On the other hand, vitamin A precursors (in the form of beta-carotene) can be found in orange vegetables:  cantaloupe, yams, yellow squash, etc.   Most of us get plenty of vitamin A by the conversion of beta-carotene to vitamin A in our digestive tracts.

He also said that vitamins are dangerous.  And, he cited as his only example the studies using beta-carotene in isolation.  I thoroughly debunked this “experiment” when it was first released.  See the article on my web site (http://richardsfamilyhealth.com/navpages/aboutus/newsarchives3.html#Anchor-Finnish_Antioxidant). However, now that this study is in the medical “literature,” it continues to be referenced by everyone wanting to discredit vitamins.  The only accurate thing he said about the study was that beta-carotene was taken in isolation.  That part is true.  You need a spectrum of vitamins, based upon your personal chemistry, to get optimum benefit.

The other “bad” rep for vitamins – as far as Dr. Rosenfeld was concerned – was simply that Americans spend too much money on them!  He said that was the item that triggered his “suspicion” of vitamins.

Dr. Rosenfeld trotted out the old chestnut about how a balanced diet gives you everything you need.  Balderdash!  After years of taking blood tests, I can assure you that this is no longer true.  We have a food industry that destroys nutrient value at every step of the process.  From picking foods green, to hauling them in open-air semis in 100º + heat, to washing them in the supermarket every 15 minutes or so.  And, that’s only the fresh foods!  Let’s not even get into the processed, synthetic, non-foods that most Americans ingest.  Think artificial sweeteners and snack “foods”.

So, the drumbeat continues.  Since the media are in the pocket of the drug industry and the AMA – think about the amount of advertising revenue they receive from drug promotion – this isn’t likely to turn around any time soon.  Unfortunately, the disinformation campaign is widely disseminated, and I know many of you are receiving pressure from well-meaning friends and family members – urging you to reconsider your ingestion of vitamins.  Stay informed.  And, I hope the information that I have provided will give you a factual basis to educate the people who care about you.

It is very important that we all stay alert and are ready to act when legislation arises to restrict vitamin usage in the U.S.  At that point, we will need to bombard Washington, D.C. with our objections.  The new law that goes into effect in August of this year is just the beginning.  Legislation has imposed “safety” standards on the industry that will simply result in higher costs.  Most of my suppliers already do quality control testing of the sort that has now been mandated.  However, onerous – and expensive – reporting requirements have been imposed.  Another level of bureaucracy blocking our freedom of access.

It’s all very worrying to those of us who want to keep ourselves and our families in optimum health.

    Yesterday was a shocking day for me – as I imagine it was for you, as well.  Although I didn’t watch Tim’s show, he was an almost ubiquitous presence in many of the news programs I listen to – often quoted or even interviewed.  What was clear to me was that he loved his family deeply; and he made time in a very busy life to write an entire book as a tribute to his father.  That, to me, put him in the category of “a wonderful man.”

    Today I read the autopsy reports and his medical history released by NBC news  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145431/.  I also heard some morning news shows where the hosts were baffled by his sudden death.  I don’t want to seem ghoulish, but for the benefit of everyone, I think it is important to look critically at this event, with the intention of giving all of us insights into what we can do to avert heart disease for ourselves and those we love.

    One of the newspeople – sorry, I don’t actually know her name – made a very good point.  She said, “But, he was doing everything right.  He was taking his medications and had exercised on the treadmill the morning he died.”  (Or, words very similar to these.)  What struck me was the plaintive tone in her voice, and it got me to thinking.

    If someone with Mr. Russert’s resources couldn’t avert an untimely death, what can we do?  I assume that he had the very best in medical advice and care, since his medical history is a roster of diagnoses:  diabetes, high cholesterol, enlarged heart and arteriosclerosis; and – oh, yes – he was obese and under a lot of stress – as though those issues somehow accounted for everything.  Many subsequent interviews I saw focused on reducing life stress.  When all else fails, blame the victim!  http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080613/sc_livescience/howstressanddietcauseheartattacks

What I guess I find most disturbing is the trite repetitions of the very same medical advice that didn’t help Tim.  For example, eat a low-fat diet, lose weight, exercise and reduce stress.  Oh, yes, and consult your doctor for medications.  These canards seem particularly empty in the face of such a devastating loss.

    I feel compelled to offer dissenting – and hopefully, more effective – advice. 

    First of all, the medications routinely prescribed for high cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes ALL contribute to heart failure (an enlarged heart).  These medications are, in fact, mandated – a doctor has to prescribe them unless s/he wants to be sued for malpractice.  But, the drug cocktail Mr. Russert was taking, believing he was doing everything he should, was clearly not effective, since he suffered a heart attack secondary to a piece of plaque breaking loose in an artery.

    Secondly, none of the drugs in use medically today can remove plaque from the arteries, thereby averting such a deadly event. 

    And, thirdly, the standard dietary advice is just plain wrong!  This is probably the item that makes me the angriest.  The medical profession is in thrall to the drug companies as they push ever more toxic drugs to lower cholesterol while, at the same time, recommending a dietary regime that guarantees that cholesterol levels will continue to rise.  The single deadliest misconception in America today is that high fat diets lead to high cholesterol.  If you consult any first-year biochemistry text, you will discover that the precursor to elevated cholesterol is a diet high in carbohydrates.  In fact, when the blood supply to the heart is cut off – resulting in a loss of oxygen to the heart muscle – the one molecule the heart can use to maintain itself in these dire circumstances is:  HIGH QUALITY FAT!  Beta-oxidation of fats is the heart’s back-up mechanism in the face of hypoxia.

    I have been treating heart patients for more than half of the 21 years I have been in practice, and I can tell you from my patients’ wins that it is possible to drop your cholesterol to normal simply by limiting your carbohydrate intake to less than 200 gms per day.  That’s plenty of carbohydrate to keep you out of ketoacidosis, but a small enough amount that you have to get enough to eat by loading up on vegetables with protein at every meal.  A huge salad, a medium baked potato and 3 or 4 ounces of protein – from any animal source – is an ideal meal. 

    In addition, there are natural, proven remedies to avert heart failure and remove plaque from the arteries.  These include:  high quality B vitamins, CoQ10 and chondroitin sulfate (both in mega doses).  Quality hawthorn (leaves and flowers), which is called “nursemaid to the elderly heart,” is also very effective in turning around heart failure.  However, the current medical “news” claims that vitamins are dangerous and life-threatening!  (See my article on this topic "Vitamin Propaganda Continues."  Click on the category "Codex" to the right.) How irresponsible and disastrous to all of us.

    I have been trying very hard to spread the word to as many people as possible, because I feel impelled to get the word out that there ARE effective actions you can take – actions more effective than popping toxic pharmaceuticals.  I recently did a teleseminar on this very topic.  If you want to know more, the CD and teleseminar notes are available through my web site www.RichardsFamilyHealth.com 

    In conclusion, I just want to express my sympathies to the Russert family.  Losing a beloved family member is never easy; it is much more wrenching when it is so sudden, public and unexpected.

If you read this article, you might think that trans fats are something natural, and therefore, OK.  The article actually states “Trans fats, or ‘trans fatty acids,’ come in two forms:

  Industrial trans fats are artificially created by manufacturers by adding hydrogen to liquid vegetable oils; these are called ‘partially hydrogenated oils.’ This makes the oils more solid to give foods like cookies, pies and french fries a rich, crispy texture.

Natural trans fats are found in meat (cow, sheep and goat) and dairy products.  These trans fats are made naturally in the stomach of these animals.”

Now, with just a cursory reading, doesn’t that make it sound like hydrogenated oils are simply an offshoot of a naturally occurring substance?

Well, the truth is something quite different.  There are minute amounts of  trans fats in dairy and meat products, specifically those made from C18 monounsaturated fatty acids, almost half of which are a substance called vaccenic acid.  This trans fat is metabolized by humans into conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which has protective influences on the heart and blood fats.

However, that is a far cry from the “industrial” trans fats that now comprise such a large part of the American diet.  The problem is that this information is being used to desensitize people to the harm trans fats can cause.  One example comes from the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency, which wrote in a letter dated September 21, 2004 that “The main issue with hydrogenated fats relates to their content of trans unsaturated fatty acids (trans fats).  These trans fats occur in nature in dairy produce and the flesh of ruminants, e.g. beef, lamb.”

This is downright misleading.  Unfortunately for the margarine industry, the latest studies demonstrate that artificial (or industrial) trans fats reduced HDL (or good) cholesterol and raised LDL (or bad) cholesterol.  The naturally occurring compounds, which the body can actually metabolize had no such effect. 

Therefore, you shouldn’t be concerned about the tiny amount of trans fats in dairy products.  However, you need to be vigilant about hydrogenated oils or shortening added to prepared foods that you consume.  And, above all, read every news release carefully so as not to be fooled by the food industry!

The results are enlightening: 64% of the UltraMeal™ group completed the full 10 weeks; whereas, only 42% of the other group saw the program through to the end. In those who completed the program, differences in endpoint data were analyzed. Both groups lost weight; however, the most striking difference between them was that the UltraMeal™ group lost a significant loss of weight as body fat, while the Ultra SlimFast™ group lost the majority of their weight from muscle protein, not body fat. The Ultra SlimFast™ group actually wound up with a higher ratio of body fat to lean muscle mass than before starting on the program.

The other notable difference between the two groups was that the Ultra SlimFast™ group showed a significant increase in thyroid stimulating hormone levels through the course of the program and indicating suppression of thyroid function while on the meal replacement. The UltraMeal™ group thyroid stimulating hormone levels remained normal. It is generally recognized that the inclusion of high quality, bio-available protein in a weight loss program minimizes the risk of neuroendocrine disturbances. A number of studies have confirmed that extremely low calorie diets induced a decrease in thyroid function. It is the body’s adaptation to a starvation state and conservation of what calories are available.

My take on this research is that UltraMeal™ is superior to any over-the-counter product because it allows for weight loss without loss of muscle mass. It also does not alter thyroid function, making it easier initially to lose excess body fat and then to keep it off.  Since you will have decreased your total percentage of body fat, you will also have an easier time maintaining your weight reduction.

I have an article from the Journal of Nutritional Medicine in my office containing all the data and references. If you would like all the details, send a SASE with the request for the “weight loss article” to the office, and we’ll send you a copy.

So, if you’re looking for a safe, proven weight loss program or simply need a quick, easy nutrition rich meal for breakfast or lunch, give us a call and order UltraMeal™.  A 14 serving container currently costs $31.00.

NB:  This is an update of an article first written in 2001.

In the first place, no study was actually done.  This is another one of those "mega-analyses" that go back over prior work and attempt to extract information that will support a point of view.  In this case, "health studies" between 1988 and 1994 were chosen involving people 17 years and older.  The only criteria for inclusion, apparently, was that — at the time of enrollment - participants had their serum vitamin D measured.  Those participants were then tracked through the year 2000 and, during those 12 years 536 of the 16,800 participants died of cancer.

No further vitamin D levels were ever obtained from the participants, nor were lifestyle or any other factors taken into consideration.  However, based on a single lab value taken 12 years previously, the authors of the study were considered expert enough to have an article accepted for publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute stating categorically that vitamin D level had no affect on cancer mortality in general.  However, they did find that people with the highest level of vitamin D at the study's start were 72% less likely to die of colon cancer than individuals with low levels of the nutrient.  Nonetheless, the editors of the Journal commented that this beneficial result should not be taken at face value since "the relationship between nutritional factors and colorectal as well as other cancers is complicated."  {Journal of the National Cancer Inst, Nov 7, 2007, vol 99, pp 1594-1602 [article] and pp 1563-1565 [editorial]}

And, this was published as a product known to cause precancerous lesions in lab animals was approved for over the counter use.  Yes, I am talking about Alli™ - the "weight loss miracle"!  (See my blog on Alli™ on this site.)  Those lesions I believe to be the result of the mechanism of action of Alli™ — it blocks vitamin D absorption!  And, the gut mucosa is an important step in the activation of vitamin D in the body.  Can't anyone connect the dots?

So, what can we learn from this?  First of all, rigorous peer review standards do not apply when a researcher is attempting to discredit a natural substance.  Secondly, any positive findings must be greatly downplayed to avoid "misleading" the public into thinking there are positive actions they can take to protect themselves from devastating diseases such as cancer. 

This is a repeat of a very old, and tired refrain.  Every piece of positive information regarding herbs and vitamins is met with the canard, "You must do scientific studies."  Yet, when the study is actually completed and the data is positive, we are then treated to an attempt to discredit it as soon as possible.  There is truly no longer any integrity in medical research.  Almost all of it — even that conducted at large universities — is funded by drug manufacturers.  And, the agenda is plain.  Discredit natural remedies and promote "life saving"  drugs.  Because, if you never need a drug, the pharmaceutical industry will take a blow to its bottom line!

Alli™ is a weaker version of Xenical™, a prescription medication that was introduced about 10 years ago.  I clearly remember the advertisements at that time:  A voice telling you “you won’t look like a supermodel,” while a picture of a model is clearly displayed on the screen.  Then, a picture of a pizza while the voice states, “of course, you can’t eat anything you want.”  And finally, in a very fast, tiny voice, the side effects, including fecal incontinence!  This was a masterful use of NeuroLinguistic Programming (NLP).  NLP is the study of how people’s brains process information.  The two important rules to apply to the foregoing ad are these:  i) Your brain doesn’t hear negatives; it literally edits them out. And ii) your visual cortex overrides your hearing.  So, the message being communicated is exactly the opposite of the words!!  Talk about misleading!

Now that the product has been around for a while, people are beginning to catch on the side effects, which include:  increased gas and flatulence, oily stools and greasy excretions from the anus.  The package instructions include:  you may want to wear dark pants until you know how this medication will affect you, and you may want to take an extra set of clothes to work!! Excuse me?  Why would anyone subject herself to this indignity?  I suspect because Alli™ is being presented as an “easy solve” to what is really a complex problem.

More seriously, as far as I am concerned, Alli™ blocks the absorption of fat soluble vitamins, including Vitamins A, E and D.  Given the recent research on vitamin D and the increased risk of cancer because of a deficiency state (see my article on this topic.  Click on “Cancer” under “Categories” on the right.), the drug companies are creating a market for their expensive chemotherapy drugs!  Sorry for the cynicism, but it makes you wonder, doesn’t it? 

The data on vitamin D is inescapable.  There is a direct relationship between serum vitamin D and the incidence of cancer of the breast, colon and prostate.  In fact, an animal study in 2006, linked the active ingredient in Alli™ to colon lesions believed to be the precursors to colon cancer. (Garcia S, da Costa Barros L, Turatti A, Martinello F, Modiano P, Ribeiro-Silva A, de Oliveira Vespúcio M, Uyemura S (2006). "The anti-obesity agent Orlistat is associated to increase in colonic preneoplastic markers in rats treated with a chemical carcinogen.". Cancer Lett 240 (2): 221–4. Takayama T, Katsuki S, Takahashi Y, Ohi M, Nojiri S, Sakamaki S, Kato J, Kogawa K, Miyake H, Niitsu Y (1998). "Aberrant crypt foci of the colon as precursors of adenoma and cancer". N Engl J Med 339 (18): 1277–84)  And, they want you to take this for life?!?

Last, but not least, the weight loss is nominal – only 5% of body weight.  So, if you weigh 250 lbs, you’ll lose 12½ lbs.  Great isn’t it? 

A far better option is Coleus forskoli, which is in our herbal product Coleus Forte™.  The dose is two to three per day, based upon your response to the product.  A few people experience diarrhea, which can be handled by reducing the dose.  The side of effects of Coleus include:  lowering your blood pressure, improving your blood sugar by increasing insulin secretion, replacing body fat with muscle mass, inhibiting platelet activation (less clots), increasing the strength of contraction of your heart, while relaxing smooth muscle, and improving thyroid function.  The reason for these wide ranging effects is that Coleus acts directly to increase cyclic AMP, a major regulator of cellular metabolism.

Of course, you will have to watch your portion size and eliminate sugar and white flour (i.e., decrease refined carbohydrates in general).  But, that’s just a healthy approach to eating.  The only people who can’t take Coleus Forte™ are those whose blood pressure is too low to start with (people with severe adrenal problems) and those few people who find their gut becomes too irritable.  In my office, that’s less than 1% of the people who have tried it so far. 

So, if you’re interested in a healthy approach to improving your body mass, call and ask for Coleus Forte™.  If you feel you need a more personalized program, you can schedule a consultation and I will be happy to create a personalized plan for you.

What you need to understand concerning the studies being reported in the media is that these are not actual experiments.  They are “meta-analyses.”  What does that mean?  It means essentially that someone did a literature search and then did a statistical analysis.  No parameters are established over the quality of the supplements used, the dosages prescribed, or the condition of the people taking the products.    It is very reminiscent of the “study” that announced that vitamin C was useless in treating cancer, because the dying patients given the vitamin C only extended their lifespan a few days to weeks – they all still died.  This is the caliber of the “research” that is going on, because the drug companies, who are the primary funders of such studies are desperate to regain the market they see as being lost to nutritional supplements.

I would like to highlight two studies that received a lot of press in March of this year.  The reports appeared in the March 16th issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, and their conclusions were touted far and wide.  B vitamins, especially B vitamins designed to lower homocysteine levels, do not help cardiovascular disease.  However, one of the two studies did determine that there was a “marginally significant” decrease in stroke risk after supplementation.

The first study, called the Norwegian Vitamin (NORVIT) trial, randomly assigned almost 4,000 men and women who had already had a heart attack to receive folic acid, vitamins B6 and B12, or a placebo.  There was a 27% decline in homocysteine in 3 years, but the researchers found no significant effect on whether people had another heart attack.  The second study, called the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) 2 study had similar results, but did find a slight reduction in stroke among the group taking the supplements.

The conclusion stated, however, is misleading.    There was a blanket condemnation of vitamin supplementation with the statement, “B vitamins do not prevent heart disease.”

However, when you read further, there are a few problems with these findings.  For one thing, these studies were not preventative.  The test subjects were individuals who already had cardiovascular disease and damage to their arterial system. The study populations included individuals with medical histories that included heart attacks, heart disease, diabetes and other problems.  The fact that there was a reduction in strokes suggests that the reduction in homocysteine actually did reduce inflammation and subsequent clot formation. 

And, since the individuals were already ill, the studies provide no data concerning the efficacy of B vitamins in preventing the development of heart disease in healthy individuals.  The researchers were using a medical model; they were trying to treat or reverse heart disease in sick people. 

The study design was also flawed.  In the NORVIT study, there were 4 groups:  one received folic acid; another received vitamin B6; a third group received both; and the fourth was given placebo.  Yet, in our complex metabolism, these vitamins work together to achieve a metabolic result.  They are co-factors in the pathway that metabolizes homocysteine.  And, in the NORVIT study, it appears that B12 was not included.  Yet, it is an important co-factor in this pathway.

The other issue I have is that the dosages used were quite low, and were not adjusted for body weight.    In the HOPE study, the subjects were given 2.5 mg of folic acid, 50 mg of vitamin B6 and 1 mg of vitamin B12.  There is no indication that they were given the complete B complex, as well.  You cannot give isolated Bs, without creating a deficiency in other factors in the B complex.  And, we already know that vitamin B1 deficiency can cause heart attacks.

In addition, these individuals were already under medical care for a variety of health conditions and were also taking pharmaceuticals for their heart condition.  And, the little known fact is that many cardiovascular and diabetic medications deplete folic acid, as well as other nutrients.

When you consult unbiased sources, the results are quite different.  Statistics from the U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Center for Health Statistics reveal the following.  With the advent of the refining of wheat (essentially removing ALL B vitamins from flour) in the early 1900s, deaths from heart disease began to skyrocket.  The statistic went from essentially zero in 1920 to a high of 300 per 100,000 population in 1970 (the year vitamin sales in the U.S. began to take off).  From 1970 through 1990 deaths from heart disease dropped in direct relationship to the increase in vitamin sales.  Vitamin sales in 1970 were barely $10 million, but by 1990, they had increased exponentially to $1.5 billion. 

This sort of data makes the drug companies squirm.  It suggests that there are safe, non-drug alternatives to their products.  Which, of course, translates to lost profits.

Please be vigilant and skeptical of these studies.  Remember, all of them are funded by chemical companies who have a large ax to grind.  In chiropractic research, we have a huge problem with funding because there is no commercial interest in finding safe, non-invasive alternatives to drugs and surgery. I also believe that the American public is being conditioned to accept major restrictions on access to herbs and vitamins – a kind of behind the scenes approach to the Codex Alimentarius.  Keep informed and make your voice heard to legislators who may want to limit your rights.

One Sunday morning in February of this year (2007) was an excellent example.  I had Fox News on and their medical specialist was reviewing the latest medical “news.”  The featured stories included the “dangers” of antioxidants, the uselessness of garlic and, oh yes, the safety of estrogen replacement therapy!  I think what made it so powerful to me was the juxtaposition of stories, combined with the news items I have seen that have been completely overlooked by the media that demonstrate just how important vitamins are to human health.  So, let me debunk this morning’s news and fill you in on some very interesting data.  This letter is quite lengthy, but I think the information too important to shortchange.

First, the “dangers” of antioxidants: One of the media outlets actually ran a headline “Vitamins Can Kill!”.  Isn’t yellow journalism wonderful? Now to the facts.   The study is a statistical analysis of previously done research.  Since the numbers in the study are so large, it is considered the ‘best’ study done.  The statisticians substitute quantity as their primary criterion, rather than the quality of the data.  And, if you read the report, you will find that the analysts massaged the statistics to get the result they were looking for. When they first did their analysis the results were neutral.  So, they threw out one-third of the studies in order to demonstrate a very small increase in mortality among people taking anti-oxidants. They didn’t even respect their own standards!

And, as if that weren’t clue enough to their bias, there was also no control for health status or for whether the anti-oxidants were being taken singly or in combination.  Or, even what form or what quality of the anti-oxidants the participants were taking.  Why are these parameters important?  First of all, many people in our culture only turn to vitamin therapy when they are very sick or dying.    Obviously, there is a higher death rate among sick people than well people of the same age!  That’s a ‘duh’!  But, it wasn’t considered important enough to be taken into account.    Secondly, several studies indicate that anti-oxidants work in concert with each other.    Taking them as single items — the medical, drug-based model — results in aberrant outcomes.  They either don’t work as well, or cause unexpected problems.  A good example was the Finnish study from the 1980’s that indicated problems with anti-oxidants.  It was then revealed that Finland has no naturally-occurring selenium in its soil.  And, selenium is crucial to the activity of vitamin E.  But, no selenium supplementation was included in the study.  (For a more detailed discussion, you can access two articles I wrote “Finnish Anti-Oxidant Study” and “Sorting Out The Anti-Oxidant Controversy” on our web site www.RichardsFamilyHealth.com under the Heading “Vitamins .”  Just click “Treatments” on the green navigation bar, and then click on Vitamins on the left hand side.)

However, the point of the most recent anti-oxidant study wasn’t clarity, although the study’s primary author insists that it was.  I think the conclusion of the study’s author says it all,  "The governments of the world now have the responsibility to inform people of these results. They have been too slow in the past in requesting that health supplements are properly evaluated, and allowing these products to be added to foods. People have been buying these supplements and foods advertised as having these supplements added under the impression that they
are good for them, when in actual fact they are harmful. Any potential health supplements should not be allowed to be added to foods unless they have been shown to be beneficial, or at least proven not to be harmful." (emphasis added)  In the article on Medscape, the author commented that the study’s author said that food supplements should be regulated in the same way as medical products.  (The article can be accessed through a Google search: antioxidants + JAMA + 2007; click on Antioxidant Vitamins May Increase Mortality). 

I believe the whole point is to accustom people to government regulation of their health options.  We are facing a concerted effort to make all herbs and supplements by prescription only.  (For more information on this, you can go to www.healthfreedomusa.org )

At the end of the Fox News segment on this anti-oxidant research, the doctor trotted out the old canard about getting everything you need from food.  Given the amount of data about the degradation of the nutrient content of our food supply, this is laughable.  Remember the recent study showing that fresh produce at the supermarket has the same nutrient content as frozen or canned produce?    And, the fact that in the 1940s, government studies indicated that freezing reduced nutrient content by 98% and canning by 99%?  Anti-oxidants are very sensitive to light, heat and oxidation.  So, they are readily destroyed by our handling and storage procedures.  So, where does that leave us?  Back to choosing the right supplements for our personal needs via a customized blood chemistry panel.

And, what about garlic? The latest study being bandied about states unequivocally that garlic does not affect cholesterol levels. http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20070226/garlic-may-not-lower-cholesterol  This study flies in the face of hundreds of other studies that demonstrate the value of garlic for a multitude of cardiovascular health factors, including:  reduction of arterial plaque formation, reduction in LDL cholesterol, reduction in age-related increases in aortic stiffness, modest reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, platelet inhibition (i.e., a reduction in clot formation), increased fibrinolytic activity (again, reduced clot formation), and reduction in rancidity of the oils in the blood.  Garlic has been called “phyto-HDL” and “herbal warfarin,” but without the side effects.  So, why the dichotomy in the results? Here’s the story.

The problem with this most recent study is that the wrong forms of garlic were used. The study used three types of garlic: raw in sandwiches, garlic powder or powdered Kyolic, an aged garlic which is marketed as odor free.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/health/27nost.html.  Why is this a problem?  First of all, the active ingredient in garlic is the smell!  So, obviously, the Kyolic product cannot be considered therapeutic.  It is useless for any of the health benefits of garlic — anticoagulation, cholesterol effects and antibiotic effects. 

The mechanism by which garlic produces effects impacts the other two forms of garlic chosen. Once garlic is crushed (chewed or powdered) it releases two chemical precursors that combine in an alkaline environment to produce the active substance.  The alkaline environment in the digestive tract is the small intestine.  The first stop when you swallow is the stomach, which is extremely acid; and the acid destroys the chemical precursors, essentially eradicating any therapeutic effect that garlic might offer.  And, drying garlic to create powder, also damages the allicin.

What you need to know is that, in order for garlic to offer therapeutic effects, it must be in an enteric-coated tablet that dissolves in the small intestine.    Any study done on other forms of garlic is destined for failure. Which, when you think of it, is very convenient if your goal is to discredit a natural agent in favor of expensive — and toxic — drugs. Since there is plenty of information about the correct form of garlic available in the literature, I can only conclude that the study design was deliberately chosen to achieve the desired result.

Third, the Fox News segment addressed the “safety” of estrogen therapy. The doctor was highlighting a study on transdermal estrogen therapy, i.e., patches.  The point of the study was that transdermal delivery reduces the risk of strokes and blood clots. Hunh?  Does everyone in the country suffer from memory loss?  Or, do the commentators just assume we’re stupid? 

The news about estrogen-replacement therapy (HRT) is that it is carcinogenic!  All of the studies demonstrate that estrogen therapy increases the risk of breast cancer.    And, this information has been available for years!  Just consult my web site under “Health Conditions,” “Women’s Health” for a series of articles dating back to the 1990s about the risk of cancer with HRT.  Yet, when I did a recent on-line research on this topic, all of the articles I found relating to estrogen therapy and cancer focussed only on endometrial cancer.  Do you remember the drop in cancer rates in this country, particularly breast cancer over the last year?    This was mostly due to women stopping HRT on their own.  Many doctors are urging women to disregard the risk of cancer and continue HRT for its supposed “benefits.”  And, the drug companies are funding many studies to find rationalizations for continued use of hormone prescriptions, because the loss of revenue is seriously affecting their bottom line.

There are many herbal, safe alternatives to menopausal symptoms.  However, the protocol is individualized for each woman.  If you want help, please call the Clinic and schedule a consultation to deal with menopause.

I would like to give you much of the more positive vitamin news that offsets this sort of propaganda; however, space is becoming a problem.  So, let me just give you one example of important news that never made American headlines. The study was conducted in Canada and published in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics.  It found that children born of mothers who took a daily multivitamin containing folic acid had a much lower risk of common childhood cancers.  The statistics are as follows — a 47-per-cent lower risk for neuroblastoma (the most deadly form of childhood cancer), a 39-per-cent lower risk for leukemia (the most common form of pediatric cancer) and a 27-per-cent lower risk for other brain tumors,such as medulloblastoma and primitive neuroectodermal tumors.  These results are extremely powerful, statistically.  Why haven’t we seen them heralded in every newspaper in the land?  What’s more important than reducing the risk of childhood cancers?  But, I’m afraid positive news regarding vitamin supplementation doesn’t fit the media model. 

I have first hand experience of the media bias from just last year.  Remember the West Nile Virus scare, and my recommendations concerning Medi-Herb St. John’s Wort for both prevention and treatment?  I prepared a press release, in an effort to disseminate what I considered to be vitally important information.  We contacted several media outlets, and no one would put it on the air.  Their reason?  Nothing that was not AMA approved got air time!  If that doesn’t sum it up, I don’t know what does.

Other important information about the role of vitamin E taken prenatally to reduce the incidence of asthma in children and the benefits of fish oils in pregnancy can also be found on our web site www.RichardsFamilyHealth.com or on my blog, www.DrRichardsTalksBack.com.  Space prevents me from elaborating on them  further in this letter.

So, what can you do?  Become an educated consumer.  Read every news article with a skeptic’s eye.    Use my web site or blog, and others like them for analyses of “news articles.”     And, take care of yourself and your family by obtaining a personalized, blood chemistry-based nutrition program from our clinic.

PLEASE!!!  In the first place, we've heard all of this before.  In the 1970's, the American obstetrical community became concerned about women gaining too much weight during pregnancy.  Some pregnant women were even put on diets!  The result:  A dramatic increase in retardation in newborns.  It took only about 5 years for that recommendation to die a much-deserved death. 

But now, we're at it again.  From what I read, no one has considered that overweight mothers feed their families diets that contribute to weight gain.  Besides which, the standards for obesity are the already discredited Body Mass Index figures.  Unfortunately, the fact that they are discredited is not widely known.  (see my article  "Body Mass Index Invalid", under the heading Blog on this site)  Instead, we have invalid standards being imposed in ways that are potentially dangerous.

My recommendation:  Worry about your weight after your baby is born.  Make sure that you eat a well-balanced diet, plenty of protein and take high-quality, mercury-free fish oil supplements, as well as a good quality pre-natal vitamin.  When your baby is born, breast-feed and continue your supplements.  This will give your baby the best start in life and will help you to lose weight naturally.  Finally, feed your family a well-balanced, whole food diet.  Avoid processed foods and soda and you will be miles ahead of the average American.

The first issue:  Estrogen and cancer risk.  It’s been almost a year since the initial announcement that estrogen therapy increases a woman’s risk of cancer.  This is true even of bioidentical hormones, which many doctors have turned to as an alternative to Premarin®. 

A new analysis of federal cancer statistics, presented Thursday, December 13, 2006 at a scientific conference called the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, revealed a 7.2% drop in breast cancer over the last year as women stopped taking hormone replacement therapy.  www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16206352/

This most recent announcement came as no surprise to me.  I remember in the late 1980s and early 1990s doing presentations on the risk of estrogen therapy.  At one event at Whole Foods Market, an audience member challenged me by asking, "Don’t you have any more recent data?"  I explained to her that human physiology hasn’t changed in 10,000 years.  So, the age of the data was not a factor.  Now, we have hard evidence that estrogen is extremely carcinogenic.

Unfortunately, the medical profession has no alternatives to offer menopausal women.  I have studied this subject in depth and have a variety of herbal alternatives.  These herbs are not estrogenic.  More importantly, as a woman I appreciate the fact that herbal medicine treats each of us as individuals.  And, what works for one woman may not work for another.  So, at the RFHC, we customize a program for your individual metabolism. 

If you have an interest in a non-hormonal approach to menopausal relief — including insomnia, hot flashes and vaginal dryness — you can schedule a consultation at the office.

The second issue:  Prilosec®, Nexium® and Zantac® (and other similar drugs used to suppress acid production in your stomach) increases osteoporosis, and the risk of hip fracture.  (JAMA, December 27, 2006) www.seniorhealthweek.org/osteoporosis.htm  This finding is a "duh!"  You may have heard me carrying on about using Tums®  (an antacid) for calcium supplementation — which is a complete joke!  You cannot absorb calcium in an alkaline environment.  So, anything that decreases stomach acid inhibits calcium absorption.  Ipso facto, osteoporosis! 

I will reiterate what I have said hundreds of times — actually, I feel like a broken record — supppressing stomach acid is exactly the wrong approach to gastroesophageal reflux (GERD).  For the stomach to empty, you need a pH of 1 or 2 in the stomach.  That’s a LOT of acid.  When you have inadequate stomach acid, pressure builds up in the stomach and the upper, esophageal sphincter opens because it is the weaker of the two valves — resulting in heartburn.

In some instances, problems in the lower gut — yeast overgrowth, allergies, and parasites — cause excessive peristalsis in the gut and upward pressure that causes the reflux.

The key:  finding out what is causing you to have symptoms, and then addressing them.  For some, a bowel cleanse program is the key; for others, it’s a simple matter of taking digestive aids.  At the RFHC, we can determine what you, personally, need. 

And, I predict that the next problem with these drugs will be a documented increase in stomach cancer.  Low stomach acidity is a known risk factor for stomach cancer.  I just think these drugs — which have the highest sales volume in the U.S., followed closely by pain killers — are dangerous.

And, finally, the third issue:  Fish oils during pregnancy!  This is a huge win for all pregnant women and their babies.  FINALLY, it has been demonstrated that babies born to women who take fish oil supplements in the last trimester of pregnancy have better neurological development. 

The study (performed in Australia) found a significant advance in hand-eye coordination among toddlers whose mothers took fish oil supplements during the second half of pregnancy compared with those who did not. http://www.oilofpisces.com/pregnancy.html

There was also improvement in brainpower and vocabulary among children exposed to fish oil supplements in the womb, says the study published on Thursday online in the medical journal Archives of Disease in Childhood.  And, as an added benefit, mother’s who took fish oil supplements had lower blood pressure and a lowered incidence of post-partum depression.

I have only been giving fish oil supplements to pregnant and nursing mothers for 20 years!  Two caveats, however:  Do not take cod liver oil for this purpose.  Cod liver oil is higher in vitamins D and A than in Omega 3 oils, which are what are needed for brain development.  And, be certain of the quality of your fish oil supplements.  The product should be certified mercury-free.  The products we carry at the RFHC meet stringent quality requirements.

Happy New Year!  I hope 2007 will be even better for you and your family than 2006!