Once again, another drug recall.
Pfizer has just announced it is recalling 19000 bottles of Lipitor tablets, the worlds best selling drug.
It turns out a chemical which is on the wooden pallets the drugs are stored on is leaching through and when people open up the bottles, they notice a musty odor.
This same chemical odor was responsible for the Tylenol and other recalls earlier this year.
...And back to Lipitor, so far in 2010 there have been four different recalls totaling 388,000 bottles...AND THIS IS THE WORLDS BEST SELLING DRUG.
This is the job our government and FDA does in ensuring safe medicine creating, distribution and utilization...should we really be trusting them to be able to manage over 80% of our nations food production?
I think its time we make it a point to get healthier, educate ourselves and become less reliant on long term need of medications, and while looking to the future, make plans for effective food production at home...if its not about the escalating prices, recalls and back-orders we can expect for foods (just look at pharmaceuticals), then it is a must for our health.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
What The S 510 Food Modernization Act Might Mean To You
Do we really need our food to be modernized?
I can certainly say I am not excited about the passing of this bill, I do not believe there is a need for it, nor do I believe it will provide a benefit to our society, and more importantly will result declining health, increasing food shortages, as well as increasing prices.
Have we not learned yet that the FDA can make bad decisions in what is deemed safe and effective through their approval of drugs and chemical food products such as artificial sweeteners like aspartame? Results speak for themself.
I think what we define as 'food' is constantly being diluted to more of a 'franken food' designation.
With CODEX constantly looming on the horizon, this food bill has been passed without any problem, which many believe will give control of all food product and supply into the hands of multi-national corporations.
Yes, the same corporations pushing genetically modified foods down our throats which if you look at the science (and not talking head propaganda and B.S.) one cannot honestly say are safe.
I am all for capitalism...in a fare and free trade. And one could guess this is about more than just the mighty dollar.
And what about the farmers? I live in an area ripe with family farms, and where they have undergone numerous challenges over the years...this is icing on the cake.
Looking ahead, I can only predict what we might be seeing.
Financial challenges for the family farms to continue to operate.
Shortages in foods on our grocery store shelves.
Increasing prices of foods at the check out.
Is this really what we need?
I'm just saying.
I can certainly say I am not excited about the passing of this bill, I do not believe there is a need for it, nor do I believe it will provide a benefit to our society, and more importantly will result declining health, increasing food shortages, as well as increasing prices.
Have we not learned yet that the FDA can make bad decisions in what is deemed safe and effective through their approval of drugs and chemical food products such as artificial sweeteners like aspartame? Results speak for themself.
I think what we define as 'food' is constantly being diluted to more of a 'franken food' designation.
With CODEX constantly looming on the horizon, this food bill has been passed without any problem, which many believe will give control of all food product and supply into the hands of multi-national corporations.
Yes, the same corporations pushing genetically modified foods down our throats which if you look at the science (and not talking head propaganda and B.S.) one cannot honestly say are safe.
I am all for capitalism...in a fare and free trade. And one could guess this is about more than just the mighty dollar.
And what about the farmers? I live in an area ripe with family farms, and where they have undergone numerous challenges over the years...this is icing on the cake.
Looking ahead, I can only predict what we might be seeing.
Financial challenges for the family farms to continue to operate.
Shortages in foods on our grocery store shelves.
Increasing prices of foods at the check out.
Is this really what we need?
I'm just saying.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Depression Screening Urged for Women With Depression Like Symptoms
Young women with a ‘menopause-like’ condition called primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) should be evaluated for depression, a new study suggests. Symptoms of POI include developing hot flashes, infertility, and what is now believed an increased risk for depression.
Primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) is a condition where women stop producing normal amounts of reproductive hormones, or produce them in an unbalanced fashion. POI can develop as early as the teens or 20s, according to the researchers, from the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
The investigators evaluated 174 women with POI and found that 67 percent either currently had depression or had been clinically depressed at least once in the past. That rate is more than twice the rate found among women in general, the researchers noted.
The finding was released online in advance of publication in an upcoming print issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
The important thing to recognize here is that all hormones work in symphony together; this is inclusive of reproductive hormones such as estrogen and progesterone, as well as thyroid.
Symptoms of what is called estrogen dominance, where a person might have excess estrogen and/or deficient progesterone levels, include depression. Efficient progesterone utilization has a direct effect on the health of thyroid as well.
What doctors should do, however, was made clear by the study, according to one of the study's senior authors, Dr. Lawrence M. Nelson, head of integrative and reproductive medicine at the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
"Because of the strong association with depression, our results indicate all women diagnosed with POI should be thoroughly evaluated for depression," Nelson said in an NIH news release.
In addition to that, we recommend to have a balanced hormonal, lifestyle, medication and diet assessment. There is a direct correlation to the foods that we eat, medications we take, exercise, levels of stress and how we manage it, and our hormone levels.
Primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) is a condition where women stop producing normal amounts of reproductive hormones, or produce them in an unbalanced fashion. POI can develop as early as the teens or 20s, according to the researchers, from the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
The investigators evaluated 174 women with POI and found that 67 percent either currently had depression or had been clinically depressed at least once in the past. That rate is more than twice the rate found among women in general, the researchers noted.
The finding was released online in advance of publication in an upcoming print issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.
The important thing to recognize here is that all hormones work in symphony together; this is inclusive of reproductive hormones such as estrogen and progesterone, as well as thyroid.
Symptoms of what is called estrogen dominance, where a person might have excess estrogen and/or deficient progesterone levels, include depression. Efficient progesterone utilization has a direct effect on the health of thyroid as well.
What doctors should do, however, was made clear by the study, according to one of the study's senior authors, Dr. Lawrence M. Nelson, head of integrative and reproductive medicine at the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
"Because of the strong association with depression, our results indicate all women diagnosed with POI should be thoroughly evaluated for depression," Nelson said in an NIH news release.
In addition to that, we recommend to have a balanced hormonal, lifestyle, medication and diet assessment. There is a direct correlation to the foods that we eat, medications we take, exercise, levels of stress and how we manage it, and our hormone levels.
Tummy Fat...A Threat To Women's Bones
We have heard that carrying extra fat around the middle may increase a woman's risk of heart disease and diabetes, new research suggests it also ups a woman's risk of developing osteoporosis.
In a study of 50 premenopausal women of various sizes, Harvard researchers found that women who had more fat around the abdomen were more likely to have lower bone mineral density, which can eventually lead to osteoporosis.
Historically we have looked at the ‘usual suspects’ and risk factors to osteopenia and osteoporosis including low estrogen (why we recommend to have your hormones adequately tested), deficient levels of calcium and vitamin D, certain medications which can lead to such nutritional depletions, a sedentary lifestyle and lack of weight bearing exercise, consuming too much alcohol and smoking.
What research is showing us is that all fat is not the same, and where it resides can provide unique challenges to health. “Tummy fat has a damaging effect on bone health," said the study's lead author, Dr. Miriam Bredella, a radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and an assistant professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Tummy fat is often representative of what is known as insulin resistance, the bodies’ inefficiency to balance insulin secretion and blood sugar balance, often due to dietary issues. The good thing is we can greatly affect this condition with changes to the diet and proper nutritional utilization.
Historically extra weight was previously believed to somewhat protect against bone loss, said Dr. Bredella. This belief was linked to extra weight is often associate with extra fat which produces estrogen, which can be beneficial to bone density, although in the right balance.
Where the fast was is what made the difference. Women who had more visceral fat, meaning fat around the mid-section, were more likely to have a lower bone mineral density. In addition, an association between visceral fat and the levels of bone marrow fat was noted.
"Being a healthy weight and trying to control visceral obesity is becoming important from so many different angles," Bredella stated. "You need to make lifestyle changes that focus on overall health and wellness, and exercise is very important for helping prevent osteoporosis and other illnesses. If you haven't been moving, just try to get out and go for a walk. Ideally, you'll work up to regular exercise, but get out and get some exercise," she advised.
In a study of 50 premenopausal women of various sizes, Harvard researchers found that women who had more fat around the abdomen were more likely to have lower bone mineral density, which can eventually lead to osteoporosis.
Historically we have looked at the ‘usual suspects’ and risk factors to osteopenia and osteoporosis including low estrogen (why we recommend to have your hormones adequately tested), deficient levels of calcium and vitamin D, certain medications which can lead to such nutritional depletions, a sedentary lifestyle and lack of weight bearing exercise, consuming too much alcohol and smoking.
What research is showing us is that all fat is not the same, and where it resides can provide unique challenges to health. “Tummy fat has a damaging effect on bone health," said the study's lead author, Dr. Miriam Bredella, a radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and an assistant professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Tummy fat is often representative of what is known as insulin resistance, the bodies’ inefficiency to balance insulin secretion and blood sugar balance, often due to dietary issues. The good thing is we can greatly affect this condition with changes to the diet and proper nutritional utilization.
Historically extra weight was previously believed to somewhat protect against bone loss, said Dr. Bredella. This belief was linked to extra weight is often associate with extra fat which produces estrogen, which can be beneficial to bone density, although in the right balance.
Where the fast was is what made the difference. Women who had more visceral fat, meaning fat around the mid-section, were more likely to have a lower bone mineral density. In addition, an association between visceral fat and the levels of bone marrow fat was noted.
"Being a healthy weight and trying to control visceral obesity is becoming important from so many different angles," Bredella stated. "You need to make lifestyle changes that focus on overall health and wellness, and exercise is very important for helping prevent osteoporosis and other illnesses. If you haven't been moving, just try to get out and go for a walk. Ideally, you'll work up to regular exercise, but get out and get some exercise," she advised.
Muffin Tops Affect Breast Cancer Risk
In an interesting finding in regards to breast cancer and body fat distribution, new research shows that there is an element that might not be sex hormone related.
Much of the information that you hear in regards to hormone mediated cancers points to estrogen as being a major culprit. To give you a simple example, estrogen makes tissue (and tumors) grow, progesterone directs the tissues to grow healthy and die healthy.
That is why we recommend to look at hormones with balance, assess properly and make the proper adjustments whether nutritionally and/or hormonally.
It turns out that researchers have just discovered that premenopausal women who carry excess fat around their abdomen or have a large waist relative to their hip size may face a higher risk for breast cancer that is estrogen receptor (ER)-negative. This excess fat distribution is usually a result of a condition called insulin resistance, basically the bodies’ inefficiency to balance insulin release and blood sugar management, often as a result of diet.
The research team noted that such body fat distribution was linked more strongly to the risk for developing this particular type of cancer than it was to a risk for ER-positive breast cancer.
Estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer means that the cancer lacks receptors for the female hormone estrogen, so the hormone does not stimulate the cancer to grow.
The research team led by Holly R. Harris of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and her colleagues focused on data from more than 116,000 women who had been enrolled in the Nurses Health Study II since 1989, including waist and hip circumference, recorded in 1993.
The fact that ER-negative breast cancer was more strongly linked to abdominal fat and the waist-hip ratio than ER-positive breast cancer suggests, according to the researchers, that the means by which body fat distribution influences cancer risk sidesteps sex-hormone pathways.
The findings "may suggest that an insulin-related pathway" related to abdominal fat is involved in the development of premenopausal breast cancer, the researchers concluded.
For more information on how diet and excess fat and weight gain can affect your health, contact us here at Longevity league.com
Much of the information that you hear in regards to hormone mediated cancers points to estrogen as being a major culprit. To give you a simple example, estrogen makes tissue (and tumors) grow, progesterone directs the tissues to grow healthy and die healthy.
That is why we recommend to look at hormones with balance, assess properly and make the proper adjustments whether nutritionally and/or hormonally.
It turns out that researchers have just discovered that premenopausal women who carry excess fat around their abdomen or have a large waist relative to their hip size may face a higher risk for breast cancer that is estrogen receptor (ER)-negative. This excess fat distribution is usually a result of a condition called insulin resistance, basically the bodies’ inefficiency to balance insulin release and blood sugar management, often as a result of diet.
The research team noted that such body fat distribution was linked more strongly to the risk for developing this particular type of cancer than it was to a risk for ER-positive breast cancer.
Estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer means that the cancer lacks receptors for the female hormone estrogen, so the hormone does not stimulate the cancer to grow.
The research team led by Holly R. Harris of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and her colleagues focused on data from more than 116,000 women who had been enrolled in the Nurses Health Study II since 1989, including waist and hip circumference, recorded in 1993.
The fact that ER-negative breast cancer was more strongly linked to abdominal fat and the waist-hip ratio than ER-positive breast cancer suggests, according to the researchers, that the means by which body fat distribution influences cancer risk sidesteps sex-hormone pathways.
The findings "may suggest that an insulin-related pathway" related to abdominal fat is involved in the development of premenopausal breast cancer, the researchers concluded.
For more information on how diet and excess fat and weight gain can affect your health, contact us here at Longevity league.com
What I Think About Resolutions
Well, here we are, right in the middle of “The Week”; the time between Christmas and New Years which means a lot of different things for people.
This week seems the perfect time to take unused vacations from the previous year. Some will spend it traveling, other’s hanging out at home, decompressing from the previous year (and holiday stress), while others will finally be getting around to knocking out that to-do list.
Then there are those tying up the loose ends of 2010, getting ready for 2011 to come rolling around.
Have you made your resolutions for this year?
What if I was to ask you not to? Well, maybe just one very special resolution.
I have always thought that New Years’ Resolutions come with a bunch of added pressure. And the fact of the matter is that in some ways they have gained acceptance of not being completed, like its ok. We just kind of make them…just to make them I guess.
Case in point. Have you ever been a member of a gym or athletic club? Have you ever noticed how busy things are the first few weeks of January, and then by month’s end things fall back to normal. That is the result of ‘Resolution Apathy’…the excitement builds for a few weeks and then, Wham! Life happens again.
Remember last week how I talked about the snowball effect that starts as multiple goals are attained? That’s why I feel creating goals regularly throughout the year is a much better option than basing your whole years success on grandiose resolutions.
So I did say I would like you to make one resolution though, and it will be the same one that I would wish you to make next year, and the following year.
Ready? “2011 Will Be The Year of YOU”
Now, I cannot say this is original. Actually, remember the T.V. show friends? Well, Joey declared 1999 to be “The Year of Joey”, and I think that’s a great idea.
As you know our job here at www.longevityleague.com is to provide you the support in attaining your health goals and allowing that to be a catalyst to achieving many more goals in your life. So I would like to share with you 3 tips to make 2011 your best year yet.
Goal number one is actually, to set a goal. See yourself attaining this goal, keep it in your vision…visit it throughout the day.
Goal number two is to log your results. In wellness consulting practice this is a tool which we implement with our clients. This is a tremendously effective to not only see how much closer to your goal you are getting, but in issues of increased goal resistance, will allow you to identify factors which might be holding you back.
Goal number three is to surround yourself with like-minded individuals who have similar goals. It has been proven that greater result’s can come from the ‘buddy-system’, and it’s more than just being about support. Have you heard the saying that you become the average of the five people you spend most of your time with? It’s like osmosis, something happens when you not only share the motivation, but when you see successful results in others and they see it in you-it’s that snowball effect again.
Are you ready to make 2011 your healthiest year yet? Contact us here at longevityleague.com
info@longevityleague.com
This week seems the perfect time to take unused vacations from the previous year. Some will spend it traveling, other’s hanging out at home, decompressing from the previous year (and holiday stress), while others will finally be getting around to knocking out that to-do list.
Then there are those tying up the loose ends of 2010, getting ready for 2011 to come rolling around.
Have you made your resolutions for this year?
What if I was to ask you not to? Well, maybe just one very special resolution.
I have always thought that New Years’ Resolutions come with a bunch of added pressure. And the fact of the matter is that in some ways they have gained acceptance of not being completed, like its ok. We just kind of make them…just to make them I guess.
Case in point. Have you ever been a member of a gym or athletic club? Have you ever noticed how busy things are the first few weeks of January, and then by month’s end things fall back to normal. That is the result of ‘Resolution Apathy’…the excitement builds for a few weeks and then, Wham! Life happens again.
Remember last week how I talked about the snowball effect that starts as multiple goals are attained? That’s why I feel creating goals regularly throughout the year is a much better option than basing your whole years success on grandiose resolutions.
So I did say I would like you to make one resolution though, and it will be the same one that I would wish you to make next year, and the following year.
Ready? “2011 Will Be The Year of YOU”
Now, I cannot say this is original. Actually, remember the T.V. show friends? Well, Joey declared 1999 to be “The Year of Joey”, and I think that’s a great idea.
As you know our job here at www.longevityleague.com is to provide you the support in attaining your health goals and allowing that to be a catalyst to achieving many more goals in your life. So I would like to share with you 3 tips to make 2011 your best year yet.
Goal number one is actually, to set a goal. See yourself attaining this goal, keep it in your vision…visit it throughout the day.
Goal number two is to log your results. In wellness consulting practice this is a tool which we implement with our clients. This is a tremendously effective to not only see how much closer to your goal you are getting, but in issues of increased goal resistance, will allow you to identify factors which might be holding you back.
Goal number three is to surround yourself with like-minded individuals who have similar goals. It has been proven that greater result’s can come from the ‘buddy-system’, and it’s more than just being about support. Have you heard the saying that you become the average of the five people you spend most of your time with? It’s like osmosis, something happens when you not only share the motivation, but when you see successful results in others and they see it in you-it’s that snowball effect again.
Are you ready to make 2011 your healthiest year yet? Contact us here at longevityleague.com
info@longevityleague.com
Thursday, December 2, 2010
What Every Patient Needs To Know About Vitamin D
A Government Not For The People, But For The Corporations
What Every Patient Now Needs To Know About Vitamin D
I was recently discouraged by the report that was released by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). It turns out that the United States and Canadian Government enlisted the IOM to assess the need and nutritional requirements of Vitamin D.
First, a little bit about the IOM. The IOM website says that the The Institute of Medicine (IOM) acts as an independent, nonprofit organization that works outside of government to provide unbiased and authoritative advice to decision makers and the public. Established in 1970, the IOM is the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences.
The national Academy of Sciences (NAS) was established by an Act of Congress that was signed by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, which calls upon the NAS to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" whenever called upon to do so by any department of the government.
Keep in mind the IOM’s history and lineage; I feel it is safe to say that it is not necessarily independent, acting outside of government. In fact, one might feel safe to say that the IOM is actually overseen by Congress, which is heavily subsidized by the pharmaceutical industry.
Why does this matter?
There is an overwhelming amount of research and evidence, contrary to the IOM’s report saying Vitamin D is only good for bone health, linking Vitamin D deficiency to heart disease, stroke, depression, hypertension, auto-immune disease, arthritis, osteoporosis, diabetes, and even cancer.
And not to go down the roads of conspiracy, but the pharmaceutical industry makes a lot of money on medications that “treat the diseases” above. The pharmaceutical industry could stand to lose a lot of money, if something so beneficial with such a proven safety record and so cheap can make even a minor dent in the above conditions.
The committee within the IOM even went as far as to say that supplementing with Vitamin D could be harmful. There are several studies in fact proving the safety level of much higher levels of Vitamin D than the IOM recommends.
Scientists at The Grassroots Health (www.grassrootshealth.net) consist of a panel of 41 expert vitamin D researchers and medical practitioners who maintain their position based on the evidence that they see that the serum level should be between 40-60 ng/ml (100-150 nmol/L), which equates to their recommendations of 600 IU/day with an upper limit of 4000 IU/day.
“There is an impressive body of scientific evidence supporting levels higher than the IOM panel is currently recommending, and for reasons that are not entirely clear, the panel has discounted that evidence. The public needs to know that that evidence exists so that they can make up their own minds. It's helpful in making those decisions, to know that intakes higher than the IOM recommends are safe. For me, that makes the decision easy. Even if the evidence for a higher intake were uncertain (and I don't believe it is), intakes 2-5 times the IOM recommendations would carry a good chance for benefit at essentially no cost and no risk.
I believe that the presumption of adequacy should rest with vitamin D intakes needed to achieve the serum 25(OH)D values (i.e., 40-60 ng/mL) that prevailed during the evolution of human physiology" Robert P. Heaney, MD, John A. Creighton University Professor, Creighton University.
What should you do?
Have your levels measured, find your baseline and speak to a health care practitioner on what options are best for you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)