Well this is no surprise. I have watched the quality of health care slide into murky waters over almost four decades now, especially since the insurance companies began dictating how health care is (or isn't) delivered.
Unfortunately most people are not aware of the basics that are required of health care professionals. My guess is that most doctors and NPs, as with pharmacists and dentists et al, don't know either.
This issue is probably the key componenet to why my work is so very different.
If you are looking for a sound second opinion, information on Rx drugs, nutrient depletion information about Rx drugs and nutritionally based health care, consider using the services of Creating Health Institute, www.leaflady.org. We appreciate your trust.
YODA
Most Get Mediocre Health Care
By JEFF DONN, Associated Press Writer
Startling research from the biggest study ever of U.S. health care quality suggests that Americans — rich, poor, black, white — get roughly equal treatment, but it's woefully mediocre for all.
"This study shows that health care has equal-opportunity defects," said Dr. Donald Berwick, who runs the nonprofit Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Cambridge, Mass.
The survey of nearly 7,000 patients, reported Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, considered only urban-area dwellers who sought treatment, but it still challenged some stereotypes: These blacks and Hispanics actually got slightly better medical treatment than whites.
While the researchers acknowledged separate evidence that minorities fare worse in some areas of expensive care and suffer more from some conditions than whites, their study found that once in treatment, minorities' overall care appears similar to that of whites.
"It doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, white or black, insured or uninsured," said chief author Dr. Steven Asch, at the Rand Health research institute, in Santa Monica, Calif. "We all get equally mediocre care."
The researchers, who included U.S. Veterans Affairs personnel, first published their findings for the general population in June 2003. They reported the breakdown by racial, income, and other social groups on Thursday.
They examined medical records and phone interviews from 6,712 randomly picked patients who visited a medical office within a two-year period in 12 metropolitan areas from Boston to Miami to Seattle. The group was not nationally representative but does convey a broad picture of the country's health care practices.
The survey examined whether people got the highest standard of treatment for 439 measures ranging across common chronic and acute conditions and disease prevention. It looked at whether they got the right tests, drugs and treatments.
Overall, patients received only 55 percent of recommended steps for top-quality care — and no group did much better or worse than that.
Blacks and Hispanics as a group each got 58 percent of the best care, compared to 54 percent for whites. Those with annual household income over $50,000 got 57 percent, 4 points more than people from households of less than $15,000. Patients without insurance got 54 percent of recommended steps, just one point less than those with managed care.
As to gender, women came out slightly ahead with 57 percent, compared to 52 percent for men. Young adults did slightly better than the elderly.
There were narrow snapshots of inequality: An insured white woman, for example, got 57 percent of the best standard of care, while an uninsured black man got just 51 percent.
"Though we are improving, disparities in health care still exist," said Dr. Garth Graham, director of the U.S. Office of Minority Health.
Graham, who is black, pointed to other data showing enduring inequality in care, including a large federal study last year. He also said minorities go without treatment more often than whites, and such people are missed entirely by this survey.
Some experts took heart in the relative equality within the survey. "The study did find some reassuring things," said Dr. Tim Carey, who runs a health service research center at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
But all health experts interviewed fretted about the uniformly low standard. "Regardless of who you are or what group you're in, there is a significant gap between the care you deserve and the care you receive," said Dr. Reed Tuckson, who is black and a vice president of United HealthGroup, which runs health plans and sells medical data.
Health experts blame the overall poor care on an overburdened, fragmented system that fails to keep close track of patients with an increasing number of multiple conditions.
Quality specialists said improvements can come with more public reporting of performance, more uniform training, more computerized checks and more coordination by patients themselves.
___
New England Journal of Medicine: http://nejm.org
National Healthcare Disparities Report: http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr05/nhdr05.htm
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Too much news to comment, but this one is urgent
Breast Cancer and EMFs
For many years I have been educating about the risks of EMF/ELF. In the general realm of this industry, few, if any, customers realize the health risks, even while the evidence in solid research is mounting rapidly. It is not just thermal damaage one has to worry about.
Now, should you take the time to read the linked article you'll see that that cell phone you think is so conveninet is now linked to interfereing with taxol treatment.
Of course, should you be a regular visitor to leaflady.org and read the women's health, electro-smog or x-rays and health sections you'd be ahead of the curve.
I just love the 10 year old fact I learned recently from UK patent applications from the top 3 cell phone compnaies: YES, they know that these little gadgets emit radiation, and the radiation is indeed harmful. Dr. Neil Cherry told us this, as have many other qualified reseachers and scientists.
If you like to reduce your exposure, just do a little reading, then proceed to help CHI and this blog to keep on educating.
As usual, more to come!
YODA
For many years I have been educating about the risks of EMF/ELF. In the general realm of this industry, few, if any, customers realize the health risks, even while the evidence in solid research is mounting rapidly. It is not just thermal damaage one has to worry about.
Now, should you take the time to read the linked article you'll see that that cell phone you think is so conveninet is now linked to interfereing with taxol treatment.
Of course, should you be a regular visitor to leaflady.org and read the women's health, electro-smog or x-rays and health sections you'd be ahead of the curve.
I just love the 10 year old fact I learned recently from UK patent applications from the top 3 cell phone compnaies: YES, they know that these little gadgets emit radiation, and the radiation is indeed harmful. Dr. Neil Cherry told us this, as have many other qualified reseachers and scientists.
If you like to reduce your exposure, just do a little reading, then proceed to help CHI and this blog to keep on educating.
As usual, more to come!
YODA
Sunday, February 5, 2006
Aspartame Ban in Process in New Mexico
Aspartame/Formaldehyde Ban Press Conference; NM Capitol Rotunda 2 PM, Monday regarding New Mexico Senate Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde Ban Bill, SB 654 (Senator Ortiz y Pino)
Cori Brackett and her film revealing the vast epidemiological scourge of Aspartame, will be presented in Senator Ortiz y Pino's Press Conference. A copy of her film will be given to every legislator. After seeing it, they will recognize the urgent public health crisis if Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde is not banned in New Mexico, and perhaps all 112 Legislators will ask Governor William Blaine Richardson III to champion this legislative ban on Aspartame. To not do so before this legislative session ends: what a carte blance and green light it sends to every neurotoxic and carcinogenic food additive manufacturer in the world, that they, not the Legislature and the Governor, are in control!
Dr. Betty Martini, Founder of Mission Possible Interntional, an organization of physicians, lawyers, and aspartame poisoning victims, will be present as well in this important press conference.
We look forward to screening Cori Brackett's film, Sweet Misery, in the New Mexico Capitol, on Tuesday, Native American Day, and recognize the fortuitous coincidence of this effort reaching out to inform one of the groups most vulnerable to neurotoxic carcinogens, the Native American
population of New Mexico.
Please let nearest Associated Press Office Bureau Chief know, as well as medical/Consumer Desk at several newspapers, plus apprise all of your physician and journalist friends.
For information, please read http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/38994.html
You are most welcome to post a comment after reading the article.
Bill Text is at: http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/_session.asp?
chamber=S&type=++&number=654&Submit=Search&year=06
The press conference is in response to NM Senate Public Affairs Committee
voting 7-2 on Friday to table SB 654. 6 our of 7 of the Senators voting to
table regularly drink Diet Coke. Corporate lobbyists spoke at length,
representing Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, Ajinomoto of Japan (the world's largest
manufacturer of neurotoxic aspartame and of Monosodium Glutamate), the
Calorie Control Council (an industry front group), and the New Mexico Soft
Drink Association, all of whom have so much to lose if aspartame is banned.
Majority Whip Senator Mary Jane Garcia (D-Las Cruces), one of the bill's
original signators and cosponsors, spoke of her need as a diabetic to
continue to consume Diet Coke, and apologized for her having to withdrawal
her support of the bill, despite medical counsel for her not to continue to
consume a product metabolized as formaldehyde as a way of protecting not
destroying her pancreas. We are sure that her "about-face" in support
resulted from pressure by corporate lobbyists from Coca Cola.
The lobbyists for Ajinomoto now include Michael Stratton of Colorado, U.S.
Senator Ken Salazar's campaign manager, currently on the Democratic National
Committee's (DNC) Presidential Nomination and Scheduling Commission.
There are several Parliamentary procedures that can be used to achieve the
enactment of this SB654, which includes a $100,000 to the office of the New
Mexico Attorney General for enforcement.
_______________________________________________________________________
Such a ban on Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde as a food additive will
prevent and heal numerous neurodegenerative and carcinogenic illnesses.
Further, Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde has been allowed by the United
States Food and Drug Administration to be included in hundreds of children's
medications, aspirin, vitamins, as well as used as a sweetener for many
adult medications, for example: Parcopa (Schwarz Pharmaceuticals-Chicago,
Illinois), used to treat Parkinson's Disease.
The presence of Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde in medications is presently
the subject of a petition for rule change before the New Mexico Board of
Pharmacy, as well as a petition to end the use of Thimerosal/Mercury in
vaccines, based on the same statutory powers of the New Mexico Board of
Pharmacy.
http://www.wnho.net/statutory_powers_nm_pharmacy_board.htm
To contact H.J.Roberts, M.D., author of Aspartame Disease: An FDA Ignored
Epidemic--------hjrobertsmd@aol.com
http://www.aspartame.ca/epidemic-s3.pdf
Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock's articles and books are excellent:
Excitotoxins: the Taste that Kills
Dr. Blaylock's letter to Miami Herald regarding Calorie Control Council's
Neonatologically disastrous recommendation of
Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde, disastrous in terms of neurodegenerative
effects on fetuses:
http://www.wnho.net/mh_aspartame_letter.htm
Media Interviews with Dr. Roberts and Dr. Blaylock may be scheduled through
Dr. Betty Martini (770) 242-2599
Further medical information on effects of Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde:
at website for the World Natural Health Organization, www.wnho.net
For media scheduling requests, Senator Ortiz y Pino is at (505) 986-4380
Governor Richardson is at (505) 827-3000.
President Pro Tem of the NM Senate Ben Altamirano is at (505) 986-4733
Stephen Fox is at: stephen@santafefineart.com (505) 983-2002
Cori Brackett and her film revealing the vast epidemiological scourge of Aspartame, will be presented in Senator Ortiz y Pino's Press Conference. A copy of her film will be given to every legislator. After seeing it, they will recognize the urgent public health crisis if Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde is not banned in New Mexico, and perhaps all 112 Legislators will ask Governor William Blaine Richardson III to champion this legislative ban on Aspartame. To not do so before this legislative session ends: what a carte blance and green light it sends to every neurotoxic and carcinogenic food additive manufacturer in the world, that they, not the Legislature and the Governor, are in control!
Dr. Betty Martini, Founder of Mission Possible Interntional, an organization of physicians, lawyers, and aspartame poisoning victims, will be present as well in this important press conference.
We look forward to screening Cori Brackett's film, Sweet Misery, in the New Mexico Capitol, on Tuesday, Native American Day, and recognize the fortuitous coincidence of this effort reaching out to inform one of the groups most vulnerable to neurotoxic carcinogens, the Native American
population of New Mexico.
Please let nearest Associated Press Office Bureau Chief know, as well as medical/Consumer Desk at several newspapers, plus apprise all of your physician and journalist friends.
For information, please read http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/38994.html
You are most welcome to post a comment after reading the article.
Bill Text is at: http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/_session.asp?
chamber=S&type=++&number=654&Submit=Search&year=06
The press conference is in response to NM Senate Public Affairs Committee
voting 7-2 on Friday to table SB 654. 6 our of 7 of the Senators voting to
table regularly drink Diet Coke. Corporate lobbyists spoke at length,
representing Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, Ajinomoto of Japan (the world's largest
manufacturer of neurotoxic aspartame and of Monosodium Glutamate), the
Calorie Control Council (an industry front group), and the New Mexico Soft
Drink Association, all of whom have so much to lose if aspartame is banned.
Majority Whip Senator Mary Jane Garcia (D-Las Cruces), one of the bill's
original signators and cosponsors, spoke of her need as a diabetic to
continue to consume Diet Coke, and apologized for her having to withdrawal
her support of the bill, despite medical counsel for her not to continue to
consume a product metabolized as formaldehyde as a way of protecting not
destroying her pancreas. We are sure that her "about-face" in support
resulted from pressure by corporate lobbyists from Coca Cola.
The lobbyists for Ajinomoto now include Michael Stratton of Colorado, U.S.
Senator Ken Salazar's campaign manager, currently on the Democratic National
Committee's (DNC) Presidential Nomination and Scheduling Commission.
There are several Parliamentary procedures that can be used to achieve the
enactment of this SB654, which includes a $100,000 to the office of the New
Mexico Attorney General for enforcement.
_______________________________________________________________________
Such a ban on Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde as a food additive will
prevent and heal numerous neurodegenerative and carcinogenic illnesses.
Further, Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde has been allowed by the United
States Food and Drug Administration to be included in hundreds of children's
medications, aspirin, vitamins, as well as used as a sweetener for many
adult medications, for example: Parcopa (Schwarz Pharmaceuticals-Chicago,
Illinois), used to treat Parkinson's Disease.
The presence of Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde in medications is presently
the subject of a petition for rule change before the New Mexico Board of
Pharmacy, as well as a petition to end the use of Thimerosal/Mercury in
vaccines, based on the same statutory powers of the New Mexico Board of
Pharmacy.
http://www.wnho.net/statutory_powers_nm_pharmacy_board.htm
To contact H.J.Roberts, M.D., author of Aspartame Disease: An FDA Ignored
Epidemic--------hjrobertsmd@aol.com
http://www.aspartame.ca/epidemic-s3.pdf
Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock's articles and books are excellent:
Excitotoxins: the Taste that Kills
Dr. Blaylock's letter to Miami Herald regarding Calorie Control Council's
Neonatologically disastrous recommendation of
Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde, disastrous in terms of neurodegenerative
effects on fetuses:
http://www.wnho.net/mh_aspartame_letter.htm
Media Interviews with Dr. Roberts and Dr. Blaylock may be scheduled through
Dr. Betty Martini (770) 242-2599
Further medical information on effects of Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde:
at website for the World Natural Health Organization, www.wnho.net
For media scheduling requests, Senator Ortiz y Pino is at (505) 986-4380
Governor Richardson is at (505) 827-3000.
President Pro Tem of the NM Senate Ben Altamirano is at (505) 986-4733
Stephen Fox is at: stephen@santafefineart.com (505) 983-2002
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
HOW WE LIVE - A Psychiatric Review
Psychiatric diagnosis is used when doctors can't seem to find out what ails you, or won't take the time to try to figure it out. There is something here for you to think about, and if you need a real medical detective visit www.leaflady.org...
Psychiatry's sick compulsion from the Los Angeles Times
By Irwin Savodnik
Irwin Savodnik is a psychiatrist and philosopher who teaches at UCLA.
January 1, 2006
IT'S JAN. 1. Past time to get your inoculation against seasonal
affective disorder, or SAD — at least according to the American
Psychiatric Assn. As Americans rush to return Christmas junk, bumping
into each other in Macy's and Best Buy, the psychiatric association
ponders its latest iteration of feeling bad for the holidays. And what
is the association selling? Mental illness. With its panoply of major
depression, dysthymic disorder, bipolar disorder and generalized
anxiety disorder, the association is waving its Calvinist flag to remind
everyone that amid all the celebration, all the festivities, all the
exuberance, many people will "come down with" or "contract" or
"develop" some variation of depressive illness.
The association specializes in turning ordinary human frailty into
disease. In the last year, ads have been appearing in psychiatric
journals about possible treatments for shyness, a "syndrome" not yet
officially recognized as a disease. You can bet it will be in the next
edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
or DSM-IV, published by the association. As it turns out, the association
has been inventing mental illnesses for the last 50 years or so. The
original diagnostic manual appeared in 1952 and contained 107 diagnoses
and 132 pages, by my count. The second edition burst forth in 1968 with
180 diagnoses and 119 pages. In 1980, the association produced a
494-page tome with 226 conditions. Then, in 1994, the manual exploded
to 886 pages and 365 conditions, representing a 340% increase in the
number of diseases over 42 years.
Nowhere in the rest of medicine has such a proliferation of categories
occurred. The reason for this difference between psychiatry and other
medical specialties has more to do with ideology than with science. A
brief peek at both areas makes this point clear. All medicine rests on
the premise that disease is a manifestation of diseased tissue.
Hepatitis comes down to an inflamed liver, while lung tissue
infiltrated with pneumococcus causes pneumonia. Every medical student learns this
principle. Where, though, is the diseased tissue in psychopathological
conditions?
Unlike the rest of medicine, psychiatry diagnoses behavior that society
doesn't like.
Psychiatry's sick compulsion from the Los Angeles Times
By Irwin Savodnik
Irwin Savodnik is a psychiatrist and philosopher who teaches at UCLA.
January 1, 2006
IT'S JAN. 1. Past time to get your inoculation against seasonal
affective disorder, or SAD — at least according to the American
Psychiatric Assn. As Americans rush to return Christmas junk, bumping
into each other in Macy's and Best Buy, the psychiatric association
ponders its latest iteration of feeling bad for the holidays. And what
is the association selling? Mental illness. With its panoply of major
depression, dysthymic disorder, bipolar disorder and generalized
anxiety disorder, the association is waving its Calvinist flag to remind
everyone that amid all the celebration, all the festivities, all the
exuberance, many people will "come down with" or "contract" or
"develop" some variation of depressive illness.
The association specializes in turning ordinary human frailty into
disease. In the last year, ads have been appearing in psychiatric
journals about possible treatments for shyness, a "syndrome" not yet
officially recognized as a disease. You can bet it will be in the next
edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
or DSM-IV, published by the association. As it turns out, the association
has been inventing mental illnesses for the last 50 years or so. The
original diagnostic manual appeared in 1952 and contained 107 diagnoses
and 132 pages, by my count. The second edition burst forth in 1968 with
180 diagnoses and 119 pages. In 1980, the association produced a
494-page tome with 226 conditions. Then, in 1994, the manual exploded
to 886 pages and 365 conditions, representing a 340% increase in the
number of diseases over 42 years.
Nowhere in the rest of medicine has such a proliferation of categories
occurred. The reason for this difference between psychiatry and other
medical specialties has more to do with ideology than with science. A
brief peek at both areas makes this point clear. All medicine rests on
the premise that disease is a manifestation of diseased tissue.
Hepatitis comes down to an inflamed liver, while lung tissue
infiltrated with pneumococcus causes pneumonia. Every medical student learns this
principle. Where, though, is the diseased tissue in psychopathological
conditions?
Unlike the rest of medicine, psychiatry diagnoses behavior that society
doesn't like.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Happy Holiday Fudge
Easy Raw Fudge
½ cup butter (softened) (raw, organic is best if you can get it)
1 cup arrow root powder (less expensive in oriental stores)
*½ cup almond milk (or rice milk or coconut milk)
1 cup raw, organic carob
1 tsp. pure, organic vanilla
1 cup walnuts (optional)
1 cup of the best quality unsweetened coconut you can find.
Mix together and roll into bite size balls.
Enjoy!
*To make almond milk, soak almonds overnight, place ¼ cup almonds with 1 cup warm water in blender. Blend until smooth. (Can be strained, if you prefer.)
½ cup butter (softened) (raw, organic is best if you can get it)
1 cup arrow root powder (less expensive in oriental stores)
*½ cup almond milk (or rice milk or coconut milk)
1 cup raw, organic carob
1 tsp. pure, organic vanilla
1 cup walnuts (optional)
1 cup of the best quality unsweetened coconut you can find.
Mix together and roll into bite size balls.
Enjoy!
*To make almond milk, soak almonds overnight, place ¼ cup almonds with 1 cup warm water in blender. Blend until smooth. (Can be strained, if you prefer.)
Thursday, December 1, 2005
Artificial Sweetener Causes Cancer
New Study Suggests Artificial Sweetener Causes Cancer in Rats at Levels Currently Approved for Humans
Report in Environmental Health Perspectives calls for reevaluation of acceptable limits of aspartame consumption
[Research Triangle Park, NC] ] A statistically significant increase in the incidence of malignant tumors, lymphomas and leukemias in rats exposed to varying doses of aspartame appears to link the artificial sweetener to a high carcinogenicity rate, according to a study accepted for publication today by the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP). The authors of the study, the first to demonstrate multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered to rats in feed, called for an "urgent reevaluation" of the current guidelines for the use and consumption of this compound.
"Our study has shown that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are also evident at a daily dose of 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg), notably less than the current acceptable daily intake for humans," the authors write. Currently, the acceptable daily intake for humans is set at 50 mg/kg in the United States and 40 mg/kg in Europe.
Aspartame is the second most widely used artificial sweetener in the world. It is found in more than 6,000 products including carbonated and powdered soft drinks, hot chocolate, chewing gum, candy, desserts, yogurt, and tabletop sweeteners, as well as some pharmaceutical products like vitamins and sugar-free cough drops. More than 200 million people worldwide consume it. The sweetener has been used for more than 30 years, having first been approved by the FDA in 1974. Studies of the carcinogenicity of aspartame performed by its producers have been negative.
Researchers administered aspartame to Sprague-Dawley rats by adding it to a standard diet. They began studying the rats at 8 weeks of age and continued until the spontaneous death of each rat. Treatment groups received feed that contained concentrations of aspartame at dosages simulating human daily intakes of 5,000, 2,500, 500, 100, 20, and 4 mg/kg body weight. Groups consisted of 100 males and 100 females at each of the three highest dosages and 150 males and 150 females at all lower dosages and controls.
The experiment ended after the death of the last animal at 159 weeks. At spontaneous death, each animal underwent examination for microscopic changes in all organs and tissues, a process different from the aspartame studies conducted 30 years ago and one that was designed to allow aspartame to fully express any carcinogenic potential.
The treated animals showed extensive evidence of malignant cancers including lymphomas, leukemias, and tumors at multiple organ sites in both males and females. The authors speculate the increase in lymphomas and leukemias may be related to one of the metabolites in aspartame, namely methanol, which is metabolized in both rats and humans to formaldehyde. Both methanol and formaldehyde have shown links to lymphomas and leukemias in other long-term experiments by the same authors.
The current study included more animals over a longer period than earlier studies. "In our opinion, previous studies did not comply with today's basic requirements for testing the carcinogenic potential of a physical or chemical agent, in particular concerning the number of rodents for each experimental group (40-86, compared to 100-150 in the current study) and the termination of previous studies at only 110 weeks of age of the animals," the study authors wrote.
The authors of the study were Morando Soffritti, Fiorella Belpoggi, Davide Degli Esposti, Luca Lambertini, Eva Tibaldi, and Anna Rigano of the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, Bologna, Italy. Funding for the research was provided by the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, Bologna, Italy. The article is available free of charge at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/8711/abstract.html.
EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. EHP EHP is an Open Access journal. More information is available online at http://www.ehponline.org/. Brogan & Partners Convergence Marketing handles marketing and public relations for EHP, and is responsible for creation and distribution of this press release.
Report in Environmental Health Perspectives calls for reevaluation of acceptable limits of aspartame consumption
[Research Triangle Park, NC] ] A statistically significant increase in the incidence of malignant tumors, lymphomas and leukemias in rats exposed to varying doses of aspartame appears to link the artificial sweetener to a high carcinogenicity rate, according to a study accepted for publication today by the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP). The authors of the study, the first to demonstrate multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered to rats in feed, called for an "urgent reevaluation" of the current guidelines for the use and consumption of this compound.
"Our study has shown that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are also evident at a daily dose of 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg), notably less than the current acceptable daily intake for humans," the authors write. Currently, the acceptable daily intake for humans is set at 50 mg/kg in the United States and 40 mg/kg in Europe.
Aspartame is the second most widely used artificial sweetener in the world. It is found in more than 6,000 products including carbonated and powdered soft drinks, hot chocolate, chewing gum, candy, desserts, yogurt, and tabletop sweeteners, as well as some pharmaceutical products like vitamins and sugar-free cough drops. More than 200 million people worldwide consume it. The sweetener has been used for more than 30 years, having first been approved by the FDA in 1974. Studies of the carcinogenicity of aspartame performed by its producers have been negative.
Researchers administered aspartame to Sprague-Dawley rats by adding it to a standard diet. They began studying the rats at 8 weeks of age and continued until the spontaneous death of each rat. Treatment groups received feed that contained concentrations of aspartame at dosages simulating human daily intakes of 5,000, 2,500, 500, 100, 20, and 4 mg/kg body weight. Groups consisted of 100 males and 100 females at each of the three highest dosages and 150 males and 150 females at all lower dosages and controls.
The experiment ended after the death of the last animal at 159 weeks. At spontaneous death, each animal underwent examination for microscopic changes in all organs and tissues, a process different from the aspartame studies conducted 30 years ago and one that was designed to allow aspartame to fully express any carcinogenic potential.
The treated animals showed extensive evidence of malignant cancers including lymphomas, leukemias, and tumors at multiple organ sites in both males and females. The authors speculate the increase in lymphomas and leukemias may be related to one of the metabolites in aspartame, namely methanol, which is metabolized in both rats and humans to formaldehyde. Both methanol and formaldehyde have shown links to lymphomas and leukemias in other long-term experiments by the same authors.
The current study included more animals over a longer period than earlier studies. "In our opinion, previous studies did not comply with today's basic requirements for testing the carcinogenic potential of a physical or chemical agent, in particular concerning the number of rodents for each experimental group (40-86, compared to 100-150 in the current study) and the termination of previous studies at only 110 weeks of age of the animals," the study authors wrote.
The authors of the study were Morando Soffritti, Fiorella Belpoggi, Davide Degli Esposti, Luca Lambertini, Eva Tibaldi, and Anna Rigano of the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, Bologna, Italy. Funding for the research was provided by the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, Bologna, Italy. The article is available free of charge at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/8711/abstract.html.
EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. EHP EHP is an Open Access journal. More information is available online at http://www.ehponline.org/. Brogan & Partners Convergence Marketing handles marketing and public relations for EHP, and is responsible for creation and distribution of this press release.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
New Echinacea Study Not Relevant to Informed Practice
When you are searching for an effective echinacea product, contact the leaflady. Our echinacea is made from root and flowers of fresh herb plants and has been proven to be highly effective.
Now for the hype to keep you from good natural health products -
A much publicized article recently featured in the New England Journal of Medicine claims to establish that Echinacea has no effect in the prevention and treatment of the common cold. In the study, the authors compared the effect of different preparations of Echinacea angustifolia root on rhinovirus infection. The infection was artificially induced using a strain of rhinovirus type 39 which is considered to be safe. The dose of Echinacea root used was 900 mg per day for 7 days before the virus challenge and then 5 days after. The study evaluated both preventative and treatment effects of the various Echinacea preparations on the rhinovirus infection and found no significant results for either. An important consideration was that the dose was not adjusted for the acute infection phase of the study. The Echinacea angustifolia root was extracted under different conditions in order to compare the effects of the different phytochemical profiles that are typically found in Echinacea products.
The study has been widely condemned, especially in terms of the low dose of Echinacea used. To put this in perspective, the daily amount of Echinacea used in the trial was the equivalent of around one half of a MediHerb Echinacea Premium tablet. (This assumes that the extract the authors made themselves was at least comparable to the patented product we produce under pharmaceutical GMP. Since we have tested products worldwide and found not one that even comes near the levels of alkylamides in Echinacea Premium, this assumption in the authors’ favor is unlikely to be the case, making the relative dose used in the trial even lower). In contrast, MediHerb recommends 2 tablets per day as a preventative dose for immune support and 3 to 4 times this amount (6 to 8 tablets) during acute infections. No wonder the study found no benefit from the low dose of Echinacea used. It is like taking one quarter of a headache tablet and wondering why your headache is still there.
In defense of the dose used, Dr. Ronald Turner has recently claimed that: “There is no evidence from prior studies that the dose of Echinacea would have changed the outcome…”. But, in fact, a study published as far back as 1992 suggests that this is not the case. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 180 patients with upper respiratory tract infections received the equivalent of 1800 mg per day or 900 mg per day of E. purpurea root as a tincture, or placebo. Patients receiving the high dose experienced significant relief of symptoms. However patients receiving the lower dose (900 mg) were not significantly different from the placebo control. Also the doses recommended in professional herb texts are clearly higher than 900 mg per day.
Even one of the article’s authors has acknowledged that the amount of Echinacea used in the study may have been insufficient. David Gangemi, PhD, of Clemson University responded to a question posed about this research at last month’s Medicines from the Earth Symposium in North Carolina by stating, “I think in retrospect if we go back and we look at some of the other products that are out there maybe we're only one tenth the level we should be.”
Another aspect of this study which limits the generalization of its results to all users of Echinacea was that an artificial infection was induced in young, healthy volunteers. This could be irrelevant to the real life situation where people with compromised immunity are exposed to a range of constantly evolving viruses and bacteria.
Unfortunately, this trial represents a waste of money and a missed opportunity to better understand the real clinical value of Echinacea.
If only someone had asked an herbalist!
Now for the hype to keep you from good natural health products -
A much publicized article recently featured in the New England Journal of Medicine claims to establish that Echinacea has no effect in the prevention and treatment of the common cold. In the study, the authors compared the effect of different preparations of Echinacea angustifolia root on rhinovirus infection. The infection was artificially induced using a strain of rhinovirus type 39 which is considered to be safe. The dose of Echinacea root used was 900 mg per day for 7 days before the virus challenge and then 5 days after. The study evaluated both preventative and treatment effects of the various Echinacea preparations on the rhinovirus infection and found no significant results for either. An important consideration was that the dose was not adjusted for the acute infection phase of the study. The Echinacea angustifolia root was extracted under different conditions in order to compare the effects of the different phytochemical profiles that are typically found in Echinacea products.
The study has been widely condemned, especially in terms of the low dose of Echinacea used. To put this in perspective, the daily amount of Echinacea used in the trial was the equivalent of around one half of a MediHerb Echinacea Premium tablet. (This assumes that the extract the authors made themselves was at least comparable to the patented product we produce under pharmaceutical GMP. Since we have tested products worldwide and found not one that even comes near the levels of alkylamides in Echinacea Premium, this assumption in the authors’ favor is unlikely to be the case, making the relative dose used in the trial even lower). In contrast, MediHerb recommends 2 tablets per day as a preventative dose for immune support and 3 to 4 times this amount (6 to 8 tablets) during acute infections. No wonder the study found no benefit from the low dose of Echinacea used. It is like taking one quarter of a headache tablet and wondering why your headache is still there.
In defense of the dose used, Dr. Ronald Turner has recently claimed that: “There is no evidence from prior studies that the dose of Echinacea would have changed the outcome…”. But, in fact, a study published as far back as 1992 suggests that this is not the case. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 180 patients with upper respiratory tract infections received the equivalent of 1800 mg per day or 900 mg per day of E. purpurea root as a tincture, or placebo. Patients receiving the high dose experienced significant relief of symptoms. However patients receiving the lower dose (900 mg) were not significantly different from the placebo control. Also the doses recommended in professional herb texts are clearly higher than 900 mg per day.
Even one of the article’s authors has acknowledged that the amount of Echinacea used in the study may have been insufficient. David Gangemi, PhD, of Clemson University responded to a question posed about this research at last month’s Medicines from the Earth Symposium in North Carolina by stating, “I think in retrospect if we go back and we look at some of the other products that are out there maybe we're only one tenth the level we should be.”
Another aspect of this study which limits the generalization of its results to all users of Echinacea was that an artificial infection was induced in young, healthy volunteers. This could be irrelevant to the real life situation where people with compromised immunity are exposed to a range of constantly evolving viruses and bacteria.
Unfortunately, this trial represents a waste of money and a missed opportunity to better understand the real clinical value of Echinacea.
If only someone had asked an herbalist!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
