Watch Uncovers New FDA Records Detailing 10 New Deaths & 140 "Serious" Adverse Events Related to Gardasil
Market Wire
30 June 2008
Watchdog Publishes New Special Report Examining 8,864 Adverse Event Reports Detailing Safety Concerns
WASHINGTON, DC -- (MARKET WIRE) -- Jun 30, 2008 -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released a report based on new documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. The adverse reactions include 10 deaths since September, 2007. (The total number of death reports is at least 18 and as many as 20.) The FDA also produced 140 "serious" reports (27 of which were categorized as "life threatening"), 10 spontaneous abortions and six cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome -- all since January 2008. Adverse reports excerpts include:
-- Information has been received... concerning a 20 year old female with
no medical history reported, who on 01-APR-2008 was vaccinated with a dose
of Gardasil... The patient died four days after... patient sought
unspecified medical attention. An autopsy was performed which ruled out
suicide and anything suspicious. The cause of death is currently unknown.
VAERS ID: 310262-1 (D)
-- Information has been received... concerning a 23-year-old female...
who on 31-JAN-2008 was vaccinated with her 1st dose of Gardasil... the
patient experienced anaphylactic shock 2 minutes after vaccination
characterized by a brief loss of consciousness... respiratory arrest, eyes
rolled upwards, blurred vision and greyish skin tone... Anaphylactic shock
was considered to be immediately life-threatening. VAERS ID: 304739-1 (S)
-- Cold sweat, Fall, Foaming at mouth, Grand mal convulsion, Immediate
post-injection reaction... Pt [patient, 14-year-old female] received
vaccine, took 6 steps, fell to the ground unconscious and had a 60 sec
grand mal seizure then regained consciousness. [Blood pressure] after
seizure 60/40 pale clammy skin. [Patient] had bit her tongue and had foam
around her mouth. VAERS ID: 305259-1 (S)
-- Information has been received from a physician concerning a female
patient who on an unknown date was vaccinated with a dose of Gardasil.
Subsequently, the patient experienced a coma and is now paralyzed. At the
time of this report, the patient's outcome was unknown. VAERS ID: 303188-1
"Given all the questions about Gardasil, the best public health policy would be to reevaluate its safety and to prohibit its distribution to minors. In the least, governments should rethink any efforts to mandate or promote this vaccine for children," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Judicial Watch had previously obtained 3,461 reports relating to Gardasil. On June 10, 2008, Judicial Watch received a compact disk from the FDA with a new total of 8,864 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) records. These documents and the new Judicial Watch report, titled "Examining the FDA's HPV Vaccine Records: Detailing the Approval Process, Side-Effects, Safety Concerns & Marketing Practices of a Large Scale Health Experiment," are available at www.judicialwatch.org .
Friday, July 11, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Cooking for Pets
Furry Friend Fare: Rethink the way you feed four-legged family members
By Kelli Rosen, Alternative Medicine, November 2007
Anyone who loves an animal was shaken to the core last spring when news broke of an unprecedented case of pet-food contamination. Turns out, batches of wheat gluten from China that had been used to make kibble and stews for dogs and cats contained melamine, a substance most commonly used as an industrial binding agent or flame retardant. Animals who ate enough of the tainted food suffered kidney failure. The FDA received more than 10,000 complaints of illness, and although the official death toll stands at just 16, other news agencies estimate the actual number is much higher.
Following the recall, many pet owners became leery of processed foods and decided to take matters—or rather, meals—into their own hands. “The number of my clients now cooking for their animals has doubled since the recall,” says Grant Nixon, DVM, a Summerland, British Columbia-based veterinarian and co-author of Better Food for Dogs (Robert Rose, 2002).
But according to Korinn E. Saker, DVM, a clinical veterinary nutritionist at North Carolina State University, interest in homemade pet food has actually been on the rise for about the last five years. “Pets are now considered part of the family, like children, and their guardians want to cook for them as a bonding experience, as a way to improve their quality of life,” she says. Taking the leap to homemade doesn’t have to be a difficult one, as long as you do your homework and get organized.
Cooking for Fido
Make the meal. When you’re whipping up dinner for your pup, you must first figure out which ingredients to combine. “Dogs are omnivores,” says Saker, “so about two-thirds of their calories should come from carbohydrates and the other one-third should be protein.” To calculate daily caloric requirements, seek the advice of your vet because the amount varies according to size, breed, age, and level of activity. To make the task of home cooking a little less intimidating—and less time consuming—David Bastin, another co-author of Better Food for Dogs, suggests cooking for dogs what you would eat yourself and leave out any table scraps such as fats, gravies, and poultry skins because they can cause major stomach irritation. “A good general rule to keep in mind is if you wouldn’t eat it, then you shouldn’t give it to your dog,” he says.
Add the supplements. Dogs are active beings, so in addition to human-grade ingredients, they usually require supplements. Shawn Messonnier, DVM, a veterinarian in Plano, Texas, and author of Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats (Prima Publishing, 2001), suggests working with a holistic veterinarian to determine supplemental requirements for your particular breed of dog, as well as proper dosages, which should be based on the weight and special needs of the animal. “You can create nutritional deficiencies if you don’t give them enough of what they need,” he says, “and if you give them too much, it could be toxic.”
Messonnier recommends Pet-Together’s Vim & Vigor for a basic vitamin and mineral boost. The supplement also contains colostrum for a healthy immune system; coenzyme Q10, an antioxidant that also supports the immune system as well as healthy teeth and gums; enzymes for improved digestion and absorption; glucosamine for healthy joint function; and Siberian ginseng to help your pet adapt to stressors. In his practice, Messonnier prescribes this basic supplement to most pets and then adds other therapies depending on individual needs.
Know what to avoid.When preparing food for your dog, remember that certain foods you consider healthy for your family can be deadly for your animals. Most folks know to avoid chocolate, but Messonnier says to stay away from onions, large amounts of garlic, grapes, and raisins as well. He also suggests watching for any other ingredients that may upset your dog’s digestive system and then avoiding those in future recipes. “That’s just a matter of trial and error,” he says.
Cooking for Fluffy
Make the meal. When it comes to cats, calculate the number of calories they require in a day. According to Messonnier, adult felines need roughly 70 to 80 kcal/kg (1 kg equals 2.2 pounds) of body weight each day. So for example, a 10-pound adult indoor cat requires approximately 300 kcal of energy a day, and an equal-size outdoor cat needs about 360 kcal. A 5-pound kitten on the other hand, requires about the same amount of energy a day as an indoor adult cat. To calculate the specific needs for your feline, consult your vet.
The homemade recipes you choose should contain many different ingredients, especially if you’re feeding a kitten. “Cats aren’t naturally finicky, they’re made that way,” says Messonnier. “Taste preferences are generally set by six months of age, so I strongly recommend offering kittens a variety of ingredients and flavors in their diets.”But whatever you decide to dish up for kitty, be sure to include the proper portion of meat or fish. “Cats are strict carnivores,” says Messonnier, “and a totally vegetarian diet will result in nutritional deficiencies.” Saker recommends getting roughly two-thirds of your cat’s daily calories from animal protein sources and one-third from carbohydrates.
Add the supplements. Although not the most active of animals, felines still need balanced meals. Messonnier recommends a natural source of bonemeal or calcium and phosphorous purchased from reputable supplements manufacturers, along with a vitamin and mineral boost such as Vim & Vigor. Other beneficial supplements for your cat, he says, include omega-3 fatty acids and plant enzymes. Dosage specifics vary depending on size and needs of the animal, so consult a holistic veterinarian for guidance.
Know what to avoid.Like dogs, cats should also steer clear of onions, large amounts of garlic, grapes, and raisins, as well as anything else that causes tummy upset.
Tail-wagging rewards
There’s no denying that cooking for your animal means more work for you. “People are very busy,” says Nixon, “and it’s tough to fit this in.” He suggests setting up a plan to make food in advance—and, like Bastin, he says not to feed your cat anything you wouldn’t eat. He also recommends freezing portions, so you’ll have something to use in a pinch or when the rest of the family decides to dine out.
If cooking every meal for your animal just isn’t possible, Messonnier suggests combining homemade food with processed food from a reputable holistic manufacturer (see “Trustworthy Pet Foods” below).“Whatever is easy for the owner and if the pet likes it, I’m all for it,” he says, adding that few companies—Nature’s Variety, for example—offer complete frozen homemade diets. “They’ve done all the work for you and the food’s already balanced,” he says.
Making the switch from dry kibble to homemade meals will add yet another chore to your already chock-full to-do list, but the rewards can make the effort worthwhile. In addition to peace of mind for you—because now you know where your pet’s food comes from—feeding your animals fresher, well-balanced food offers very real health benefits. “They will have more energy, their coats will be nicer, and there may also be subtle changes in allergic skin issues and ear problems,” says Nixon. “Think about how much better you feel when you eat healthy, and it really is relatively easy once you get into the routine. It’s kind of like having another child to feed.”
Trustworthy Pet Foods
Blue Buffalo
Canidae and Felidae
Castor & Pollux Organix
Country Pet Natural
Evanger’s
Healthy Pet Foods
Halo, Purely for Pets
Natura (Innova, California Natural, and Healthwise)
Nature’s Recipe
Natural Life Pet Products
Newman's Own Organics
Pet Guard
Pet Promise
Steve’s Real Food
Wellness / Old Mother Hubbard
Wysong
By Kelli Rosen, Alternative Medicine, November 2007
Anyone who loves an animal was shaken to the core last spring when news broke of an unprecedented case of pet-food contamination. Turns out, batches of wheat gluten from China that had been used to make kibble and stews for dogs and cats contained melamine, a substance most commonly used as an industrial binding agent or flame retardant. Animals who ate enough of the tainted food suffered kidney failure. The FDA received more than 10,000 complaints of illness, and although the official death toll stands at just 16, other news agencies estimate the actual number is much higher.
Following the recall, many pet owners became leery of processed foods and decided to take matters—or rather, meals—into their own hands. “The number of my clients now cooking for their animals has doubled since the recall,” says Grant Nixon, DVM, a Summerland, British Columbia-based veterinarian and co-author of Better Food for Dogs (Robert Rose, 2002).
But according to Korinn E. Saker, DVM, a clinical veterinary nutritionist at North Carolina State University, interest in homemade pet food has actually been on the rise for about the last five years. “Pets are now considered part of the family, like children, and their guardians want to cook for them as a bonding experience, as a way to improve their quality of life,” she says. Taking the leap to homemade doesn’t have to be a difficult one, as long as you do your homework and get organized.
Cooking for Fido
Make the meal. When you’re whipping up dinner for your pup, you must first figure out which ingredients to combine. “Dogs are omnivores,” says Saker, “so about two-thirds of their calories should come from carbohydrates and the other one-third should be protein.” To calculate daily caloric requirements, seek the advice of your vet because the amount varies according to size, breed, age, and level of activity. To make the task of home cooking a little less intimidating—and less time consuming—David Bastin, another co-author of Better Food for Dogs, suggests cooking for dogs what you would eat yourself and leave out any table scraps such as fats, gravies, and poultry skins because they can cause major stomach irritation. “A good general rule to keep in mind is if you wouldn’t eat it, then you shouldn’t give it to your dog,” he says.
Add the supplements. Dogs are active beings, so in addition to human-grade ingredients, they usually require supplements. Shawn Messonnier, DVM, a veterinarian in Plano, Texas, and author of Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats (Prima Publishing, 2001), suggests working with a holistic veterinarian to determine supplemental requirements for your particular breed of dog, as well as proper dosages, which should be based on the weight and special needs of the animal. “You can create nutritional deficiencies if you don’t give them enough of what they need,” he says, “and if you give them too much, it could be toxic.”
Messonnier recommends Pet-Together’s Vim & Vigor for a basic vitamin and mineral boost. The supplement also contains colostrum for a healthy immune system; coenzyme Q10, an antioxidant that also supports the immune system as well as healthy teeth and gums; enzymes for improved digestion and absorption; glucosamine for healthy joint function; and Siberian ginseng to help your pet adapt to stressors. In his practice, Messonnier prescribes this basic supplement to most pets and then adds other therapies depending on individual needs.
Know what to avoid.When preparing food for your dog, remember that certain foods you consider healthy for your family can be deadly for your animals. Most folks know to avoid chocolate, but Messonnier says to stay away from onions, large amounts of garlic, grapes, and raisins as well. He also suggests watching for any other ingredients that may upset your dog’s digestive system and then avoiding those in future recipes. “That’s just a matter of trial and error,” he says.
Cooking for Fluffy
Make the meal. When it comes to cats, calculate the number of calories they require in a day. According to Messonnier, adult felines need roughly 70 to 80 kcal/kg (1 kg equals 2.2 pounds) of body weight each day. So for example, a 10-pound adult indoor cat requires approximately 300 kcal of energy a day, and an equal-size outdoor cat needs about 360 kcal. A 5-pound kitten on the other hand, requires about the same amount of energy a day as an indoor adult cat. To calculate the specific needs for your feline, consult your vet.
The homemade recipes you choose should contain many different ingredients, especially if you’re feeding a kitten. “Cats aren’t naturally finicky, they’re made that way,” says Messonnier. “Taste preferences are generally set by six months of age, so I strongly recommend offering kittens a variety of ingredients and flavors in their diets.”But whatever you decide to dish up for kitty, be sure to include the proper portion of meat or fish. “Cats are strict carnivores,” says Messonnier, “and a totally vegetarian diet will result in nutritional deficiencies.” Saker recommends getting roughly two-thirds of your cat’s daily calories from animal protein sources and one-third from carbohydrates.
Add the supplements. Although not the most active of animals, felines still need balanced meals. Messonnier recommends a natural source of bonemeal or calcium and phosphorous purchased from reputable supplements manufacturers, along with a vitamin and mineral boost such as Vim & Vigor. Other beneficial supplements for your cat, he says, include omega-3 fatty acids and plant enzymes. Dosage specifics vary depending on size and needs of the animal, so consult a holistic veterinarian for guidance.
Know what to avoid.Like dogs, cats should also steer clear of onions, large amounts of garlic, grapes, and raisins, as well as anything else that causes tummy upset.
Tail-wagging rewards
There’s no denying that cooking for your animal means more work for you. “People are very busy,” says Nixon, “and it’s tough to fit this in.” He suggests setting up a plan to make food in advance—and, like Bastin, he says not to feed your cat anything you wouldn’t eat. He also recommends freezing portions, so you’ll have something to use in a pinch or when the rest of the family decides to dine out.
If cooking every meal for your animal just isn’t possible, Messonnier suggests combining homemade food with processed food from a reputable holistic manufacturer (see “Trustworthy Pet Foods” below).“Whatever is easy for the owner and if the pet likes it, I’m all for it,” he says, adding that few companies—Nature’s Variety, for example—offer complete frozen homemade diets. “They’ve done all the work for you and the food’s already balanced,” he says.
Making the switch from dry kibble to homemade meals will add yet another chore to your already chock-full to-do list, but the rewards can make the effort worthwhile. In addition to peace of mind for you—because now you know where your pet’s food comes from—feeding your animals fresher, well-balanced food offers very real health benefits. “They will have more energy, their coats will be nicer, and there may also be subtle changes in allergic skin issues and ear problems,” says Nixon. “Think about how much better you feel when you eat healthy, and it really is relatively easy once you get into the routine. It’s kind of like having another child to feed.”
Trustworthy Pet Foods
Blue Buffalo
Canidae and Felidae
Castor & Pollux Organix
Country Pet Natural
Evanger’s
Healthy Pet Foods
Halo, Purely for Pets
Natura (Innova, California Natural, and Healthwise)
Nature’s Recipe
Natural Life Pet Products
Newman's Own Organics
Pet Guard
Pet Promise
Steve’s Real Food
Wellness / Old Mother Hubbard
Wysong
8 Drugs Doctors Won't Take
From MSN Health...
Doctors know which prescription and over-the-counter drugs are the most dangerous. The writers of this article asked them the question, "Which medications would you skip?" Here were their answers:
Advair
It's asthma medicine that can make your asthma deadly. Advair contains the long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) salmeterol. A 2006 analysis found that regular use of LABAs can increase the severity of an asthma attack. Researchers estimate that salmeterol may contribute to as many as 5,000 asthma-related deaths in the United States each year.
Avandia
Diabetes is destructive enough on its own, but if you try to control it with rosiglitazone, better known as Avandia, it could cause a heart attack. A study found that people who took rosiglitazone for at least a year increased their risk of heart failure or a heart attack by 109 percent and 42 percent, respectively.
Celebrex
This painkiller has been linked to increased risks of stomach bleeding, kidney trouble, and liver damage. And according to a 2005 study, people taking 200 mg of Celebrex twice a day more than doubled their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease. Those on 400 mg twice a day more than tripled their risk.
Ketek
This antibiotic, which has traditionally been prescribed for respiratory-tract infections, carries a high risk of severe liver side effects. In February 2007, the FDA limited the usage of Ketek to the treatment of pneumonia.
Prilosec and Nexium
The FDA has investigated a suspected link between cardiac trouble and these acid-reflux remedies, although they did not find a "likely" connection. But whether this is true or not, they can raise your risk of pneumonia, and result in an elevated risk of bone loss. The risk of a bone fracture has been estimated to be over 40 percent higher in patients who use these drugs long-term.
Visine Original
These eye drops “get the red out” by shrinking blood vessels. Overuse of the active ingredient tetrahydrozoline can perpetuate the vessel dilating-and-constricting cycle and may cause even more redness.
Pseudoephedrine
This decongestant, found in many drugs, can raise blood pressure and heart rate, setting the stage for vascular catastrophe. Over the years, pseudoephedrine has been linked to heart attacks and strokes, as well as worsening the symptoms of prostate disease and glaucoma.
Doctors know which prescription and over-the-counter drugs are the most dangerous. The writers of this article asked them the question, "Which medications would you skip?" Here were their answers:
Advair
It's asthma medicine that can make your asthma deadly. Advair contains the long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) salmeterol. A 2006 analysis found that regular use of LABAs can increase the severity of an asthma attack. Researchers estimate that salmeterol may contribute to as many as 5,000 asthma-related deaths in the United States each year.
Avandia
Diabetes is destructive enough on its own, but if you try to control it with rosiglitazone, better known as Avandia, it could cause a heart attack. A study found that people who took rosiglitazone for at least a year increased their risk of heart failure or a heart attack by 109 percent and 42 percent, respectively.
Celebrex
This painkiller has been linked to increased risks of stomach bleeding, kidney trouble, and liver damage. And according to a 2005 study, people taking 200 mg of Celebrex twice a day more than doubled their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease. Those on 400 mg twice a day more than tripled their risk.
Ketek
This antibiotic, which has traditionally been prescribed for respiratory-tract infections, carries a high risk of severe liver side effects. In February 2007, the FDA limited the usage of Ketek to the treatment of pneumonia.
Prilosec and Nexium
The FDA has investigated a suspected link between cardiac trouble and these acid-reflux remedies, although they did not find a "likely" connection. But whether this is true or not, they can raise your risk of pneumonia, and result in an elevated risk of bone loss. The risk of a bone fracture has been estimated to be over 40 percent higher in patients who use these drugs long-term.
Visine Original
These eye drops “get the red out” by shrinking blood vessels. Overuse of the active ingredient tetrahydrozoline can perpetuate the vessel dilating-and-constricting cycle and may cause even more redness.
Pseudoephedrine
This decongestant, found in many drugs, can raise blood pressure and heart rate, setting the stage for vascular catastrophe. Over the years, pseudoephedrine has been linked to heart attacks and strokes, as well as worsening the symptoms of prostate disease and glaucoma.
Monday, July 7, 2008
BACH FLOWER ESSENCES
By ALICIA SIRKIN, Alternative Medicine, September, 1999
Bach Flower Essence (BFE) is a type of non-invasive therapy that uses natural homeopathically-prepared liquids to gently shift negative emotions, attitudes, and personality traits into positive ones. They come in the form of liquids, dispensed from small 10 ml “stock concentrate” dropper bottles. They are taken internally by mouth, or externally on pulse points. They are non-toxic, non-addictive, have no side effects, and can be used without professional guidance.
There are 38 different single flower essences that can help not only people who not only feel overwhelmed, but also those who are depressed, angry, resentful, fearful, tired, lonely, or insecure. By combining up to seven essences at once, you can positively affect 211,000,000 states of mind! I have seen people feeling fearful utilize specific flower essences to enhance courage to face difficulties without fear; people who feel hopeless turn around and look optimistically into the future; and insecure people lose self-doubt and bolster their self- confidence. I worked with BFE for thirteen years, and their consistently effective results inspired me to become a practitioner.
The Origin of BFE
Dr. Edward Bach was a British physician, immunologist, bacteriologist, and searcher. A pioneer in the field of body/ mind medicine, he became dedicated to the discovery of a natural, safe, and gentle system of self-healing that dealt with the underlying causes of disease. His quest continued into the early 1930s, when he discovered the healing power of flowers.
Leaving his lucrative conventional medical practice on Harley Street in London, Dr. Bach spent years searching the countryside instill the plant’s healing attributes within the dewdrops. He would sit for hours studying a single plant learning all he could about its habits, form, and personality
Intuitively, he sensed that dewdrops from certain plants might contain specific healing properties of that plant. He hypothesized that the sun’s heat could activate and instill the plant’s healing attributes within the dewdrops.
He started by experimenting on himself. His senses were so highly developed that by simply holding the petal of a flower in his hand or placing it on his tongue, his body would feel the effects of the flower’s qualities. This formed the basis for his testing on others.
How does it work?
Although licensed health professionals have proven Bach
Flower Essences effective for nearly 70 years, no one knows how they actually work. Dr J. Herbert Fill, M.D., a psychiatrist and former New York City Commissioner of
Mental Health, has used flower essences almost exclusively over tranquilizers and psychotropic drugs. He suggests the essences may act upon neurotransmitters in the brain. Elisabeth Wiley, a psychotherapist and nationally- known BEE practitioner and educator, thinks that flower essence bio-energetic frequencies repair imbalances in the human energy field, No matter how the essences work, the results are undeniable.
Are the essences merely a “placebo”? Probably no more than other healing treatments, because animals and infants benefit as much as children and adults. In fact, animals and children are often particularly sensitive to the benefits of flower essences and commonly experience faster results.
Bach Flower Essences complement all other healing therapies. They even seem to make other modalities work better. The reason for this is that they work on the mental and emotional side of the problem while other modalities are working with the physical. Today, Bach Flower Essences are sold in 66 countries and have been accepted for sale by the FDA in the U.S.
Taking Bach Flower Essences Yourself
Life is continual change, but some periods are more abrupt and traumatic. If you are going through a difficult transition, you can easily use flower essences yourself to ease the process. Simply follow the standard “stock” bottle dosage and preparation instructions below. The international authority on the essences is the Bach Centre in England, where they originate. They recommend that the essences be used consistently a minimum of four times a day to achieve the desired results.
Since each of us is unique and may heal at different rates of speed, there is no definitive answer to the question “how long does it take to work.” Generally a person feels results within a number of days to several months. Older or longstanding emotional or mental issues may take even longer to resolve. As you are feeling better, you may increasingly forget to take them. This is your cue that they have done their work and you no longer need them.
Choose Each Flower Essences for states of mind, not to relieve physical symptoms or problems. Physical symptoms can often be eased when the emotional distress encircling physical problems is relieved—the body/mind connection at work!
Combining Essences
When there is a combination of feelings or states of mind, you can simply combine the appropriate flowers and take the resulting combination formula. It is possible to combine drops from as many as seven different essences into a new one-ounce dropper bottle, called a personal formula.
Since many of us lead complex lives, individualized combination personal formulas can be of great benefit. For example, if you were feeling sad, confused, guilty, resentful, overwhelmed, impatient, and hypercritical at the same time, you would combine the essences indicated for these emotional states within one bottle in order to get relief on many levels at once.
My clients often report that flower essences have become their “best friends” whenever distress occurs—a helping hand to restore tranquility I would have to agree.
Suggested reading:
The Back Flower Remedies: Step by Step
Judy Howard
Pocket Guide to Back Flower Essences
Rachelle Hasnas
The Bach Flower Remedies for Women
Judy Howard
Bach Flower Remedies for Men
Stefan Ball
Mastering Bach Flower Remedies
Dr. Edward Bach and Dr. F.J. Wheeler
The Twelve Healers and Other Remedies
Dr. Edward Bach
The Bach Flower Remedies: Illustrations and Preparations. Nora Weeks and Victor Bullen
Medical Discoveries of Edward Bach, Physician
Nora Weeks
Growing Up with the Bach Flower Remedies
Judy Howard
Heal Thyself
Dr. Edward Bach
Questions and Answers Explaining the Basic Principles and Standards of The Bach Flower Remedies
John Ramsell
Bach Flower Remedies to the Rescue
Gregory Vlamis
Introduction to the Benefits of the Bach Flower Remedies
Jane Evans
Illustrated Handbook of the Bach Flower Remedies
Philip Chancellor
Dictionary of The Bach Flower Remedies
T.W. Hyne Jones
Original Writings of Edward Bach
Judy Howard and John Ramsell
Bach Flower Essence (BFE) is a type of non-invasive therapy that uses natural homeopathically-prepared liquids to gently shift negative emotions, attitudes, and personality traits into positive ones. They come in the form of liquids, dispensed from small 10 ml “stock concentrate” dropper bottles. They are taken internally by mouth, or externally on pulse points. They are non-toxic, non-addictive, have no side effects, and can be used without professional guidance.
There are 38 different single flower essences that can help not only people who not only feel overwhelmed, but also those who are depressed, angry, resentful, fearful, tired, lonely, or insecure. By combining up to seven essences at once, you can positively affect 211,000,000 states of mind! I have seen people feeling fearful utilize specific flower essences to enhance courage to face difficulties without fear; people who feel hopeless turn around and look optimistically into the future; and insecure people lose self-doubt and bolster their self- confidence. I worked with BFE for thirteen years, and their consistently effective results inspired me to become a practitioner.
The Origin of BFE
Dr. Edward Bach was a British physician, immunologist, bacteriologist, and searcher. A pioneer in the field of body/ mind medicine, he became dedicated to the discovery of a natural, safe, and gentle system of self-healing that dealt with the underlying causes of disease. His quest continued into the early 1930s, when he discovered the healing power of flowers.
Leaving his lucrative conventional medical practice on Harley Street in London, Dr. Bach spent years searching the countryside instill the plant’s healing attributes within the dewdrops. He would sit for hours studying a single plant learning all he could about its habits, form, and personality
Intuitively, he sensed that dewdrops from certain plants might contain specific healing properties of that plant. He hypothesized that the sun’s heat could activate and instill the plant’s healing attributes within the dewdrops.
He started by experimenting on himself. His senses were so highly developed that by simply holding the petal of a flower in his hand or placing it on his tongue, his body would feel the effects of the flower’s qualities. This formed the basis for his testing on others.
How does it work?
Although licensed health professionals have proven Bach
Flower Essences effective for nearly 70 years, no one knows how they actually work. Dr J. Herbert Fill, M.D., a psychiatrist and former New York City Commissioner of
Mental Health, has used flower essences almost exclusively over tranquilizers and psychotropic drugs. He suggests the essences may act upon neurotransmitters in the brain. Elisabeth Wiley, a psychotherapist and nationally- known BEE practitioner and educator, thinks that flower essence bio-energetic frequencies repair imbalances in the human energy field, No matter how the essences work, the results are undeniable.
Are the essences merely a “placebo”? Probably no more than other healing treatments, because animals and infants benefit as much as children and adults. In fact, animals and children are often particularly sensitive to the benefits of flower essences and commonly experience faster results.
Bach Flower Essences complement all other healing therapies. They even seem to make other modalities work better. The reason for this is that they work on the mental and emotional side of the problem while other modalities are working with the physical. Today, Bach Flower Essences are sold in 66 countries and have been accepted for sale by the FDA in the U.S.
Taking Bach Flower Essences Yourself
Life is continual change, but some periods are more abrupt and traumatic. If you are going through a difficult transition, you can easily use flower essences yourself to ease the process. Simply follow the standard “stock” bottle dosage and preparation instructions below. The international authority on the essences is the Bach Centre in England, where they originate. They recommend that the essences be used consistently a minimum of four times a day to achieve the desired results.
Since each of us is unique and may heal at different rates of speed, there is no definitive answer to the question “how long does it take to work.” Generally a person feels results within a number of days to several months. Older or longstanding emotional or mental issues may take even longer to resolve. As you are feeling better, you may increasingly forget to take them. This is your cue that they have done their work and you no longer need them.
Choose Each Flower Essences for states of mind, not to relieve physical symptoms or problems. Physical symptoms can often be eased when the emotional distress encircling physical problems is relieved—the body/mind connection at work!
Combining Essences
When there is a combination of feelings or states of mind, you can simply combine the appropriate flowers and take the resulting combination formula. It is possible to combine drops from as many as seven different essences into a new one-ounce dropper bottle, called a personal formula.
Since many of us lead complex lives, individualized combination personal formulas can be of great benefit. For example, if you were feeling sad, confused, guilty, resentful, overwhelmed, impatient, and hypercritical at the same time, you would combine the essences indicated for these emotional states within one bottle in order to get relief on many levels at once.
My clients often report that flower essences have become their “best friends” whenever distress occurs—a helping hand to restore tranquility I would have to agree.
Suggested reading:
The Back Flower Remedies: Step by Step
Judy Howard
Pocket Guide to Back Flower Essences
Rachelle Hasnas
The Bach Flower Remedies for Women
Judy Howard
Bach Flower Remedies for Men
Stefan Ball
Mastering Bach Flower Remedies
Dr. Edward Bach and Dr. F.J. Wheeler
The Twelve Healers and Other Remedies
Dr. Edward Bach
The Bach Flower Remedies: Illustrations and Preparations. Nora Weeks and Victor Bullen
Medical Discoveries of Edward Bach, Physician
Nora Weeks
Growing Up with the Bach Flower Remedies
Judy Howard
Heal Thyself
Dr. Edward Bach
Questions and Answers Explaining the Basic Principles and Standards of The Bach Flower Remedies
John Ramsell
Bach Flower Remedies to the Rescue
Gregory Vlamis
Introduction to the Benefits of the Bach Flower Remedies
Jane Evans
Illustrated Handbook of the Bach Flower Remedies
Philip Chancellor
Dictionary of The Bach Flower Remedies
T.W. Hyne Jones
Original Writings of Edward Bach
Judy Howard and John Ramsell
The Marketing of Osteoporosis
By Bonnie C. Minsky, Conscious Choice
Most Americans are unaware that standard medical practice is often based on politics and medical industry pressures. Sadly, drug makers and companies that manufacture equipment to measure bone density have reached a full crescendo of politicking and putting financial interests first in the marketing of osteoporosis.
The true definition of osteoporosis is a "condition of fragile bones following a low impact fracture." Osteoporosis is indeed a health problem for many elderly women and even men. However, the majority of us should never need drugs to prevent or cure it. The new definition of "low bone density" came about in 1994 when the Dual Energy XRay Absorptiometry (DEXA) scan became commercially available to measure mineral content of bone. According to Gill Sanson, the author of The Osteoporosis Epidemic: Well Women and the Marketing of Fear, "The World Health Organization unit that was formed to redefine osteoporosis was funded by three drug companies that stood to make more money with the new definition."
The osteoporosis literature being poured into the media today is often misleading, inaccurate, and drug advertising in disguise. Despite contradictory evidence published in prestigious medical journals, the osteoporosis industry has convinced doctors and patients that osteoporosis has reached epidemic proportions and that immediate intervention with yearly diagnostic screenings and prescription drugs are necessary Dr. Mark Helfand, a member of the National Institutes of Health osteoporosis panel that met in March 2000 stated in a Washington Post article, "I think even people who agree that osteoporosis is a serious health problem can still say it is being hyped. It is hyped. Most of what you could do to prevent osteoporosis later in life has nothing to do with getting a test or taking a drug."
Following are some preventions and cures showing questionable results:
●In the 1970s, synthetic estrogen and progesterone (Premarin, Proven, and Prempro) were marketed for female vitality heart health, and osteoporosis prevention. By 2002, critical reports from other countries and our own Women's Health Initiative concluded that taking synthetic hormones after menopause was no longer recommended because the risks far outweigh the benefits.
.
● In the mid 198os, Wyeth Ayerst, the world's biggest producer of hormone replacement therapy (Bar), launched a promotional campaign to make osteoporosis a major women's health issue. The scare tactics worked. Women became fearful and willing to take HRT and anything else necessary to prevent the dreaded disease.
● In the early l980s, fluoride treatments were thought to restore bone loss. Bone density was somewhat increased with fluoride, but the bone produced was fragile and actually fractured more easily
●In the 1990S, the DEXA scan became the gold standard for measurement of bone loss and gain. However, the scan doesn't accurately predict bone fracture risk, bone strength, or rate of bone turnover. It relates only to quantity, not quality of bone. Urine testing for bone resorption should also be standard.
●Beginning in the late 1990s, bisphosphonate drugs (Fosomax) and selective estrogen receptive modulators (Evista) were advertised as non-hormonal methods for preventing and curing bone loss. These drugs may in- crease bone density but the new bone is more fragile. Minimal data for long- term safety unimpressive ability to reduce fracture rates, and up to a o percent increase in menopausal hot flashes make the bandwagon use of these drugs questionable.
●In 2000, the U.S. government published a one-size-fits-all recommendation of 1200-1500 milligrams of calcium and at least 400 international units of vitamin D to all post-menopausal women. To reach these levels, heavy promotion of milk by the dairy industry began. There is, however, no evidence to support bone health claims for cow's milk intake, according to a review of 57 studies published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In fact, large worldwide population studies show that countries consuming the most milk have some of the highest rates of osteoporosis. Poor choices of calcium supplements and excess calcium intake have also led to increased health problems including constipation, kidney stones, bone spurs, and calcification in artery walls.
Low bone density does not equal osteoporosis. It is rare for healthy women to fracture fragile buries. According to Christiane Northrup, M.D., a women's health expert, "When it comes to osteoporosis prevention in healthy women, we should heed the old adage, if it ain't broken, why fix it—especially when there are risks associated with the so-called repair process" A healthy, active body will be naturally resistant to fractures.
Most Americans are unaware that standard medical practice is often based on politics and medical industry pressures. Sadly, drug makers and companies that manufacture equipment to measure bone density have reached a full crescendo of politicking and putting financial interests first in the marketing of osteoporosis.
The true definition of osteoporosis is a "condition of fragile bones following a low impact fracture." Osteoporosis is indeed a health problem for many elderly women and even men. However, the majority of us should never need drugs to prevent or cure it. The new definition of "low bone density" came about in 1994 when the Dual Energy XRay Absorptiometry (DEXA) scan became commercially available to measure mineral content of bone. According to Gill Sanson, the author of The Osteoporosis Epidemic: Well Women and the Marketing of Fear, "The World Health Organization unit that was formed to redefine osteoporosis was funded by three drug companies that stood to make more money with the new definition."
The osteoporosis literature being poured into the media today is often misleading, inaccurate, and drug advertising in disguise. Despite contradictory evidence published in prestigious medical journals, the osteoporosis industry has convinced doctors and patients that osteoporosis has reached epidemic proportions and that immediate intervention with yearly diagnostic screenings and prescription drugs are necessary Dr. Mark Helfand, a member of the National Institutes of Health osteoporosis panel that met in March 2000 stated in a Washington Post article, "I think even people who agree that osteoporosis is a serious health problem can still say it is being hyped. It is hyped. Most of what you could do to prevent osteoporosis later in life has nothing to do with getting a test or taking a drug."
Following are some preventions and cures showing questionable results:
●In the 1970s, synthetic estrogen and progesterone (Premarin, Proven, and Prempro) were marketed for female vitality heart health, and osteoporosis prevention. By 2002, critical reports from other countries and our own Women's Health Initiative concluded that taking synthetic hormones after menopause was no longer recommended because the risks far outweigh the benefits.
.
● In the mid 198os, Wyeth Ayerst, the world's biggest producer of hormone replacement therapy (Bar), launched a promotional campaign to make osteoporosis a major women's health issue. The scare tactics worked. Women became fearful and willing to take HRT and anything else necessary to prevent the dreaded disease.
● In the early l980s, fluoride treatments were thought to restore bone loss. Bone density was somewhat increased with fluoride, but the bone produced was fragile and actually fractured more easily
●In the 1990S, the DEXA scan became the gold standard for measurement of bone loss and gain. However, the scan doesn't accurately predict bone fracture risk, bone strength, or rate of bone turnover. It relates only to quantity, not quality of bone. Urine testing for bone resorption should also be standard.
●Beginning in the late 1990s, bisphosphonate drugs (Fosomax) and selective estrogen receptive modulators (Evista) were advertised as non-hormonal methods for preventing and curing bone loss. These drugs may in- crease bone density but the new bone is more fragile. Minimal data for long- term safety unimpressive ability to reduce fracture rates, and up to a o percent increase in menopausal hot flashes make the bandwagon use of these drugs questionable.
●In 2000, the U.S. government published a one-size-fits-all recommendation of 1200-1500 milligrams of calcium and at least 400 international units of vitamin D to all post-menopausal women. To reach these levels, heavy promotion of milk by the dairy industry began. There is, however, no evidence to support bone health claims for cow's milk intake, according to a review of 57 studies published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In fact, large worldwide population studies show that countries consuming the most milk have some of the highest rates of osteoporosis. Poor choices of calcium supplements and excess calcium intake have also led to increased health problems including constipation, kidney stones, bone spurs, and calcification in artery walls.
Low bone density does not equal osteoporosis. It is rare for healthy women to fracture fragile buries. According to Christiane Northrup, M.D., a women's health expert, "When it comes to osteoporosis prevention in healthy women, we should heed the old adage, if it ain't broken, why fix it—especially when there are risks associated with the so-called repair process" A healthy, active body will be naturally resistant to fractures.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
12 Food Additives to Avoid
from MSN Health... I would have also added Splenda
1. Sodium Nitrate (also called Sodium Nitrite)
This is a preservative, coloring, and flavoring commonly added to bacon, ham, hot dogs, luncheon meats, smoked fish, and corned beef. Studies have linked eating it to various types of cancer.
2. BHA and BHT
Butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydrozyttoluene are used to preserve common household foods. They are found in cereals, chewing gum, potato chips, and vegetable oils. They are oxidants, which form potentially cancer-causing reactive compounds in your body.
3. Propyl Gallate
Another preservative, often used in conjunction with BHA and BHT. It is sometimes found in meat products, chicken soup base, and chewing gum. Animals studies have suggested that it could be linked to cancer.
4. Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)
MSG is an amino acid used as a flavor enhancer in soups, salad dressings, chips, frozen entrees, and restaurant food. It can cause headaches and nausea, and animal studies link it to damaged nerve cells in the brains of infant mice.
5. Trans Fats
Trans fats are proven to cause heart disease. Restaurant food, especially fast food chains, often serve foods laden with trans fats.
6. Aspartame
Aspartame, also known by the brand names Nutrasweet and Equal, is a sweetener found in so-called diet foods such as low-calorie desserts, gelatins, drink mixes, and soft drinks. It may cause cancer or neurological problems, such as dizziness or hallucinations.
7. Acesulfame-K
This is a relatively new artificial sweetener found in baked goods, chewing gum, and gelatin desserts. There is a general concern that testing on this product has been scant, and some studies show the additive may cause cancer in rats.
8. Food Colorings: Blue 1, 2; Red 3; Green 3; Yellow 6
Five food colorings still on the market are linked with cancer in animal testing. Blue 1 and 2, found in beverages, candy, baked goods and pet food, have been linked to cancer in mice. Red 3, used to dye cherries, fruit cocktail, candy, and baked goods, has been shown to cause thyroid tumors in rats. Green 3, added to candy and beverages, has been linked to bladder cancer. The widely used yellow 6, added to beverages, sausage, gelatin, baked goods, and candy, has been linked to tumors of the adrenal gland and kidney.
9. Olestra
Olestra, a synthetic fat found in some potato chip brands, can cause severe diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and gas. Olestra also inhibits healthy vitamin absorption from fat-soluble carotenoids that are found in fruits and vegetables.
10. Potassium Bromate
Potassium bromate is used as an additive to increase volume in some white flour, breads, and rolls. It is known to cause cancer in animals, and even small amounts in bread can create a risk for humans.
11. White Sugar
Watch out for foods with added sugars, such as baked goods, cereals, crackers, sauces and many other processed foods. It is unsafe for your health, and promotes bad nutrition.
12. Sodium Chloride
A dash of sodium chloride, more commonly known as salt, can bring flavor to your meal. But too much salt can be dangerous for your health, leading to high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Breast Check: Do mandatory mammograms do more harm than good?
Breast Check: Do mandatory mammograms do more harm than good? By Vonalda M. Utterback, CN
“Time to make breast pancakes,” says one friend of mine, referring to her scheduled mammography screening. And although she may crack jokes about the experience, she’s never once questioned the need for her annual pilgrimage, nor has her physician discussed the risks versus the benefits it entails. After all, if you are a woman aged 40 or beyond, yearly mammograms are simply de rigueur.
When your doctor refers you for a screening, he or she is likely following the guidelines of the two leading national cancer research and information organizations primarily responsible for setting public health policy on cancer screening: The private American Cancer Society (ACS) and the government’s National Cancer Institute (NCI). Both, along with other well-funded, high-profile organizations, such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, recommend regular mammogram screening of symptom-free women beginning at age 40.
All this official blessing shouldn’t make regular screening mammography sacrosanct, however. In fact, it’s way past time for women to start asking hard questions about the exam’s efficacy and its potential harm, say many women’s health experts, advocates, and researchers. “Screening mammography is clearly a double-edged sword,” explains Lisa Schwartz, MD, co-director of the Veteran’s Administration Outcomes Group in White River Junction, Vermont, and associate professor of medicine at Dartmouth Medical School.
False truths
According to the National Academy of Sciences 2005 publication, Saving Women’s Lives: Strategies for Improving Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis, the risk of a false-positive result in a mammogram is about 1 in 10. About three-quarters of the resulting biopsies turn out to be benign, it’s true, but to learn that a woman has to endure the fear that she has breast cancer and bear the cost, discomfort, and risk of additional medical procedures.
“Regular screening will save some lives, but it will cause even more women to be harmed through the unnecessary diagnosis and treatment of cancer that would never have affected their health, were it not for screening,” says Schwartz. She’s referring to false-positives associated with “ductal carcinoma in situ” (DCIS), a result that many experts consider one of the most harmful risks associated with screening mammography.
DCIS is a noninvasive condition in which abnormal cells are found in the lining of a breast duct. It is not cancer, but it may, in some cases, become invasive cancer and spread to other tissues. Because they can’t predict which lesions will become invasive cancer and which will remain contained in the breast duct, doctors usually treat DCIS like cancer. “Most women with DCIS will be advised to undergo invasive treatment of unknown benefit, such as lumpectomy combined with radiation,” reports Schwartz.
Harm from over-diagnosis of invasive cancer also may occur because many malignant cancers grow quite slowly, says Peter C. Gotzsche, MD, researcher and director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, Sweden. If cancer had not been found during screening, he explains, it would not have become apparent before the woman died from other causes. “This is a basic and critical factor, often ignored,” says Gotzsche, “that many cancers are histologically malignant, but biologically benign.
The search for balance
Many women don’t know about the negative side of mammography, and, it seems, they tend to overestimate its benefits. In a survey of more than 4,000 women designed to assess perception of the benefits of mammography, a full 68 percent believed screening prevents or reduces the risk of contracting breast cancer (screening has nothing to do with prevention); 62 percent believed screening reduces breast cancer mortality by half (although studies results vary, the 2006 Cochrane Review confirmed screening mammograms reduce the absolute risk of dying from breast cancer by a very modest 0.05 percent); and 75 percent believed 10 years of regular screening will prevent 10 or more breast cancer deaths per 1,000 women—approximately 10 times the most optimistic estimates.
One of the lone voices offering a balanced view on screening mammography (according to a 2004 study published in the British Medical Journal rating 27 cancer education websites) is the San Francisco-based breast cancer awareness and advocacy group, Breast Cancer Action (BCA). “The United States’ public campaign to eradicate breast cancer has not focused on prevention, but largely on efforts that promote mammography screening,” says BCA’s executive director, Barbara Brenner, herself a two-time survivor of breast cancer. (See “Prevention Is Key” for ways to stop cancer before it starts.) Since its inception in 1991, BCA has raised concerns about mammography’s effectiveness, and the dangers of misleading the public about the benefits of breast cancer “early detection” through screening mammography.
According to Brenner, mammography has several potentially harmful outcomes, especially for younger women, among them radiation risks (the earlier you begin screening mammography, the more radiation exposure you will experience) and a high incidence of false-negative (and false-positive) readings because younger women typically have denser breast tissue, which makes accurate mammogram readings more difficult. In sum, routine mammography screening, particularly for younger or pre-menopausal women, may cause more harm than good. (For more information on radiation risk, see “Why Fear Radiation?”)
The evidence is in
A group of researchers led by Gotzsche, whose nonprofit organization is part of the highly-regarded Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization providing health-care analyses worldwide, reviewed all seven randomized mammography trials conducted prior to June 2005, involving half a million women. Most of the trials enrolled women ages 45 to 64, although one, the Canadian National Breast Screening Study included women ages 40 to 49.
In Gotzsche’s review (updated several times, the latest in 2006), the four trials judged by the Cochrane researchers to have the poorest scientific quality yielded the greatest apparent benefit for screening mammography—a 29 percent reduction in the risk of breast cancer mortality after seven years and a 25 percent reduction after 13 years. In contrast, the two trials considered to have the highest scientific rigor, with adequate randomization, showed no significant reduction in breast cancer mortality.
One of the two highest quality mammography trials in Gotzsche’s review, a Canadian study led by Cornelia J. Baines, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, followed more than 50,000 women. The results after seven years in 1992 showed 36 percent more deaths from breast cancer among screened women than among unscreened women. Called the “breast cancer mortality paradox” at the ten-year follow-up, this percent then fell to 14 percent.
Although the numbers aren’t statistically significant, Baines reports that similarly alarming trends were observed in other screening trials in women aged 40 to 49 years, including the Swedish Two-County Trial from 1985, as well as three other trials included in the Cochrane review. “Even if the results are not officially statistically significant, when the same results are observed multiple times, in multiple studies, the trend deserves attention,” says Baines.
And as mentioned, Gotzsche’s overall findings based on all trials, including those of poor quality, show an absolute risk reduction in breast cancer mortality of just 0.05 percent (for all women attending annual or semi-annual mammography screening). Screening also led to over-diagnosis and over-treatment, resulting in an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. “This means for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged,” explains Gotzsche. “In addition, 10 healthy women will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated as such, unnecessarily.”
What to do?
Simply put, the decision of whether to screen or not to screen is a tough one. Women have been sold on the idea that mammograms will save their lives. And yet the best studies don’t seem to support this claim. Additionally, the blanket recommendation for screening mammography comes without solid information on the risk involved and the potential harm the procedure can cause.
Even mammography’s most outspoken advocates acknowledge, however, that women should first focus on prevention and decide for themselves if the potential benefit of screening mammography outweighs the risks. Certainly, the controversy over screening should not deter a woman from getting a diagnostic mammogram if she has any troublesome symptoms or signs of breast cancer, such as a newly discovered lump, pain, or nipple discharge. (See “Assess Your Risk”.)
And it’s not as though you have many proven alternatives. Of the few options are available, none is a hands-down winner. (Look to “What Are the Alternatives?” for more information.) In the future, better, noninvasive tests may carry less risk than mammography. For now, says Lisa Schwartz, women face a difficult choice. “Our approach to breast cancer screening has fostered a climate where women are seen as irresponsible if they do not undergo screening. But screening has important trade-offs. We need to make sure that women understand this is a real decision that carries real consequences in both directions.”
Vonalda Utterback is a frequent contributor to Alternative Medicine magazine.
Prevention Is Key
“It’s counterproductive to get stuck in the debate on screening mammograms,” says Christine Horner, MD, surgeon, author, and a tireless crusader for women’s breast health. “It’s far more important for women to focus on prevention. Simply through good nutrition, supplements, and herbs, along with the right lifestyle choices, a woman can reduce her risk of breast cancer by more than 75 percent.”
In Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner’s Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer (Basic Health, 2005), Horner recommends eating the following nutrient-rich foods every day:
Fresh, organic fruits and vegetables. Concentrate on anti-cancer cruciferous veggies like broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage, and high-antioxidant berries.
Organic whole grains. Grains are rich in cancer-fighting antioxidants, vitamins, trace minerals, fiber, and lignans.
Immune-enhancing maitake mushrooms.
Health promotingfats, such as omega-3 fatty acids from 2 to 3 tablespoons of ground flaxseeds daily. Avoid health-destroying saturated and trans fats.
Green tea, as a drink or a supplement. Women who drink six to 10 cups of green tea per day lower their risk of breast cancer.
Tumeric. The number one anti-cancer spice and a potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory. Add one-quarter of a tablespoon at the end of cooking to almost any food.
Seaweed, such as wakame. Seaweed is high in iodine, which may be more effective at killing breast cancer cells than many common chemotherapeutic drugs, according to Horner.
Vitamins and minerals. Vitamin B12, folate, vitamin D, vitamin E, and selenium—help to crush cancer growth. Horner says as little as 200 micrograms (mcg) a day of selenium lowers your risk of breast cancer—and most other types of cancer—by 50 percent.
Coenzyme Q10. Consider this supplement if you are over the age of 35. Essential for the production of energy in cells, it may help contain or inhibit tumor growth.
Horner also urges women to nix these health busters:
Red meat. Woman who eat the most red meat have a higher risk of breast cancer.
Inactivity. Fat cells manufacture estrogen, notably after menopause. That’s why obesity is thought to be responsible for 20 to 30 percent of all post-menopausal breast cancers. Just thirty minutes of aerobic activity three to five times a week can lower your risk of breast cancer by 30 to 50 percent, Horner says.
Cigarettes. Research shows that women who smoke or inhale passive smoke; have as much as a 60 percent increased risk of breast cancer.
Birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Long-term use may contribute to breast cancer.
Toxins. Avoid toxic overload and keep your home and body as toxin-free as possible; use only natural, nontoxic cleaning, bath, and beauty products.
All things that deplete melatonin, the sleep hormone. Melatonin arrests and deters breast cancer in many ways. Staying up past 10 p.m., alcohol, and electromagnetic fields from all electric appliances cause melatonin levels to drop.
Why Fear Radiation?
Mammograms employ low-dose X-rays to examine the breast. All X-rays use ionizing radiation, a known carcinogen with a cumulative effect on the body—in other words, the more you expose yourself, the more damage your body endures. In addition to annual radiation exposure from a screening mammogram, every false-positive mammogram reading often leads to a diagnostic mammogram and even more radiation exposure. Because radiation-induced mutations can actually cause breast cancer, radiation exposure over a lifetime increases cancer risk.
According to the US Department of Energy, a woman’s radiation dose from a typical mammogram is 2.5 mSv (millisievert or effective dose). By comparison, the effective dose from a chest X-ray is considerably less at 0.1 mSv.
Assess Your Risk
You can estimate your risk for invasive breast cancer quantitatively with the website calculator provided by the National Institutes of Health (http://bcra.nci.nih.gov/brc/q1.htm). The calculator takes into account many of the known risk factors for breast cancer. Be sure to discuss your results with your healthcare practitioner. Although the model accurately predicts the risk for breast cancer for groups of women, its ability to discriminate between higher and lower risk for an individual woman is limited.
What Are the Alternatives?
Although a number of additional screening or diagnostic methods exist, most health professionals still consider the various options adjuncts to mammography, not replacements for it. This applies to breast self-exams (BSE) and clinical breast exam (CBE) —two very important screening tools that are, of course, non-harmful and non-invasive. (For more information on CBE and step-by-step instructions on how to effectively perform a BSE, go to www.cancer.org.) Here’s a brief report on the top noninvasive methods used as adjuncts for early detection of breast cancer:
Thermography, or Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging (DITI)The promise. DITI is a painless, noninvasive procedure that uses a state-of-the-art, ultra-sensitive infrared camera and sophisticated computers to detect, analyze, and produce high-resolution diagnostic images of temperature variations within the breast (or any other part of your body). One of the main benefits of DITI is its sensitivity in detecting abnormalities, or changes in tissue, long before mammography or other screening methods could, which is why DITI advocates see it as a first-line screening method for breast cancer. While mammography relies primarily on finding the physical tumor, DITI detects the new blood vessels and chemical changes associated with a tumor’s genesis and growth.
The pitfall. DITI can’t pinpoint the exact location of damaged or cancerous cells, so you still need additional procedures, such as mammography, to determine if an actual tumor is forming or has already formed, or to pinpoint the precise location of an existing abnormality. Another drawback to DITI: a lack of uniform regulation in DITI equipment and training for diagnostic technicians—and insurance plans rarely cover its use.
Ultrasound
The promise. Ultrasound is a noninvasive, harmless, and painless imaging technique in which high-frequency sound waves bounce off breast tissue and convert them into an image of the breast’s interior, called a sonogram. The procedure is helpful in distinguishing between solid masses and harmless cysts and may prevent the need for an invasive breast biopsy.
The pitfall. Although ultrasound is a helpful diagnostic tool in separating benign lumps from cancerous tumors in dense breast tissue (i.e., younger women), it is most often used to evaluate lumps that already have been detected by CBE or mammogram. It’s still considered complementary to mammograms and not a replacement for mammograms, even in dense breast tissue, because ultrasound cannot detect microcalcifications, small calcium deposits found within the breast tissue that may or may not indicate an underlying tumor.
Elasticity Imaging
The promise. An emerging, yet exciting new offshoot of ultrasound, elasticity imaging holds promise for even greater specificity in distinguishing benign from cancerous breast lesions. A 2006 study by Northeastern Ohio University’s College of Medicine published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that a real-time hand-held elasticity imaging device used in correlation with a routine ultrasound exam was 99 to 100 percent effective at identifying malignant versus benign lesions. Study investigators plan to expand their research in an international, multicenter trial this year.
The pitfall. Similar to ultrasound, above. While elasticity imaging holds great promise to predict, with stunning accuracy, malignant versus benign lesions, and help reduce a major harm of screening mammography (over-diagnosis, resulting in unnecessary biopsies) no one is ready to say it's a replacement for mammography.
Find Out More
According to a survey published in the British Medical Journal of 27 websites containing information on mammography screening, the following websites garnered a top rating for balanced, unbiased information:
National Breast Cancer Coalition: www.stopbreastcancer.org
Breast Cancer Action: www.bcation.org
Center For Medical Consumers: www.medicalconsumers.org
“Time to make breast pancakes,” says one friend of mine, referring to her scheduled mammography screening. And although she may crack jokes about the experience, she’s never once questioned the need for her annual pilgrimage, nor has her physician discussed the risks versus the benefits it entails. After all, if you are a woman aged 40 or beyond, yearly mammograms are simply de rigueur.
When your doctor refers you for a screening, he or she is likely following the guidelines of the two leading national cancer research and information organizations primarily responsible for setting public health policy on cancer screening: The private American Cancer Society (ACS) and the government’s National Cancer Institute (NCI). Both, along with other well-funded, high-profile organizations, such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, recommend regular mammogram screening of symptom-free women beginning at age 40.
All this official blessing shouldn’t make regular screening mammography sacrosanct, however. In fact, it’s way past time for women to start asking hard questions about the exam’s efficacy and its potential harm, say many women’s health experts, advocates, and researchers. “Screening mammography is clearly a double-edged sword,” explains Lisa Schwartz, MD, co-director of the Veteran’s Administration Outcomes Group in White River Junction, Vermont, and associate professor of medicine at Dartmouth Medical School.
False truths
According to the National Academy of Sciences 2005 publication, Saving Women’s Lives: Strategies for Improving Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis, the risk of a false-positive result in a mammogram is about 1 in 10. About three-quarters of the resulting biopsies turn out to be benign, it’s true, but to learn that a woman has to endure the fear that she has breast cancer and bear the cost, discomfort, and risk of additional medical procedures.
“Regular screening will save some lives, but it will cause even more women to be harmed through the unnecessary diagnosis and treatment of cancer that would never have affected their health, were it not for screening,” says Schwartz. She’s referring to false-positives associated with “ductal carcinoma in situ” (DCIS), a result that many experts consider one of the most harmful risks associated with screening mammography.
DCIS is a noninvasive condition in which abnormal cells are found in the lining of a breast duct. It is not cancer, but it may, in some cases, become invasive cancer and spread to other tissues. Because they can’t predict which lesions will become invasive cancer and which will remain contained in the breast duct, doctors usually treat DCIS like cancer. “Most women with DCIS will be advised to undergo invasive treatment of unknown benefit, such as lumpectomy combined with radiation,” reports Schwartz.
Harm from over-diagnosis of invasive cancer also may occur because many malignant cancers grow quite slowly, says Peter C. Gotzsche, MD, researcher and director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, Sweden. If cancer had not been found during screening, he explains, it would not have become apparent before the woman died from other causes. “This is a basic and critical factor, often ignored,” says Gotzsche, “that many cancers are histologically malignant, but biologically benign.
The search for balance
Many women don’t know about the negative side of mammography, and, it seems, they tend to overestimate its benefits. In a survey of more than 4,000 women designed to assess perception of the benefits of mammography, a full 68 percent believed screening prevents or reduces the risk of contracting breast cancer (screening has nothing to do with prevention); 62 percent believed screening reduces breast cancer mortality by half (although studies results vary, the 2006 Cochrane Review confirmed screening mammograms reduce the absolute risk of dying from breast cancer by a very modest 0.05 percent); and 75 percent believed 10 years of regular screening will prevent 10 or more breast cancer deaths per 1,000 women—approximately 10 times the most optimistic estimates.
One of the lone voices offering a balanced view on screening mammography (according to a 2004 study published in the British Medical Journal rating 27 cancer education websites) is the San Francisco-based breast cancer awareness and advocacy group, Breast Cancer Action (BCA). “The United States’ public campaign to eradicate breast cancer has not focused on prevention, but largely on efforts that promote mammography screening,” says BCA’s executive director, Barbara Brenner, herself a two-time survivor of breast cancer. (See “Prevention Is Key” for ways to stop cancer before it starts.) Since its inception in 1991, BCA has raised concerns about mammography’s effectiveness, and the dangers of misleading the public about the benefits of breast cancer “early detection” through screening mammography.
According to Brenner, mammography has several potentially harmful outcomes, especially for younger women, among them radiation risks (the earlier you begin screening mammography, the more radiation exposure you will experience) and a high incidence of false-negative (and false-positive) readings because younger women typically have denser breast tissue, which makes accurate mammogram readings more difficult. In sum, routine mammography screening, particularly for younger or pre-menopausal women, may cause more harm than good. (For more information on radiation risk, see “Why Fear Radiation?”)
The evidence is in
A group of researchers led by Gotzsche, whose nonprofit organization is part of the highly-regarded Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization providing health-care analyses worldwide, reviewed all seven randomized mammography trials conducted prior to June 2005, involving half a million women. Most of the trials enrolled women ages 45 to 64, although one, the Canadian National Breast Screening Study included women ages 40 to 49.
In Gotzsche’s review (updated several times, the latest in 2006), the four trials judged by the Cochrane researchers to have the poorest scientific quality yielded the greatest apparent benefit for screening mammography—a 29 percent reduction in the risk of breast cancer mortality after seven years and a 25 percent reduction after 13 years. In contrast, the two trials considered to have the highest scientific rigor, with adequate randomization, showed no significant reduction in breast cancer mortality.
One of the two highest quality mammography trials in Gotzsche’s review, a Canadian study led by Cornelia J. Baines, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, followed more than 50,000 women. The results after seven years in 1992 showed 36 percent more deaths from breast cancer among screened women than among unscreened women. Called the “breast cancer mortality paradox” at the ten-year follow-up, this percent then fell to 14 percent.
Although the numbers aren’t statistically significant, Baines reports that similarly alarming trends were observed in other screening trials in women aged 40 to 49 years, including the Swedish Two-County Trial from 1985, as well as three other trials included in the Cochrane review. “Even if the results are not officially statistically significant, when the same results are observed multiple times, in multiple studies, the trend deserves attention,” says Baines.
And as mentioned, Gotzsche’s overall findings based on all trials, including those of poor quality, show an absolute risk reduction in breast cancer mortality of just 0.05 percent (for all women attending annual or semi-annual mammography screening). Screening also led to over-diagnosis and over-treatment, resulting in an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. “This means for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged,” explains Gotzsche. “In addition, 10 healthy women will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated as such, unnecessarily.”
What to do?
Simply put, the decision of whether to screen or not to screen is a tough one. Women have been sold on the idea that mammograms will save their lives. And yet the best studies don’t seem to support this claim. Additionally, the blanket recommendation for screening mammography comes without solid information on the risk involved and the potential harm the procedure can cause.
Even mammography’s most outspoken advocates acknowledge, however, that women should first focus on prevention and decide for themselves if the potential benefit of screening mammography outweighs the risks. Certainly, the controversy over screening should not deter a woman from getting a diagnostic mammogram if she has any troublesome symptoms or signs of breast cancer, such as a newly discovered lump, pain, or nipple discharge. (See “Assess Your Risk”.)
And it’s not as though you have many proven alternatives. Of the few options are available, none is a hands-down winner. (Look to “What Are the Alternatives?” for more information.) In the future, better, noninvasive tests may carry less risk than mammography. For now, says Lisa Schwartz, women face a difficult choice. “Our approach to breast cancer screening has fostered a climate where women are seen as irresponsible if they do not undergo screening. But screening has important trade-offs. We need to make sure that women understand this is a real decision that carries real consequences in both directions.”
Vonalda Utterback is a frequent contributor to Alternative Medicine magazine.
Prevention Is Key
“It’s counterproductive to get stuck in the debate on screening mammograms,” says Christine Horner, MD, surgeon, author, and a tireless crusader for women’s breast health. “It’s far more important for women to focus on prevention. Simply through good nutrition, supplements, and herbs, along with the right lifestyle choices, a woman can reduce her risk of breast cancer by more than 75 percent.”
In Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner’s Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer (Basic Health, 2005), Horner recommends eating the following nutrient-rich foods every day:
Fresh, organic fruits and vegetables. Concentrate on anti-cancer cruciferous veggies like broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage, and high-antioxidant berries.
Organic whole grains. Grains are rich in cancer-fighting antioxidants, vitamins, trace minerals, fiber, and lignans.
Immune-enhancing maitake mushrooms.
Health promotingfats, such as omega-3 fatty acids from 2 to 3 tablespoons of ground flaxseeds daily. Avoid health-destroying saturated and trans fats.
Green tea, as a drink or a supplement. Women who drink six to 10 cups of green tea per day lower their risk of breast cancer.
Tumeric. The number one anti-cancer spice and a potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory. Add one-quarter of a tablespoon at the end of cooking to almost any food.
Seaweed, such as wakame. Seaweed is high in iodine, which may be more effective at killing breast cancer cells than many common chemotherapeutic drugs, according to Horner.
Vitamins and minerals. Vitamin B12, folate, vitamin D, vitamin E, and selenium—help to crush cancer growth. Horner says as little as 200 micrograms (mcg) a day of selenium lowers your risk of breast cancer—and most other types of cancer—by 50 percent.
Coenzyme Q10. Consider this supplement if you are over the age of 35. Essential for the production of energy in cells, it may help contain or inhibit tumor growth.
Horner also urges women to nix these health busters:
Red meat. Woman who eat the most red meat have a higher risk of breast cancer.
Inactivity. Fat cells manufacture estrogen, notably after menopause. That’s why obesity is thought to be responsible for 20 to 30 percent of all post-menopausal breast cancers. Just thirty minutes of aerobic activity three to five times a week can lower your risk of breast cancer by 30 to 50 percent, Horner says.
Cigarettes. Research shows that women who smoke or inhale passive smoke; have as much as a 60 percent increased risk of breast cancer.
Birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Long-term use may contribute to breast cancer.
Toxins. Avoid toxic overload and keep your home and body as toxin-free as possible; use only natural, nontoxic cleaning, bath, and beauty products.
All things that deplete melatonin, the sleep hormone. Melatonin arrests and deters breast cancer in many ways. Staying up past 10 p.m., alcohol, and electromagnetic fields from all electric appliances cause melatonin levels to drop.
Why Fear Radiation?
Mammograms employ low-dose X-rays to examine the breast. All X-rays use ionizing radiation, a known carcinogen with a cumulative effect on the body—in other words, the more you expose yourself, the more damage your body endures. In addition to annual radiation exposure from a screening mammogram, every false-positive mammogram reading often leads to a diagnostic mammogram and even more radiation exposure. Because radiation-induced mutations can actually cause breast cancer, radiation exposure over a lifetime increases cancer risk.
According to the US Department of Energy, a woman’s radiation dose from a typical mammogram is 2.5 mSv (millisievert or effective dose). By comparison, the effective dose from a chest X-ray is considerably less at 0.1 mSv.
Assess Your Risk
You can estimate your risk for invasive breast cancer quantitatively with the website calculator provided by the National Institutes of Health (http://bcra.nci.nih.gov/brc/q1.htm). The calculator takes into account many of the known risk factors for breast cancer. Be sure to discuss your results with your healthcare practitioner. Although the model accurately predicts the risk for breast cancer for groups of women, its ability to discriminate between higher and lower risk for an individual woman is limited.
What Are the Alternatives?
Although a number of additional screening or diagnostic methods exist, most health professionals still consider the various options adjuncts to mammography, not replacements for it. This applies to breast self-exams (BSE) and clinical breast exam (CBE) —two very important screening tools that are, of course, non-harmful and non-invasive. (For more information on CBE and step-by-step instructions on how to effectively perform a BSE, go to www.cancer.org.) Here’s a brief report on the top noninvasive methods used as adjuncts for early detection of breast cancer:
Thermography, or Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging (DITI)The promise. DITI is a painless, noninvasive procedure that uses a state-of-the-art, ultra-sensitive infrared camera and sophisticated computers to detect, analyze, and produce high-resolution diagnostic images of temperature variations within the breast (or any other part of your body). One of the main benefits of DITI is its sensitivity in detecting abnormalities, or changes in tissue, long before mammography or other screening methods could, which is why DITI advocates see it as a first-line screening method for breast cancer. While mammography relies primarily on finding the physical tumor, DITI detects the new blood vessels and chemical changes associated with a tumor’s genesis and growth.
The pitfall. DITI can’t pinpoint the exact location of damaged or cancerous cells, so you still need additional procedures, such as mammography, to determine if an actual tumor is forming or has already formed, or to pinpoint the precise location of an existing abnormality. Another drawback to DITI: a lack of uniform regulation in DITI equipment and training for diagnostic technicians—and insurance plans rarely cover its use.
Ultrasound
The promise. Ultrasound is a noninvasive, harmless, and painless imaging technique in which high-frequency sound waves bounce off breast tissue and convert them into an image of the breast’s interior, called a sonogram. The procedure is helpful in distinguishing between solid masses and harmless cysts and may prevent the need for an invasive breast biopsy.
The pitfall. Although ultrasound is a helpful diagnostic tool in separating benign lumps from cancerous tumors in dense breast tissue (i.e., younger women), it is most often used to evaluate lumps that already have been detected by CBE or mammogram. It’s still considered complementary to mammograms and not a replacement for mammograms, even in dense breast tissue, because ultrasound cannot detect microcalcifications, small calcium deposits found within the breast tissue that may or may not indicate an underlying tumor.
Elasticity Imaging
The promise. An emerging, yet exciting new offshoot of ultrasound, elasticity imaging holds promise for even greater specificity in distinguishing benign from cancerous breast lesions. A 2006 study by Northeastern Ohio University’s College of Medicine published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that a real-time hand-held elasticity imaging device used in correlation with a routine ultrasound exam was 99 to 100 percent effective at identifying malignant versus benign lesions. Study investigators plan to expand their research in an international, multicenter trial this year.
The pitfall. Similar to ultrasound, above. While elasticity imaging holds great promise to predict, with stunning accuracy, malignant versus benign lesions, and help reduce a major harm of screening mammography (over-diagnosis, resulting in unnecessary biopsies) no one is ready to say it's a replacement for mammography.
Find Out More
According to a survey published in the British Medical Journal of 27 websites containing information on mammography screening, the following websites garnered a top rating for balanced, unbiased information:
National Breast Cancer Coalition: www.stopbreastcancer.org
Breast Cancer Action: www.bcation.org
Center For Medical Consumers: www.medicalconsumers.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)