|
|
September 03
John McCain is a joke!
John McCain is not just posing as a grumpy old man but has a secret identity. He is really the famous troll who liked to spin straw into gold, by the name of Rumple Stillskin.
John McCain stands in front of the mirror, saying; “mirror, mirror on the wall who‘s the fairest one of all,” and after the mirror replies, plots to give Obama a poison apple!
 
John McCain is so old and moldy that even Aricept or Holy Water couldn’t resurrect him or his soul. February 02 Quote Cholesterol Lowering Statin Drugs for Women Just Say No by Jeffrey Dach MD
| | | | | |
| | Cholesterol Lowering Statin Drugs for Women Just Say No to Statin Drugs by Jeffrey Dach MD
Click Here for the Original Version of this Article __________________________________________
A Woman on Lipitor With Leg Muscle Pain
Sally, a 56 year old retired real estate agent, came to see me in the office with the chief complaint of hot flashes, night sweats, mood disturbance and weight gain which are all fairly typical post-menopausal symptoms. In addition, she also had leg pain for the past 3 months, which prevented exercising. Lumbar Spine MRI Scan to evaluate the leg pain showed only a bulging disk and was otherwise negative. About 6 months ago, Sally’s cholesterol was 245, and her cardiologist prescribed a cholesterol lowering statin drug, Lipitor. Sally has no history of heart disease, does not smoke, eats a healthy diet, and takes a few vitamins, and doesn’t supplement with CoEnzyme Q-10.
MRI Scan of Leg Muscles
I explained to Sally that her leg pain was a well known adverse side effect of Lipitor, a valid reason for stopping the drug. The leg muscle pain is caused by Lipitor depletion of Co-Enzyme Q 10, which is important for energy production in the muscle cells. I suggested to Sally that she supplement with CO-enzyme Q-10, and strongly recommended stopping the statin drug.
What is the definition of elevated cholesterol?
When I was a medical student in 1976, normal cholesterol was 240. However, this was changed in 1993 to the new guidelines.
New Cholesterol Guidelines in 1993
above 240: high
above 200: borderline high
below 200: desirable
The cholesterol guidelines were revised downward to 200 by a committee of 9 doctors, 8 of whom were receiving money from statin drug companies. There was no science behind this revision. (1 ) (2) (3)
A 2006 paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine (October 3, 2006; 145(7): 520-530) argues that there is NO EVIDENCE to support the target numbers outlined by the Cholesterol Guidelines panel, challenging the mainstream medical belief that lower cholesterol levels are always better. “This paper is not arguing that there is strong evidence against the LDL targets, but rather that there’s no evidence for them,” said Dr. Rodney A. Hayward, a study author,
The laboratory will flag any cholesterol test results above 200 as abnormal. Please ignore this. In reality a cholesterol reading above 200 and below 240 is normal. If above 240, then nutritional supplements containing niacin, omega 3 oils, and plant sterols are used to bring it down to 240. (4)
Mary Enig says: "Blood cholesterol levels between 200 and 240 mg/dl are normal. These levels have always been normal. In older women, serum cholesterol levels greatly above these numbers are also quite normal, and in fact they have been shown to be associated with longevity. Since 1984, however, in the United States and other parts of the western world, these normal numbers have been treated as if they were an indication of a disease in progress or a potential for disease in the future. (4)
A cholesterol of 240 is NOT ELEVATED. This is normal and compatible with good health.
Medical Terrorism
through Drug Company Advertising:
The reality is that there is no mortality benefit from lowering cholersterol with statin drugs: Both lines on the chart below are superimposed meaning the number of deaths in the statin drug group was identical to the number of deaths in the placebo group. Chart Courtesy of (Eddie Vos).
Just say NO When Your Doctor Prescribes a Statin Drug.
The truth is that NO woman should ever be given Lipitor or any other statin drug for elevated cholesterol. Dr. Rose says, "There are no statin trials with even the slightest hint of a mortality benefit in women and women should be told so". (5). In other words, statin drugs don’t work for women.
No Female Should Ever Take A Statin Drug
Let me repeat that so this is very clear: No female should ever take a statin drug to lower cholesterol for primary prevention of heart disease. They don’t work for women. Women who take Lipitor or any other statin drug to lower cholesterol do not live any longer than women who don’t take the drug. There is no benefit in terms of prolonging your life for women. On the other hand, there are plenty of adverse side effects which include muscle pain, cognitive impairment, neuropathy, congestive heart failure, transient global amnesia and dementia.
 Why do Cardiologists Give Statin Drugs to Women?
Why do cardiologists and mainstream docs continue to prescribe statins to women? It is very simple, they succumb to the drug company “spin” from the drug reps and the medical journals which are slanted in favor of statins. In addition, the mainstream doctors succumb to patient's demands and expectations for the drugs after seeing the celebrity TV ads.
Are You Still Not Convinced?
Mary Enig writes, "No study has shown a significant reduction in mortality in women treated with statins. The University of British Columbia Therapeutics Initiative came to the same conclusion, with the finding that statins offer no benefit to women for prevention of heart disease." (6) (7)
Are you still not convinced that women should NOT take Statin Drugs? Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Judith Walsh MD who wrote this in JAMA, 4 years ago in an article entitled, Treatment of Hyperlipidemia in Women: "For women without cardiovascular disease, lipid lowering does not affect total or CHD (Cardiovascular Heart Disease) mortality. Lipid lowering may reduce CHD events, but current evidence is insufficient to determine this conclusively. For women with known cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is effective in reducing CHD events, CHD mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and revascularization, but it does not affect total mortality."(8)
Translation: Cholesterol lowering with statin drugs does not reduce total mortality in women, PERIOD. It doesn’t reduce mortality in women without heart disease, called primary prevention. It doesn’t reduce mortality in women with heart disease, called secondary prevention.
Still not convinced?, then read this article by Malcolm McKendrick, a doctor in England, in the British Medical Journal, May 2007, entitled: "Should Women be Offered Cholesterol Lowering Drugs? NO"."(8A) "To date, none of the large trials of secondary prevention with statins has shown a reduction in overall mortality in women. Perhaps more critically, the primary prevention trials have shown neither an overall mortality benefit, nor even a reduction in cardiovascular end points in women. This raises the important question whether women should be prescribed statins at all. I believe that the answer is clearly no."(8A)
Note: Secondary prevention means women with known heart disease. Primary prevention means women without known heart disease.
Still not convinced ? Then read this June 2007 article by Electra Kaczorowski, of the National Women’s Health Network (9) "There is currently no indication that women of any age or any risk level will benefit from taking statins to prevent CHD and other heart conditions – yet this is precisely how statins are being marketed to women. "(9)
Still not convinced ? Are statin drugs good for anybody? Read this review article by Joel Kauffman PhD, Dec 2003, in which the best statin trial results (the HPS simvastatin study) had an absolute reduction of all cause death rate of 0.38% per year. Yet this performance was inferior to the less expensive alternatives of buffered aspirin or Omega-3 oils.(10)
Quote: "The most favorable (statin) trial with seemingly impeccable reporting and minimal financial conflict of interest was the Heart Protection Study (HPS), on simvastatin for 5 years, in which secondary prevention in men (86% of patients) of any unwanted vascular event gave a RR = 0.76 (5.5% absolute, 1.1% per year), and an all-cause death rate drop of 0.38% per year.16 Since this performance is inferior to that of either Bufferin in men or omega-3 fatty acid supplements, both of which have lesser side-effects, and are far less expensive, the logic of prescribing simvastatin seems faulty.".(10)
Still not convinced ? Then read this article by Harriett Rosenberg from Women and Health Protection from June 2007, Do Cholesteriol Lowering Drugs Benefit Women ? (11) Evidence for Caution: Women and statin use By Harriet Rosenberg Danielle Allard Women and Health Protection June 2007
Quote: "Our review of these fields identifies a troubling disjuncture between the widespread use of statin medication for women and the evidence base for that usage. What we found instead was evidence for caution."
Still not convinced ? Not only are statin drugs a failure for women, they also should never be prescribed to the elderly. Mortality in the elderly goes up as cholesterol goes down. Read this Letter to the Editor by Eddie Vos. (12)
Quote:"Regarding women, two 2004 analysis found no reduction in deaths from statin over placebo. In actual patient outcomes, the J-LIT study in 41,801 hypercholesterolemic Japanese (2/3rds women) found mortality in the 2 lowest on-statin cholesterol categories 2-3 times higher; its authors cautioned about ‘hyperresponders’ to statin. The 4S study ended with 3 more dead women on statin vs.placebo, and another ‘successful’ study, HPS, found no significant mortality benefit in women." See article for references.
Still not convinced ? Then read this article by Bill Sardi, Who Will Tell the People? It Isn't Cholesterol ! (13) " If physicians were truly honest with their patients, there probably would be very few people being treated for primary prevention with a statin drug." Still not convinced? Then read this Jan 2007 Lancet article by Harvard trained MD, John Abramson, "Are lipid-lowering guidelines Evidence-Based ? ". (14) Quote:" No studies have shown statin cholesterol-lowering drugs to be effective for women at any age, nor for men 69 years of age or older, who do not already have heart disease or diabetes. Better than 50 adults have to take a cholesterol-lowering drug for 1 patient to avoid a mortal heart attack, and that figure only applies to high-risk patients. There is a vanishing benefit to lowering cholesterol for healthy adults." Dr. Abramson calls for cholesterol treatment guidelines to be revised. [Lancet 2007; 369:168-169] Still not convinced? Then read this e-book by Shane Ellsion, "The Hidden Truth About Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs! ", by Shane Ellison, MS, Organic Chemistry. (15)
"Among healthy people, statin drugs do not prevent early death from heart disease, despite their cholesterol lowering effects. This is because there is no correlation or
relationship between low cholesterol and the progression of atherosclerosis – the number one cause of heart disease. Repeat that sentence. This became abundantly
clear with the statin drug trials."  
The New York Times Questions the Value of Lowering Cholesterol with Statin Drugs !!
In a surprise turnaround, The New York Times questions the value of treating cholesterol with statin drugs in this article, "New Questions on Treating Cholesterol", By ALEX BERENSON, New York Times January 17, 2008 . (16)
"In the last 13 months, however, the failures of two important clinical trials have thrown that hypothesis into question. (that cholesterol lowering is beneficial).
First, Pfizer stopped development of its experimental cholesterol drug torcetrapib in December 2006, when a trial involving 15,000 patients showed that the medicine caused heart attacks and strokes. That trial — somewhat unusual in that it was conducted before Pfizer sought F.D.A. approval — also showed that torcetrapib lowered LDL cholesterol while raising HDL, or good cholesterol.
Torcetrapib’s failure, Dr. Taylor said, shows that lowering cholesterol alone does not prove a drug will benefit patients.
Then, on Monday, Merck and Schering-Plough announced that Vytorin, which combines Zetia with Zocor, had failed to reduce the growth of fatty arterial plaque in a trial of 720 patients. In fact, patients taking Vytorin actually had more plaque growth than those who took Zocor alone.
Despite those drawbacks, that trial, called Enhance, also showed that patients on Vytorin had lower LDL levels than those on Zocor alone. For the second time in just over a year, a clinical trial found that LDL reduction did not translate into measurable medical benefits." endquote from Alex Berenson New York Times (16)
 
Business Week Questions the Benefit of Lowering Cholesterol with Statin Drugs !! (17)
In an historic turnaround, Business Week’s Jan 28, 2008 cover story asks the heretical question, "Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good? Research suggests that, except among high-risk heart patients, the benefits of statins such as Lipitor are overstated."
Astonishingly, Business Week makes the following statements:
"Current evidence supports ignoring LDL cholesterol altogether "
"Cholesterol lowering is not the reason for the benefit of statins". (17)
  Both Merck and Pfizer are now under Investigation by the John Dingell's House Committee and by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo !!
1) Senator John Dingell’s House Committee of Energy and Commerce has recently subpoenaed both Merck and Pfizer. Merck's subpoena was for the Vytorin - Enhance scandal asking for records. Pfizer's subpoena was for the Jarvik Lipitor Celebrity Ads, investigating why Jarvik was selected as spokeman for Lipitor even though Jarvik was never licensed to practiced medicine.
John D. Dingell,
Democratic Representative from Michigan and Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Click Here for Dingell's Letter to Merck on Vytorin Scandal
Click Here for Dingell's Letter to Pfizer Investigating Jarvk-Lipitor Ads
2) The Enhance Vytorin scandal has prompted New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to issue a subpeana to Merck & Co and Schering-Plough Corp to investigate the allegations of deceitful marketing and insider trading.
The Vytorin Enhance Data showed no benefit for the Zetia/Zocor combination compared to Zocor alone. This created a scandal because of the late registration of the Enhance study, and accusations of insider trading at Pfizer, dumping stock in advance of the unfavorable results. Merck and Schering sat on the results of an unfavorable study for almost two years. They claim they haven’t peeked at the data, but Schering President Carrie Cox dumped 28 Million worth of stock back in the spring of 2007.
3) 2 drug trials in the past 13 months show no health benefit of lowering LDL cholesterol. (ENHANCE and Torcetrapib)
Dr Steven Nissen, cardiologist at Cleveland Clinic, said this of the Merck Enhance-Vytorin data:
”ENHANCE results were a big surprise and a big disappointment. The data show no benefit for ezetimibe (Zetia) on top of simvastatin (Zocor). In fact, the data on both the rate of progression of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular events are trending in the wrong direction. This is a pretty clear failure. Physicians should now stop using ezetimibe or Vytorin except as a last resort. The drug doesn’t work”.
The results of the ENHANCE had to be released because now all trials must be pre-registered with the government because of new FDA rules Sept 2007. In the old days it would have been buried. (22B)
The following quote about Vytorin-Enhance from Bill Sardi at LewRockwell.com is illuminating (18 )
"The revelation that statin cholesterol drugs may be of little or no benefit, as revealed in a lengthy cover story in January 28 issue of Business Week (BW) magazine, begs the question: how did this misdirection go on for so long?
As the BW article pointed out, statin drugs "are the best-selling medicines in history, used by more than 13 million Americans and an additional 12 million patients around the world, producing $27.8 billion in sales in 2006."
How can anyone question the benefits of such a drug, asks BW, when they are "thought to be so essential that, according to the official government guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), 40 million Americans should be taking them. Some researchers have even suggested – half-jokingly – that the medications should be put in the water supply, like fluoride for teeth. And it's almost impossible to avoid reminders from the industry that the drugs are vital. A current TV and newspaper campaign for one statin drug, as endorsed by Dr. Robert Jarvik, artificial heart inventor, proclaims that this drug ‘reduces the risk of heart attack by 36%...in patients with multiple risk factors for heart disease’."
Statin drug ruse revealed:
But the cholesterol/statin drug ruse finally unraveled when, after two years of foot dragging delays to release data from a large study involving Zetia, a cholesterol-lowering drug that inhibits cholesterol absorption from foods, and Vytorin, which is a combination of Zetia plus Zocor, the latter a statin drug that inhibits formation of cholesterol in the liver, revealed no health benefits.
Even though this drug combo lowered circulating cholesterol numbers better than either drug alone, it did not reduce plaque formation in arteries and did not confer a projected reduction in mortality.
In fact, an earlier review published last year in the British journal Lancet by Drs. John Abramson of Harvard Medical School and James M. Wright MD of the University of British Columbia, could find no evidence for a reduction in cardiac mortality in a combined review of all published statin drug studies. [The Lancet 2007; 369:168–169]
Falsifying the numbers:
The Business Week report says statin drugs benefit only 1 in 100 users, but they claim to reduce the risk of a non-mortal heart attack by 36%. But that figure is a relative number, not a hard one. About 3% of patients taking an inactive placebo pill will experience a heart attack compared to 2% taking a statin drug, which produces the so-called 30-plus percent risk reduction. But in hard numbers, this is only a 1% reduced risk. This type of misleading advertising wouldn’t pass Federal Trade Commission guidelines. But public health agencies, serving as free publicity agents for the statin drug manufacturers, repeat the claim to give it a ring of credibility." end quote from Bill Sardi on Lew Rockwell.com. 
America Fooled Again
More on the Merck Vytorin/Enhance Scandal:
(19) (20)
Merck ran these these Cholesterol Lowering-Vytorin Televison Ads over the course of about a year spending 160 million dollars, allowing a windfall of 1-2 billion dollars on the sale of Vytorin. All the time they knew that the ENHANCE study showed that Vytorin didn't work. Take at look at the TV ads that fooled a nation into spending a fortune for drugs that don't work.
Vytorin Ad Video
Another Vytorin Ad Video
Vytorin Ad video Parody by Mike Adams of NewsTarget
The Vytorin Ads have been pulled, so you won't be seeing them on national TV anymore.
Here is the Wall Street Journal story, "Congress Investigates Vytorin Ads", by Anna Wilde Mathews: (22A)
Here is a story by blogger Rich Thomaselli, "Vytorin Ad Shame Taints Entire Marketing Industry Cholesterol Drug's Ad Campaign Turns Into PR Nightmare, Fanning Flames of Public Mistrust of DTC" by Rich Thomaselli Published: January 21, 2008 (22C).
Lipitor and the Dracula of Medical Technology
In a previous newsletter Lipitor and the Dracula of Medical Technology, I discussed the Robert Jarvik celebrity ads for Lipitor. One year later after this first newsletter, John Dingell’s House Committee on Energy and Commerce is now investigating the matter. They have issued Subpoenas to Pfizer CEO, Jeffrey B Kindler, asking for information about the Jarvik-Lipitor Ad Materials.
Here is the Dingell letter (22).
Among other things, Chairman John Dingell wants to know why Jarvik takes Lipitor, and why Jarvik appears to be representing a doctor in the Ads, yet has never actually been licensed to practice medicine. Jarvik never actually prescribed Lipitor or any other drug for that matter.
 
Robert Jarvik, MD, Inventor of the Jarvik Heart
and Spokesman for Lipitor
The New York Times dubbed the Jarvik Heart, "the Dracula of Medical Technology". Until the Jarvik Heart was finally banned, all Jarvik Heart recipients died a slow agonizing death from multi-organ failure and sepsis, and had the Kevorkian option of assisted suicide with a small button to turn off the machine, ending their lives.
Here is a Wall Street Journal story about the letter from Dingell asking why Jarvik was chosen to sell Lipitor (23). Here is a Lipitor Television Ad Video with Robert Jarvik selling Lipitor to the masses (60 seconds).(24)
Can you imagine what Jarvik would think about Lipitor if Jarvik actually looked at the J-Lit data shown in the chart below which shows that mortlity is the highest at the lowest cholesterol and LDL levels, a result just the opposite to what one would expect if cholesterol lowering was beneficial to one's health. Notice the lowest mortal (lowest red bar) is located at 240-250 total cholesterol, and as cholesterol is lowered below 230, mortality goes up. The LDL chart below shows the same findings.
J-Lit Mortality Data Chart courtesty Eddie Vos, from Circ J 2002;66:1087–1095, Mortality is highest at lowest cholesterol vales.
If Jarvik knew what this chart showed, would he then recant his position, and write an editorial opposing the use of statin drugs, and return the Pfizer Lipitor television ad money? If Doctor Jarvik has an ounce of moral fibre that is exactly what he should and must do. We are waiting.
Could this be the END of the Liptor Era?
Maybe. Maybe Not.
Did you find this newsletter interesting? Feel free to Email it to a friend, or sign up for the newsletter with the link on the left sidebar.
Can't convince your doctor NOT TO prescribe statin drugs for you?
Print this newsletter and give it to your doctor.
Jeffrey Dach MD
4700 Sheridan Suite T
Hollywood FL 33021
954 983-1443
Jeffrey Dach, M.D. BLOG TrueMedMD
disclaimer
References
(1) The new cholesterol guidelines, Applying them in clinical practice Brian L. Pearlman, MD, FACP VOL 112 / NO 2 / AUGUST 2002 / POSTGRADUATE MEDICINE
(2) The new cholesterol guidelines
(3) USA Today, 2004, Cholesterol guidelines become a morality play the Associated Press
(4) Mary Enig, Cholesterol and Heart Disease-- A Phony Issue
(5) Questioning the benefits of statins Eddie Vos and Colin P. Rose , CMAJ • November 8, 2005; 173 (10). doi:10.1503/cmaj.1050120.
(6) Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven’t Been Told About Popular Cholesterol-Lowering Medicines By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD
(7) Therapeutics Initiative, Do Statins have a Role in Primary Prevention? There were 10,990 women in the primary prevention trials (28% of the total). Only coronary events were reported for women, but when these were pooled they were not reduced by statin therapy, RR 0.98 [0.85-1.12]. Thus the coronary benefit in primary prevention trials appears to be limited to men, RR 0.74 [0.68-0.81], ARR 2.0%, NNT 50 for 3 to 5 years.
(8) Drug Treatment of Hyperlipidemia in Women Judith M. E. Walsh, MD, MPH; Michael Pignone, MD, MPH JAMA. 2004;291:2243-2252.
(8A) BMJ 2007;334:983 (12 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.39202.397488.AD Should women be offered cholesterol lowering drugs to prevent cardiovascular disease? No Malcolm Kendrick, general practitioner
(9) Women's Health Activist May/ June 2007: Exploring Statins: What Does the Evidence Say? By Electra Kaczorowski, National Women’s Health Network
(10) Statin Drugs: A Critical Review of the Risk/Benefit Clinical Research, Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry Emeritus USP Philadelphia, PA, USA 9 Dec 2003
(11) Evidence for Caution: Women and statin use By Harriet Rosenberg Danielle Allard Women and Health Protection June 2007
(12) LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Statins for women, elderly: Malpractice? Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Diseases (2007) 17, e19ee20 Eddie Vos 127 Courser Rd, Sutton (Qc),
(13) Who Will Tell the People? It Isn't Cholesterol! by Bill Sardi
(14) Lancet: Vol 369 January 20, 2007 Are lipid-lowering guidelines evidence-based? J Abramson and JM Wright
(15)"The Hidden Truth About Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs! ", by Shane Ellison, MS, Organic Chemistry
(16)"New Questions on Treating Cholesterol", By ALEX BERENSON, New York Times January 17, 2008
(18) Government Health Agencies Complicit in Cholesterol Ruse by Bill Sardi on Lew Rockwell.com
(19) Zetia Enhance trial
(20)January 14, 2008, 9:11 am Zetia Doesn’t Enhance Zocor Posted by Shirley S. Wang Wall Street Journal
(21) Vytorin video AD 30 sec, Humorous clothes which look like the food.
(22) Letter from John Dingel Mich to CEO of Pfizer asking for records on Jarvik and Lipitor, celebrity endorsement of Lipitor Ads.
(22A) Wall Street Journal January 16, 2008, 3:44 pm Congress Investigates Vytorin Ads Posted by Anna Wilde Mathews
(23) January 7, 2008, Wall Street Journal, Congress to Pfizer: Why is Robert Jarvik the Lipitor Man? Posted by Shirley S. Wang
(24) Lipitor Ad with Robert Jarvik 60 seconds
(25) New Questions on Treating Cholesterol By ALEX BERENSONPublished: January 17, 2008 For decades, the theory that lowering cholesterol is always beneficial has been a core principle of cardiology. It has been accepted by doctors and used by drug makers to win quick approval for new medicines to reduce cholesterol. Study Reveals Doubt on Drug for Cholesterol (January 15, 2008) Times Health Guide: Cholesterol But now some prominent cardiologists say the results of two recent clinical trials have raised serious questions about that theory — and the value of two widely used cholesterol-lowering medicines, Zetia and its sister drug, Vytorin. Other new cholesterol-fighting drugs, including one that Merck hopes to begin selling this year, may also require closer scrutiny, they say. “The idea that you’re just going to lower LDL and people are going to get better, that’s too simplistic, much too simplistic,” said Dr. Eric J. Topol, a cardiologist and director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. LDL, or low-density lipoprotein, is the so-called bad cholesterol, in contrast to high-density lipoprotein, or HDL.
Did you find this newsletter interesting? Feel free to Email it to a friend with the button on the bar below.
Jeffrey Dach MD
4700 Sheridan Suite T
Hollywood FL 33021
954 983-1443
Jeffrey Dach, M.D. BLOG TrueMedMD
disclaimer
All after tax profits from TrueMedMD clinic operations are donated to charity.
(c) 2007-2008 all rights reserved jeffrey dach md
| |
| | |
| Jeffrey Dach, M.D. TrueMedMD
Catalog of NewsLetters
_______________________________________________________________
Enter your email address to subscribe to newsletter.
Your email is safe and will never be shared.
Please enter your email address:
_______________________________________________________________ |
(1) My Vitamins Are Killing Me by Jeffrey Dach MD !!!
(2) Stroke Prevention and Vitamin C by Jeffrey Dach MD
(3) Testosterone Risks and Benefits by Jeffrey Dach MD
(4) Medical School Days and SSRI Research by Jeffrey Dach MD
(5) Iodine and Breast Cancer Prevention by Jeffrey Dach MD
(6) Hypothyroidism Part One by Jeffrey Dach MD
(7) Hypothyroidism Part Two Thryroflex by Jeffrey Dach MD
(8) Guard Your Daughter from Gardisil, Virginia Tech Rampage Seung-Hui Cho by Jeffrey Dach MD
(9) Orthomolecular Medicine Meeting in Toronto 2007 by Jeffrey Dach MD
(10) B12 Deficiency by Jeffrey Dach MD
(11) Rachel Carson and Silent Spring by Jeffrey Dach MD
(12) Vitamin D Deficiency by Jeffrey Dach MD
(13) Andrew Weil AARP, and Human Growth Hormone HGH by Jeffrey Dach MD
(14) Michael Moore's SICKO by Jeffrey Dach MD
(15) Blood Pressure Pills for Hypertension, When to Treat? by Jeffrey Dach MD
(16) Low Dose Naltrexone (LDN) by Jeffrey Dach MD
(17) Protect Your Family From Bad Drugs by Jeffrey Dach MD
(18) Roger Federer, Race Horses and Pulsed ElectroMagnetic Devices by Jeffrey Dach MD
(19) Vaccination, Autism Link, Real or Imagined? by Jeffrey Dach MD
(21) The Importance of the Pelvic Sonogram by Jeffrey Dach MD
(22) FDA Declares War on BioIdentical Hormones by Jeffrey Dach MD
_______________________________________________________________
Catalog of Articles Published on Hank Barnes World,
You Bet Your Life, by Jeffrey Dach MD
_______________________________________________________________
(1) Lipitor and "The Dracula of Modern Technology" by Jeffrey Dach MD
(2) Osteoporosis, Bisphosphonate Drugs and Toulouse Lautrec by Jeffrey Dach MD
(3) Prozac, Paxil and SSRI Drugs - Part One by Jeffrey Dach MD
(4) Prozac, Paxil and SSRI Drugs - Part Two by Jeffrey Dach MD
(5) Max Essex and Virological Failure in the NEJM by Jeffrey Dach MD
(6) The Origins of HIV by Jeffrey Dach MD
A Medical Article that I Published in 1980:
(7) Dach J, Patel N, Patel S, Petasnick J. Peritoneal mesothelioma: CT, sonography, and gallium-67 scan. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1980 Sep;135(3):614
Jeffrey Dach, M.D.
Member of the Board of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
Board Certified by the American Board of Radiology
4700 Sheridan, Suite T
Hollywood Fl 33021
office phone 954-983-1443
_______________________________________________________________
Don't forget to visit my web site for more information, and we you might like to attend one of our free seminars on Wednesday Nights. Please call for reservations for the seminar, though.
Do you have a testimonial, or a question for the newsletter? Send it in via email reply.
Sincerely Yours
Jeffrey Dach, M.D.
4700 Sheridan Suite T.
Hollywood, Fl 33021
954-983-1443
_______________________________________________________________
Dr. Dach is Board Certified by the American Board of Radiology and a member of the Board of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. He has 25 years experience in the Memorial Hospital System as an interventional radiologist. His current practice focuses on Bio-identical hormone supplementation for men and women, menopause, andropause, HGH, testosterone, natural thyroid and the use of natural substances rather than drugs in the appropriate setting.
All after-tax profits from TrueMedMD office operations (including nutritional supplement sales) are donated to charity.
Conflict of Interest Disclaimer: We receive no money from the pharmaceutical industry or from the NIH. We do not sell any products to the public at large. We do however, make available selected nutritional supplements to our office clients at a small markup to cover our costs.
If this email is sent to you in error, please accept our apology, and simply remove your email from the list with the unsubscribe button on the bar below this text. Sorry for the inconvenience.
(c) 2007 all right reserved Jeffrey Dach MD disclaimer | | | October 09
The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:
Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23
"The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122
Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537
No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23
The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291
A number of "cancer societies" argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21
Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588
In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540
Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent.
The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104
Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer.
Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132
The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI's continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544
High Rate of False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these "callbacks" result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588
"Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women."
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122
According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%."
Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467
Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumors," resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973
Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms.
Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42
Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305
Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography!
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123
As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976).
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24
Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973
In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled "About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic" (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24
The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).
Dr Isadore Rosenfeld's Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47
In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts.
Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12
One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57
One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53
When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233
Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival.
Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50.
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53
Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected.
The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234 For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient's body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587 October 06
Mammograms:
Is There a Down Side?
By Mark Taylor
In November 28th, 1995, the Yarmouth Vanguard reported that "all consensus groups...clearly recommend [mammogram] screening...". This is not true. There is a definite down side to mammogram testing that health representatives are disinclined to reveal to patients. This is clearly indicated by the Yarmouth Vanguard's absence of mammogram dangers in its full-page mammogram article. One-sided, low-quality health information is typically representative of the medical community in its relations with the public.
The recovery rate from breast cancer is no better now than it was in 1940. The truth is that there is no Allopathic treatment for breast cancer.
There are Alternative health responses to breast cancer but the medical establishment has never invited a comparison to find the most efficacious method. Historically, Alternative health methods invariably out-perform Allopathic methods. Alternative health survivors of breast cancer, indeed, of all other cancers too, are not allowed to participate in hospital self-help groups. Alternative health survivors are bad for business.
Mammograms are dangerous. Mammograms expose your breasts to harmful radiation. One of the largest mammogram studies ever initiated had to be cancelled because the mammogram group of women developed more cancer than the non-mammogram control group. This study is dismissed now because it was done in the early 70's and radiology has greatly progressed since then [they say].
You should know that radiation, including all x-rays, are cumulative upon the body. Perhaps the x-ray equipment is finely calibrated now and that the risk is lower than it was, but what about all of your past x-rays? You are probably over 50 years of age ... what about all those x-rays you have received prior to 1980 when they told us all that x-rays were largely harmless? The radiation doses used then were far greater than they are now. All those dental x-rays, chest x-rays, foot x-rays, standard medical checkup x-rays. Did you ever play outdoors or eat fruits and vegetables between 1951 and 1963? The US alone exploded 214 above ground nuclear bombs during this period. There is a reason why all above-ground testing was banned--life expectancy the world over leveled off or dipped. Have you flown frequently? Air travel involves increased expose to radiation.
One of the best mammography studies is currently under way in Canada right now. It is the early results from this study that has made the greedy medical industry stop recommending that women 40-50 years of age be tested on a yearly basis. (The US however doesn't acknowledge Canadian tests and has not changed its recommendation of yearly testing for the 40+.) The medical industry loves to make false safety claims about dangerous products. The Canadian study definitely showed that mammography caused more cancer deaths than it prevented in this age group.
The Canadian study is also showing that mammography does not reduce deaths in the 50 - 55 age group, either. This is understandable as no study (past or present) has shown that mammography testing reduces breast cancer deaths over that of a basic self-examination or physician examination.
It is often cited (as it was in the Yarmouth Vanguard) by those in the mammography testing business that it reduces breast cancer mortality by 30%. This is a deliberate obfuscation of the facts designed to make you take that mammography test. It is a complicated statistic that they know ordinary people will interpret incorrectly (in favour of a mammography test). The same 30% reduction in cancer mortality can be obtained by correlating breast cancer deaths with automobile ownership, or with backyard size, or with dollar income, or with smoking, or with number of dresses owned, etc.. It is a "percent of correlation" number and 30% is very, very, very low. In fact, it should not be used as a basis upon which any decisions are made. Here is a truly legitimate number for you -- NOT wearing a bra will reduce your chances of getting breast cancer by 2100% (that's two THOUSAND one hundred percent!!). This is almost never mentioned because it doesn't sell drugs or keep an army of medical personnel employed. Allopathic medicine is not into the prevention of disease but is instead into detection and treatment of disease. It is not in their best interest to teach you prevention.
If mammograms are both useless and dangerous, why then does the medical community continue to use it and other "heroic" cancer practices? The answer as to why they behave so caustically toward patients has been given many times in the history of medicine with the only difference now being that they have legally suppressed a citizen's right to choice in health care.
Before you decide to have a mammogram make sure you have been told of the risks in advance. Get the facts (the truth is out there) and then make your own conclusions. I highly recommend the book, Take Charge of Your Body by Dr. Carolyn DeMarco. Dr. DeMarco describes all the major breast cancer & mammography studies AND gives both sides of the various arguments so that you may make an informed decision. Dr. DeMarco writes columns for major newspapers all across Canada. Take Charge of Your Body is available at your local health food store. Please, don't make the mistake of letting medical personnel make your decision for you--they get paid but you have to live with the consequences.
Supportive comments and suggestions are always welcome.
Contact me at: jmt@auracom.com
http://www.trico.ns.ca/jmt/ah01e.htm
September 04
Quote
Save The World - 1 Click at a Time
| Save The World - One Click At A Time!
|
On each of these websites, you can click a button to support the cause
-- each click creates funding, and costs you nothing! !
|
August 26
| Save The World - One Click At A Time!
|
On each of these websites, you can click a button to support the cause
-- each click creates funding, and costs you nothing! !
| August 25 It’s Virginia or bust for stowaway cat
Calico hitches 1,000-mile ride on moving van, roams woods for 18 days
Updated: 9:03 p.m. MT Aug 24, 2007
GREEN BAY, Wis. - Annie the cat loves to roam, but she got a bit more traveling experience than she bargained for last month. She sneaked into the back of a truck — bound for Virginia.
After traveling 1,000 miles, the 10-year-old calico roamed in the woods in Roanoke, Va., for 18 days before being caught.
“She’s definitely a pretty darn independent cat,” owner Ann Roskam said. “She likes to be outdoors all the time but she comes home every morning. When she didn’t come home, we thought we’d lost her.”
Annie had hopped into the truck that Roskam’s neighbors Michael and Christina Blackley were using late last month to move from New Franken, near Green Bay, to Roanoke.
It took them three days to get there, and temperatures inside the truck were sweltering. Michael Blackley’s father, Chip Grubb, helped unload it.
“We’re carrying boxes and suddenly we see something jump from one box to another,” Grubb said. “All things considered, she looked pretty good. But she had been in there for three days without food or water.”
Annie wore an identification tag, but a deer spooked her and she ran off. Grubb said he “felt awful” and put up posters and drove around searching for her. Annie finally showed up at a neighbor’s house and arrangements were made for a flight home.
The kitty’s life will remain largely unchanged, though.
“She loves to be outdoors, and she needs to be outdoors,” Roskam said.
Quote
It's Virginia or bust for stowaway cat - Animal Peculiarity - MSNBC.com
July 27 Save The World - One Click At A Time!
On each of these websites, you can click a button to support the cause -- each click creates funding, and costs you nothing! !
May 23
Quote
Nora: The Sequel
Nora the piano-playing cat returns for more duets and all-new footage! April 09
Global warming prize offered
LONDON (UPI) -- British business mogul Richard Branson is offering $25 million to anyone who finds a way to remove the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Branson announced the Earth Challenge prize at a London news conference with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who made the global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth," the BBC reported Friday.
"The Earth cannot wait 60 years," Branson said. "I want a future for my children and my children's children. The clock is ticking."
Branson said a panel of scientists will oversee the contest. They include James Hansen, head of the NASA Institute for Space Studies; James Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia theory; British environmentalist Crispin Tickell and Australian conservationist Tim Flannery, the BBC said.
The goal of the competition is to capture 1 billion tons of carbon per year.
"It's a challenge to the moral imagination of humankind to actually accept the reality of the situation we are now facing," Gore said.
Copyright 2007 by United Press International
|  |
November 04
| |
Electronic voting machines; How to hack N
Current mood:  worried
Category: News and Politics
Below is a VERY IMPORTANT video made at the Woodrow Wilson School for Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University which shows how easily your votes and an election can be stolen with the new voting machines.
Get this video and more at MySpace.com
Click here for the full research paper, FAQ's and their reply to Diebold's response.
| October 24 Planet temps beyond solar system recorded
PASADENA, Calif. (UPI) -- NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope in California made first-time surface measurements of day and night temperatures on a planet beyond the solar system.
Spitzer's measurements are the first recordings of any kind taken that show variation in surface traits on a planet outside of the Earth's solar system, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said in a news release. Previously, measurements of so-called extrasolar planets reported only global traits such as size and mass.
Observations found that the Jupiter-like gas planet orbits close to its sun, remaining always hot on one side and cold on the other, the space agency said. Temperatures on the two sides of the planet varied by as much as 2,550 degrees Fahrenheit, NASA said.
"This is a spectacular result," said Michael Werner, Spitzer project scientist at Pasadena, Calif. "When we designed Spitzer years ago, we did not anticipate that it would be revolutionizing extrasolar-planet science."
Copyright 2006 by United Press International
October 13
- FIGHT INFLAMMATION WITH CHERRIES!
-
Good news for cherry-lovers! In a U.S. Department of Agriculture study, researchers found that anthocyanins, the red pigment in Bing cherries, helps to reduce the pain and inflammation associated with arthritis and other diseases.
Cherries have many other health benefits as well. Cherries are a great source of potassium and Vitamin C and low in fat and sodium. They are a potent source of antioxidants, with high levels of melatonin, which has also been shown to be important for the function of the immune system. Cherries are also rich in fiber, which can help with the constipation associated with MS.
While Bing cherries are probably the most famous of the sweet varieties, there are more than 1,000 kinds of sweet cherries. Bing cherries are a dark red or burgundy color. There also are light sweet cherry varieties, such as Rainier and Queen Anne.
So, whatever you eat next, put a cherry on top!
|
|
|
|
 |
I Made My Own Homeopathic
Multiple Sclerosis Supplement Therapy
Here is the reason why I developed this type of therapy for myself.
I became immune to all interferon drugs.
Upon this discovery, the MS Doctor prescribed me Copaxone.
When I took my fifth injection, within minutes, I felt the warmth
rush thru my body, heart palpitations, chest pain,
anxiety, and trouble breathing as well.
I thought this is it; my heart is going to stop along with my
breathing. I was afraid; I would not awake from my sleep.
When I awoke, my heart and breathing trouble persisted.
I did my own research on Copaxone, that revealed it
contains ingredients used in acrylic paints.
Patient Information says these side effects, should last only a few
minutes, then go away. If symptoms become severe STOP taking
injections immediately, until your Doctor tells you to begin again.
The experience with the Copaxone was the turning point for me!
My Mom and I discussed it and made the decision to go the
homeopathic route. My Great Grandmother had MS and lived to be
106 years old. The only treatment she received was a weekly shot
of a vitamin B complex.
VITAMIN B3 AND NERVE DAMAGE
Researchers from Children's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts report that Vitamin B3 may protect people with MS from debilitating nerve damage.
Tests revealed that mice with experimental autoimmune encephalitis, an MS-like disease, experienced less weakness and paralysis if they received regular injections of nicotinamide, a form of Vitamin B3.
Lead researcher Shinjiro Kaneko believes the chemical protects against progressive nerve damage, which can cause fatigue, pain and behavioral changes. It is hoped that the study, which appears in the Journal of Neuroscience, will prompt further research and initiate a clinical trial.
While current therapies for MS address the demyelination and inflammation associated with the disease, they do not address the damage to the nerve fibers.
SOURCE: The Journal of Neuroscience, 2006;26:00-00
I continue to research ongoing tests and studies on a variety of
new drugs and different natural vitamin supplements effects.
Remember, everyone has different, body metabolisms, food
allergies, and vitamin supplements you may be allergic to.
I recommend that you read all the ingredients on vitamin
supplements, because they may have additional additives or
combinations of other vitamins you could be allergic to.
My suggestion to all people is to not think that Doctors are gods or
know and have all the answers. They don't have the time to keep up
to date with ever changing technologies, alternatively, latest drugs
on everything in medicine. I'm sure you might, thru your own
research, learn of something new regarding a health issue that
you and your Doctor did not know of. | |
|
| August 27
Quote
Panda Fight
Two pandas go at it in the wilds of China (or maybe a zoo where they have pandas).
Quote
Talking Cats
If cats could talk, what would they say? Windows Marketplace Software Business, Office, Tax & Finance Applications  Development Tools and Enterprise Solutions Games Graphics, Design and Publishing Home, Education and Reference Software IE Add-ons Mobile, Communication & Internet Applications Multimedia, Music & Video Software Networking & Security Software Operating Systems & Utilities Windows Marketplace Hardware Desktop PCs & Servers Digital Cameras, Video, Monitors Mouse, Keyboard and Input Devices Mobile and Portable Media Devices Printers, Scanners, Multifunction
Quote
Everyone Loves the Cat
Ponta the cat is dropped off at a "dog cafe" in Japan, where he's a surprise hit among the local canines.
Quote
Sleepy Baby Monkey
This cute little monkey drifts away into the sweet land of monkey nod.
Quote
Moonwalking Bird
This little bird likes to do the moonwalk. Still awaiting word whether or not he likes to have sleepovers with young males.
|
|
|
|
Tools 
