a conclusion about the overall health effect of statin drugs from this study.
If you are taking or are thinking about taking statin drug please read http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html. They review some of the same research (and others) and provide a very good explanation of the effects of statin drugs.
I'll be writing about some less expensive, less risky, and more effective approaches to reducing the risk of heart disease in my next post.
References
Schatz IJ and others. Lancet 2001 Aug 4;358:351-355.
Schwartz GG and others. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;285:1711-8.
The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. JAMA 2002;288:2998-3007.
Shepherd J and others. Lancet 2002;360:1623-1630.
The 20 year Honolulu Heart Program (Schatz, et al. 2001) report indicated that, “Our data accord with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases risk of death. Thus, the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death.” Yes, you read that right. They report that low cholesterol levels increase the risk of death. Their report also states that “Those individuals with a low serum cholesterol maintained over a 20-year period will have the worst outlook for all-cause mortality.” I’ll write more about the cholesterol hypothesis in my next blog so come back for more.
The 2001 study “aptly” named MIRACL (Schwartz, et al, 2001) followed 3,086 patients in hospital after angina or non-fatal MI for 16 weeks to test the effect of Lipitor. This study found that the only significant difference between the control group and the group receiving 80 mg/day of Lipitor was a significant reduction in chest pain requiring rehospitalization. There was no significant difference in re-infarction rate or the need for resuscitation from cardiac arrest.
One of the largest North American cholesterol-lowering trials was ALLHAT (2002) which used data from 10,000 participants over a 4-year period. Of the 5,170 participants that received Lipitor, 28 percent showed a reduction in cholesterol levels. The other 5,185 participants used a “usual care” protocol of maintaining proper body weight, no smoking, and regular exercise. Guess what? Both groups showed the same rates of death, heart disease, and heart attack. The mortality rates of the treatment and control groups were identical after three and six years.
PROSPER (Shepherd, et al. 2002) studied the effect of Pravachol compared to a placebo on two older populations. There were no differences between the treatment and control groups in measures of total health impact, total mortality and total serious adverse events. The only overall statistical difference was that the treatment group (those receiving Pravachol) had increased cancer.
The Japanese Lipid Intervention Trial (J-LIT, Matsuzki et al. 2002) was a six year study that followed 47,294 patients treated with Zocor. The participants were divided into three groups, those with no reduction in LDL levels, those with a moderate fall in LDL levels and those with a very-large reduction in LDL levels. There was no correlation between the amount of LDL lowering and death rate at five years. In fact, those with LDL lower than 80 had a death rate just over 3.5 at five years and those with LDL levels above 200 had a death rate of just over 3.5 at five years.
A meta-analysis of 44 trials involving almost 10,000 patients (Hecht and Marmon, 2003) found that the death rate was identical at 1 percent in each of three groups, those taking Lipitor, those taking other statin drugs and those taking nothing.
Another widely publicized meta-analysis (PROVE-IT, Cannon et al., 2004) conducted by researchers at Harvard Medical School was serious flawed because it did not include a control group. Rather it compared the effect of two statin drugs, Lipitor and Pravachol. While those taking Lipitor had a great reduction in LDL levels it is not possible to draw a conclusion about the overall health effect of statin drugs from this study.
If you are taking or are thinking about taking statin drug please read http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html. They review some of the same research (and others) and provide a very good explanation of the effects of statin drugs.
I'll be writing about some less expensive, less risky, and more effective approaches to reducing the risk of heart disease in my next post.
References
Schatz IJ and others. Lancet 2001 Aug 4;358:351-355.
Schwartz GG and others. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;285:1711-8.
The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. JAMA 2002;288:2998-3007.
Shepherd J and others. Lancet 2002;360:1623-1630.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Give your Heart a Gift . . . Lose the Excess Pounds
A long-term study conducted in Sweden and recently published in the British Medical Journal suggests that overweight individuals, and not just those who were obese, may also be subjected to increased risk of premature death. The study also suggested that the adverse effects of excess weight on mortality may be as significant as smoking cigarettes.
The study was conducted using data from Sweden's military service conscription register, census, and and cause of death register. 45,920 men were tracked for a period of 38 years. The average age of the men at the start of the study was 18.7 years. Over the course of the 38 year study 2,897 of the men died.
For the study, overweight men were defined as those with a body mass index (BMI) between 25.0 and 29.9. Obese men were defined as those with a BMI of 30.0 or more. The normal BMI for a health male was defined as ranging between 18.5 and 24.9.
After accounting for age, socioeconomic status, muscle strength and smoking, the researchers found that men who were overweight during adolescence when they joined the Swedish military in 1969 and 1970 had a 33% higher rate of mortality during the study period, as compared with their counterparts in the normal weight range. Obese men had an even higher risk, 114% elevated likelihood of death during the period. Similar relative mortality rates were obtained when smokers and non-smokers were analyzed separately. It appears that being overweight carries the same risk as that of smoking.
Smoking and excess weight combined appear to be a catastrophic lifestyle choice. Overweight heavy smokers demonstrated a mortality risk 155% higher than that of normal BMI nonsmokers. Obese heavy smokers suffered the worst, having a mortality risk that was 4.74 times higher than that of normal weight non-smokers.
Source:
Neovius M et al. Combined effects of overweight and smoking in late adolescence on subsequent mortality: nationwide cohort study. British Medical Journal 2009;338:b496.
The study was conducted using data from Sweden's military service conscription register, census, and and cause of death register. 45,920 men were tracked for a period of 38 years. The average age of the men at the start of the study was 18.7 years. Over the course of the 38 year study 2,897 of the men died.
For the study, overweight men were defined as those with a body mass index (BMI) between 25.0 and 29.9. Obese men were defined as those with a BMI of 30.0 or more. The normal BMI for a health male was defined as ranging between 18.5 and 24.9.
After accounting for age, socioeconomic status, muscle strength and smoking, the researchers found that men who were overweight during adolescence when they joined the Swedish military in 1969 and 1970 had a 33% higher rate of mortality during the study period, as compared with their counterparts in the normal weight range. Obese men had an even higher risk, 114% elevated likelihood of death during the period. Similar relative mortality rates were obtained when smokers and non-smokers were analyzed separately. It appears that being overweight carries the same risk as that of smoking.
Smoking and excess weight combined appear to be a catastrophic lifestyle choice. Overweight heavy smokers demonstrated a mortality risk 155% higher than that of normal BMI nonsmokers. Obese heavy smokers suffered the worst, having a mortality risk that was 4.74 times higher than that of normal weight non-smokers.
Source:
Neovius M et al. Combined effects of overweight and smoking in late adolescence on subsequent mortality: nationwide cohort study. British Medical Journal 2009;338:b496.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)