Thursday, August 4, 2011
Japan’s Fukushima catastrophe brings big radiation spikes to B.C.
Japan’s Fukushima catastrophe brings big radiation spikes to B.C.
Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, says that while radiation coming from Fukushima will lead to higher cancer rates in Canadian, the risk posed to individuals is very small.
Comments (12) By Alex Roslin, August 4, 2011
Nuclear impact
Japan’s Fukushima catastrophe brings big radiation spikes to B.C.
Monitoring stations catch a fraction of Fukushima fallout
After Japan’s Fukushima catastrophe, Canadian government officials reassured jittery Canadians that the radioactive plume billowing from the destroyed nuclear reactors posed zero health risks in this country.
In fact, there was reason to worry. Health Canada detected massive amounts of radioactive material from Fukushima in Canadian air in March and April at monitoring stations across the country.
The level of radioactive iodine spiked above the federal maximum allowed limit in the air at four of the five sites where Health Canada monitors levels of specific radioisotopes.
On March 18, seven days after an earthquake and tsunami triggered eventual nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, the first radioactive material wafted over the Victoria suburb of Sidney on Vancouver Island.
For 22 days, a Health Canada monitoring station in Sidney detected iodine-131 levels in the air that were 61 percent above the government’s allowable limit. In Resolute Bay, Nunavut, the levels were 3.5 times the limit.
Meanwhile, government officials claimed there was nothing to worry about. “The quantities of radioactive materials reaching Canada as a result of the Japanese nuclear incident are very small and do not pose any health risk to Canadians,” Health Canada says on its website. “The very slight increases in radiation across the country have been smaller than the normal day-to-day fluctuations from background radiation.”
In fact, Health Canada’s own data shows this isn’t true. The iodine-131 level in the air in Sidney peaked at 3.6 millibecquerels per cubic metre on March 20. That’s more than 300 times higher than the background level, which is 0.01 or fewer millibecquerels per cubic metre.
“There have been massive radiation spikes in Canada because of Fukushima,” said Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.
“The authorities don’t want people to have an understanding of this. The government of Canada tends to pooh-pooh the dangers of nuclear power because it is a promoter of nuclear energy and uranium sales.”
Edwards has advised the federal auditor-general’s office and the Ontario government on nuclear-power issues and is a math professor at Montreal’s Vanier College.
In a phone interview from his Montreal home, he said radiation from Fukushima will lead to higher rates of cancer and other diseases among Canadians. But don’t panic. Edwards cautioned that the risk is very small for any particular individual.
“It’s not the risk to an individual that’s the problem but how much society is at risk. When you are exposing millions of people to an insult, even if the average dose is quite small, we are going to see fatal health effects,” he said.
Some impacts may have already occurred in North America. Infant mortality in eight cities in the U.S. Northwest jumped 35 percent after Fukushima, according to an article by internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano on the Counterpunch website in June. The number of infant deaths rose from 9.25 per week in the four weeks prior to March 19 to 12.5 per week in the following 10 weeks, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control data.
“There has been a dismissiveness about the long-term hazards of nuclear power,” said Dr. Curren Warf, adolescent-medicine division head at B.C. Children’s Hospital.
Warf was on the board of the Nobel Peace Prize–winning U.S. antinuclear group Physicians for Social Responsibility before he moved to B.C. in 2009.
“These were some of the most advanced nuclear power plants in the world. But a natural earthquake and tsunami rendered their safety measures completely meaningless,” he said in a phone interview while on vacation in Tofino on Vancouver Island.
It’s not clear what health impacts British Columbians will face from the fallout from Fukushima, Warf said. But he added, “It should be a warning to Canada, the U.S., and the rest of the world about the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to natural catastrophes. These things have typically been dismissed in much of the planning.”
Dr. Erica Frank agrees. “The main concern I’ve had is we are not paying attention to Fukushima as a warning sign. Given the catastrophic long-term issues and what to do about nuclear waste, I had hoped it would be more of a wake-up [call] than it was,” said Frank, a professor of population and public health in UBC’s faculty of medicine and a past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
She called on Canada to follow Germany’s lead, which, in response to Fukushima, decided in May to phase out all of its nuclear power plants by 2022. “If Germany can do it, we can too,” she said in a phone interview from her Vancouver home.
Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, says that while radiation coming from Fukushima will lead to higher cancer rates in Canadian, the risk posed to individuals is very small.
Comments (12) By Alex Roslin, August 4, 2011
Nuclear impact
Japan’s Fukushima catastrophe brings big radiation spikes to B.C.
Monitoring stations catch a fraction of Fukushima fallout
After Japan’s Fukushima catastrophe, Canadian government officials reassured jittery Canadians that the radioactive plume billowing from the destroyed nuclear reactors posed zero health risks in this country.
In fact, there was reason to worry. Health Canada detected massive amounts of radioactive material from Fukushima in Canadian air in March and April at monitoring stations across the country.
The level of radioactive iodine spiked above the federal maximum allowed limit in the air at four of the five sites where Health Canada monitors levels of specific radioisotopes.
On March 18, seven days after an earthquake and tsunami triggered eventual nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, the first radioactive material wafted over the Victoria suburb of Sidney on Vancouver Island.
For 22 days, a Health Canada monitoring station in Sidney detected iodine-131 levels in the air that were 61 percent above the government’s allowable limit. In Resolute Bay, Nunavut, the levels were 3.5 times the limit.
Meanwhile, government officials claimed there was nothing to worry about. “The quantities of radioactive materials reaching Canada as a result of the Japanese nuclear incident are very small and do not pose any health risk to Canadians,” Health Canada says on its website. “The very slight increases in radiation across the country have been smaller than the normal day-to-day fluctuations from background radiation.”
In fact, Health Canada’s own data shows this isn’t true. The iodine-131 level in the air in Sidney peaked at 3.6 millibecquerels per cubic metre on March 20. That’s more than 300 times higher than the background level, which is 0.01 or fewer millibecquerels per cubic metre.
“There have been massive radiation spikes in Canada because of Fukushima,” said Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.
“The authorities don’t want people to have an understanding of this. The government of Canada tends to pooh-pooh the dangers of nuclear power because it is a promoter of nuclear energy and uranium sales.”
Edwards has advised the federal auditor-general’s office and the Ontario government on nuclear-power issues and is a math professor at Montreal’s Vanier College.
In a phone interview from his Montreal home, he said radiation from Fukushima will lead to higher rates of cancer and other diseases among Canadians. But don’t panic. Edwards cautioned that the risk is very small for any particular individual.
“It’s not the risk to an individual that’s the problem but how much society is at risk. When you are exposing millions of people to an insult, even if the average dose is quite small, we are going to see fatal health effects,” he said.
Some impacts may have already occurred in North America. Infant mortality in eight cities in the U.S. Northwest jumped 35 percent after Fukushima, according to an article by internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano on the Counterpunch website in June. The number of infant deaths rose from 9.25 per week in the four weeks prior to March 19 to 12.5 per week in the following 10 weeks, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control data.
“There has been a dismissiveness about the long-term hazards of nuclear power,” said Dr. Curren Warf, adolescent-medicine division head at B.C. Children’s Hospital.
Warf was on the board of the Nobel Peace Prize–winning U.S. antinuclear group Physicians for Social Responsibility before he moved to B.C. in 2009.
“These were some of the most advanced nuclear power plants in the world. But a natural earthquake and tsunami rendered their safety measures completely meaningless,” he said in a phone interview while on vacation in Tofino on Vancouver Island.
It’s not clear what health impacts British Columbians will face from the fallout from Fukushima, Warf said. But he added, “It should be a warning to Canada, the U.S., and the rest of the world about the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to natural catastrophes. These things have typically been dismissed in much of the planning.”
Dr. Erica Frank agrees. “The main concern I’ve had is we are not paying attention to Fukushima as a warning sign. Given the catastrophic long-term issues and what to do about nuclear waste, I had hoped it would be more of a wake-up [call] than it was,” said Frank, a professor of population and public health in UBC’s faculty of medicine and a past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
She called on Canada to follow Germany’s lead, which, in response to Fukushima, decided in May to phase out all of its nuclear power plants by 2022. “If Germany can do it, we can too,” she said in a phone interview from her Vancouver home.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Harnessing Your Body's Own Chemistry to Treat Ovarian Cancer Posted By Dr. Mercola | 472 views Share1
Harnessing Your Body's Own Chemistry to Treat Ovarian Cancer Posted By Dr. Mercola
PreviousResearchers have discovered that a low dose of the opioid antagonist naltrexone (LDN) can have an extraordinarily potent antitumor effect on human ovarian cancer in tissue culture.
The discovery provides new insights into the pathogenesis and treatment of ovarian neoplasia, which is the 4th leading cause of cancer-related mortality among U.S. women. The strategy of using LDN therapy to repress cancer was first reported over 30 years ago. Naltrexone causes an elevation in your body's own opioids and opioid receptors.
Eurekalert reports:
"Blockade of opioid peptides from opioid receptors for a short time each day (4 to 6 hr) with LDN provides a sufficient window of time (18-20 hr) for the elevated levels of endogenous opioids and opioid receptors to interact and elicit a response: inhibition of cell proliferation. Thus, LDN acts as a decoy to upregulate native opioids and opioid receptors."
Sources:
Eurekalert July 12, 2011
Experimental Biology and Medicine 2011 Jul 1;236(7):883-95.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Low-dose naltrexone (LDN) is a pharmacologically active opioid antagonist, conventionally used to treat drug- and alcohol addiction -- normally at doses of 50mg to 300mg. As such, it's been an FDA-approved drug for over two decades.
However, researchers have found that at very low dosages (3 to 4.5 mg), naltrexone has immunomodulating properties that may be able to successfully treat cancer malignancies and a wide range of autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's, fibromyalgia, and Crohn's disease, just to name a few. It is LDN's immune-supportive benefits that essentially allow you to harness your own body's chemistry to fight disease, including cancer.
Dramatic Improvements in Ovarian Cancer
Conventional cancer treatments have done little to improve outcomes in people with ovarian cancer. In fact, according to the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, "the mortality rates for ovarian cancer have not improved in thirty years since the "War on Cancer" was declared." Yet, the latest animal study showed impressive results in using LDN to treat ovarian cancer, which is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths in U.S. women.
The study found:
•LDN administered for six hours every two days reduced DNA synthesis and cell replication in tissue culture
•Exposure to LDN in combination with cancer drugs had enhanced anti-cancer action
•Mice with established ovarian tumors treated with LDN had repressed tumor progression by reducing DNA synthesis and angiogenesis (the growth of blood vessels that feed a tumor) -- but not altering cell survival, indicating it is non-toxic
•LDN combined with a chemotherapy drug, cisplatin, alleaviated the toxicity associated with cisplatin
•LDN treatment upregulated the expression of the opioid growth factor, which is the only opioid peptide that tends to inhibit cell growth of ovarian cancer cells
Typically, LDN is taken at bedtime, which blocks your opioid receptors for a few hours in the middle of the night. It is believed to up-regulate vital elements of your immune system by increasing your body's production of metenkephalin and endorphins (your natural opioids), hence improving your immune function. As for LDN's anti-cancer mechanism, Dr. Bernard Bihari -- who discovered LDN as a therapeutic agent for AIDS in 1985 -- believes it is likely due to an increase in the:
•Number and density of opiate receptors on the tumor cell membranes, making them more responsive to the growth-inhibiting effects of the already present levels of endorphins, which in turn induces apoptosis (cell death) in the cancer cells
•Absolute numbers of circulating cytotoxic T cells and natural killer cells, as well as killer cell activity
Dr. Bihari has reportedly treated more than 450 cancer patients with LDN with promising results, including cancers of the bladder, breast, liver, lung, lymph nodes, colon, and rectum. According to Dr. Bihari, nearly a quarter of his patients had at least a 75 percent reduction in tumor size, and nearly 60 percent of his patients demonstrated disease stability.
You can also listen to my interview with Dr. Burton M. Berkson, MD, who has attested to achieving phenomenal results with low-dose naltrexone in both cancer patients and those with autoimmune diseases.
How Can You Get Low-Dose Naltrexone?
LDN is a prescription drug, so you will need a physician to prescribe it for you. Unfortunately, very few physicians are aware of LDN, and none of the pharmaceutical giants back it, meaning there are no friendly sales reps visiting your doctor talking about the potential benefits of this drug in very low doses.
And why would they?
At an average price of $15 to $40 for a month's supply, the income potential from LDN isn't very promising. It's completely insignificant. That said, there are a number of pharmacies and compounding pharmacies in the United States and Canada that are known to be reliable sources of the compound in low-dose form.
If your physician is not familiar with LDN, you will need to bring it up to him or her, or, alternatively, seek a health care provider who is already knowledgeable at using LDN as a form of treatment. You can find more information on the non-profit Web site LowDoseNaltrexone.org.
Are There Other Natural Treatments for Cancer?
LDN has very few side effects and may be a promising compound in the fight against cancer, but it is not the only one. The future of natural cancer treatment is bright, and appears to be going toward the strategic use of foods, herbs and other natural compounds.
One such strategy is a diet customized for your genome, which you can learn more about it in my recent interview with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his son, Dr. Gregory Burzynski. They employ novel gene-target therapies in the treatment of cancer, which includes studying the patient's entire cancerous genome, analyzing some 24,000 genes in each cancer patient, in order to identify the abnormal genes.
Once identified, medications and complementary strategies such as diet and supplements are selected to treat these corrupted genes.
This can be important, as some supplements and foods -- although generally accepted as beneficial -- can make some cancers worse. But with gene-targeted therapy, genetic analysis is used to customize every aspect of the treatment.
Food are increasingly being used therapeutically to target and treat specific cancers, such as the work of Dr. Nick Gonzalez, who uses three protocols -- diet, supplements and enzymes, and detoxification -- to treat cancer. For more information, I have also interviewed Dr. LaValley, Dr. Gonzalez, Donnie Yance and Dr. Burzynski. These are examples of experts who could help walk you through the process of understanding which natural cancer-fighting agents would be best for you.
Cancer-Prevention Tips Everyone Should Know
More than 21,000 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the United States each year, and 15,000 die from the disease. So by and large your best route is still prevention, and there are a number of lifestyle changes you can make to help lower your risk.
If you're looking for a diet that can help you lower your chances of developing cancer, follow the steps in my nutrition plan and work your way up to the advanced level. This is an excellent strategy for cancer prevention as well as reaching high levels of health in all areas. Other important strategies to begin implementing immediately include:
1.Avoid sugar, especially fructose. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.
2.Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters.
3.Get appropriate amounts of high-quality animal-based omega-3 fats like krill oil.
4.Exercise. One of the primary reasons exercise works is that it drives your insulin levels down. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks, and Peak 8 exercises are ideal for doing so.
5.Have a tool to permanently erase the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. My particular favorite tool for this purpose, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
6.Get enough high-quality sleep.
7.Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
8.Limit your exposure and provide protection for yourself from EMF produced by cell phone towers, base stations, cell phones and WiFi stations.
9.Avoid frying or charbroiling your food. Boil, poach or steam your foods instead, and eat at least one-third of your food raw.
Related Links:
Could This Powerful Breakthrough Beat Cancer and Auto-Immune Diseases?
Ginger Inhibits Ovarian Cancer Cell Growth
Can LDN Really Help Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Other Autoimmune Diseases?
PreviousResearchers have discovered that a low dose of the opioid antagonist naltrexone (LDN) can have an extraordinarily potent antitumor effect on human ovarian cancer in tissue culture.
The discovery provides new insights into the pathogenesis and treatment of ovarian neoplasia, which is the 4th leading cause of cancer-related mortality among U.S. women. The strategy of using LDN therapy to repress cancer was first reported over 30 years ago. Naltrexone causes an elevation in your body's own opioids and opioid receptors.
Eurekalert reports:
"Blockade of opioid peptides from opioid receptors for a short time each day (4 to 6 hr) with LDN provides a sufficient window of time (18-20 hr) for the elevated levels of endogenous opioids and opioid receptors to interact and elicit a response: inhibition of cell proliferation. Thus, LDN acts as a decoy to upregulate native opioids and opioid receptors."
Sources:
Eurekalert July 12, 2011
Experimental Biology and Medicine 2011 Jul 1;236(7):883-95.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Low-dose naltrexone (LDN) is a pharmacologically active opioid antagonist, conventionally used to treat drug- and alcohol addiction -- normally at doses of 50mg to 300mg. As such, it's been an FDA-approved drug for over two decades.
However, researchers have found that at very low dosages (3 to 4.5 mg), naltrexone has immunomodulating properties that may be able to successfully treat cancer malignancies and a wide range of autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's, fibromyalgia, and Crohn's disease, just to name a few. It is LDN's immune-supportive benefits that essentially allow you to harness your own body's chemistry to fight disease, including cancer.
Dramatic Improvements in Ovarian Cancer
Conventional cancer treatments have done little to improve outcomes in people with ovarian cancer. In fact, according to the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, "the mortality rates for ovarian cancer have not improved in thirty years since the "War on Cancer" was declared." Yet, the latest animal study showed impressive results in using LDN to treat ovarian cancer, which is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths in U.S. women.
The study found:
•LDN administered for six hours every two days reduced DNA synthesis and cell replication in tissue culture
•Exposure to LDN in combination with cancer drugs had enhanced anti-cancer action
•Mice with established ovarian tumors treated with LDN had repressed tumor progression by reducing DNA synthesis and angiogenesis (the growth of blood vessels that feed a tumor) -- but not altering cell survival, indicating it is non-toxic
•LDN combined with a chemotherapy drug, cisplatin, alleaviated the toxicity associated with cisplatin
•LDN treatment upregulated the expression of the opioid growth factor, which is the only opioid peptide that tends to inhibit cell growth of ovarian cancer cells
Typically, LDN is taken at bedtime, which blocks your opioid receptors for a few hours in the middle of the night. It is believed to up-regulate vital elements of your immune system by increasing your body's production of metenkephalin and endorphins (your natural opioids), hence improving your immune function. As for LDN's anti-cancer mechanism, Dr. Bernard Bihari -- who discovered LDN as a therapeutic agent for AIDS in 1985 -- believes it is likely due to an increase in the:
•Number and density of opiate receptors on the tumor cell membranes, making them more responsive to the growth-inhibiting effects of the already present levels of endorphins, which in turn induces apoptosis (cell death) in the cancer cells
•Absolute numbers of circulating cytotoxic T cells and natural killer cells, as well as killer cell activity
Dr. Bihari has reportedly treated more than 450 cancer patients with LDN with promising results, including cancers of the bladder, breast, liver, lung, lymph nodes, colon, and rectum. According to Dr. Bihari, nearly a quarter of his patients had at least a 75 percent reduction in tumor size, and nearly 60 percent of his patients demonstrated disease stability.
You can also listen to my interview with Dr. Burton M. Berkson, MD, who has attested to achieving phenomenal results with low-dose naltrexone in both cancer patients and those with autoimmune diseases.
How Can You Get Low-Dose Naltrexone?
LDN is a prescription drug, so you will need a physician to prescribe it for you. Unfortunately, very few physicians are aware of LDN, and none of the pharmaceutical giants back it, meaning there are no friendly sales reps visiting your doctor talking about the potential benefits of this drug in very low doses.
And why would they?
At an average price of $15 to $40 for a month's supply, the income potential from LDN isn't very promising. It's completely insignificant. That said, there are a number of pharmacies and compounding pharmacies in the United States and Canada that are known to be reliable sources of the compound in low-dose form.
If your physician is not familiar with LDN, you will need to bring it up to him or her, or, alternatively, seek a health care provider who is already knowledgeable at using LDN as a form of treatment. You can find more information on the non-profit Web site LowDoseNaltrexone.org.
Are There Other Natural Treatments for Cancer?
LDN has very few side effects and may be a promising compound in the fight against cancer, but it is not the only one. The future of natural cancer treatment is bright, and appears to be going toward the strategic use of foods, herbs and other natural compounds.
One such strategy is a diet customized for your genome, which you can learn more about it in my recent interview with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his son, Dr. Gregory Burzynski. They employ novel gene-target therapies in the treatment of cancer, which includes studying the patient's entire cancerous genome, analyzing some 24,000 genes in each cancer patient, in order to identify the abnormal genes.
Once identified, medications and complementary strategies such as diet and supplements are selected to treat these corrupted genes.
This can be important, as some supplements and foods -- although generally accepted as beneficial -- can make some cancers worse. But with gene-targeted therapy, genetic analysis is used to customize every aspect of the treatment.
Food are increasingly being used therapeutically to target and treat specific cancers, such as the work of Dr. Nick Gonzalez, who uses three protocols -- diet, supplements and enzymes, and detoxification -- to treat cancer. For more information, I have also interviewed Dr. LaValley, Dr. Gonzalez, Donnie Yance and Dr. Burzynski. These are examples of experts who could help walk you through the process of understanding which natural cancer-fighting agents would be best for you.
Cancer-Prevention Tips Everyone Should Know
More than 21,000 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the United States each year, and 15,000 die from the disease. So by and large your best route is still prevention, and there are a number of lifestyle changes you can make to help lower your risk.
If you're looking for a diet that can help you lower your chances of developing cancer, follow the steps in my nutrition plan and work your way up to the advanced level. This is an excellent strategy for cancer prevention as well as reaching high levels of health in all areas. Other important strategies to begin implementing immediately include:
1.Avoid sugar, especially fructose. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.
2.Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters.
3.Get appropriate amounts of high-quality animal-based omega-3 fats like krill oil.
4.Exercise. One of the primary reasons exercise works is that it drives your insulin levels down. Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks, and Peak 8 exercises are ideal for doing so.
5.Have a tool to permanently erase the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. My particular favorite tool for this purpose, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
6.Get enough high-quality sleep.
7.Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
8.Limit your exposure and provide protection for yourself from EMF produced by cell phone towers, base stations, cell phones and WiFi stations.
9.Avoid frying or charbroiling your food. Boil, poach or steam your foods instead, and eat at least one-third of your food raw.
Related Links:
Could This Powerful Breakthrough Beat Cancer and Auto-Immune Diseases?
Ginger Inhibits Ovarian Cancer Cell Growth
Can LDN Really Help Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Other Autoimmune Diseases?
Taking Antidepressants Nearly Doubles Your Chance of Relapse
Taking Antidepressants Nearly Doubles Your Chance of Relapse
By Archimedeon July 25, 2011 5:25 PM
Permalink
Comments (5) Taking Antidepressants Nearly Doubles Your Chance of Relapse
Not only does this study demonstrate that antidepressants worsen the condition, it also shows that the underlying theory of a chemical imbalance is a bunch of hooey.
by Heidi Stevenson
21 July 2011
Image:
Woman in Anguish, by Gina Tyler
This wonderful painting is by Gina Tyler,
both a talented artist and a talented homeopath.
A new study demonstrates that using antidepressants nearly doubles the chance of suffering a major depressive relapse—and soon after discontinuing the drugs. This, of course, creates a vicious cycle that results in dependence on the drugs.
Published in the journal, Frontiers of Evolutionary Psychology, another highly signficant finding was made. Not only do antidepressants worsen the condition they're meant to treat, the underlying theory that there is a chemical imbalance in the brain is pure nonsense. Antidepressants do not treat an imbalance. These drugs actually create it!
The Study
The study, entitled "Blue again: perturbational effects of antidepressants suggest monoaminergic homeostasis in major depression", shows that these drugs interfere with the brain's homeostasis. The meta-analysis discovered that people who don't take any antidepressants have a 25% chance of relapsing, while those who do have a relapse rate of 42%.
The studies reviewed included virtually every permutation of antidepressant use: those who started on placebos and were switched to the real medications, those who started on real medications and were switched to placebos, those who took placebos throughout the studies, and those who took only placebos.
The authors looked at studies of four types of antidepressants; MAOIs (monoamine oxidase inhibitor), SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), SNRIs (serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors), and TCAs (tricyclics). Each of these affects at least one of the following: serotonin, norephinephrine, or dopamine. The specific drugs were:
MAOI
SNRI SSRI TCA
Phenelzine
Selegiline
Desvenlafaxine
Duloxetine
Milnacipran
Venlafaxine
Citalopram
Escitalopram
Fluoxetine
Fluvoxamine
Paroxetine Sertraline
Amitriptyline
Clomipramine
Desipramine
Imipramine
Nortriptyline
The result of the study, in a nutshell, was expressed by the lead author, Paul W. Andrews in Science Daily:
We found that the more these drugs affect serotonin and other neurotransmitters in your brain—and that's what they're supposed to do—the greater your risk of relapse once you stop taking them. All these drugs do reduce symptoms, probably to some degree, in the short-term. The trick is what happens in the long term. Our results suggest that when you try to go off the drugs, depression will bounce back. This can leave people stuck in a cycle where they need to keep taking anti-depressants to prevent a return of symptoms.
Antidepressant drugs may do a little bit to relieve symptoms, though note that Andrews is less than enthusiastic about that effect. However, they result in more depression, and that results in a vicious drug-taking cycle.
Is There a Positive Side to Depression?
We tend to think of negative emotions as being harmful. In today's society, we're expected to be happy and perky all the time. When we aren't, we're often treated as if we're ill and should either just snap out of it or take drugs to somehow fix it. As anyone who's been there, we can't just flip a switch and be over it. But, as Andrews' study documents, the drug-taking approach doesn't work.
Andrews is inclined to believe that the symptoms of depression, such as tiredness, low appetite and sex drive, and loss of interest in associating with people, may be survival techniques for coping with stress. In other words, our bodies are simply forcing us to avoid more stress to give us a chance to resolve the problems we're facing.
When we take drugs to avoid the feelings that go with depression, we're working against our own nature. We're literally avoiding the issue and thus destroying our ability to learn how to deal with our problems.
By taking antidepressant drugs, we avoid facing our problems. By not facing our problems, we never get a chance to heal. Instead, we end up stuck in a genuinely addictive cycle of drug-taking.
None of this even addresses the adverse effects of these drugs, which are significant. Truly, is there any upside to antidepressants? Any benefit they have is minimal. They double the depression relapse rate. They cause some horrible adverse effects, including violence and suicide. Dr. Peter Breggin documents that they cause brain damage and describes their effect as a chemical lobotomy.
But, it seems to me that the worst effect of all is that antidepressants destroy the opportunity to grow and become truly fulfilled human beings.
References:
•Blue again: perturbational effects of antidepressants suggest monoaminergic homeostasis in major depression
•Patients Who Use Anti-Depressants Are More Likely to Suffer Relapse, Researcher Finds
Currently 5/5
12345Rating: 5/5 (1 votes cast)
By Archimedeon July 25, 2011 5:25 PM
Permalink
Comments (5) Taking Antidepressants Nearly Doubles Your Chance of Relapse
Not only does this study demonstrate that antidepressants worsen the condition, it also shows that the underlying theory of a chemical imbalance is a bunch of hooey.
by Heidi Stevenson
21 July 2011
Image:
Woman in Anguish, by Gina Tyler
This wonderful painting is by Gina Tyler,
both a talented artist and a talented homeopath.
A new study demonstrates that using antidepressants nearly doubles the chance of suffering a major depressive relapse—and soon after discontinuing the drugs. This, of course, creates a vicious cycle that results in dependence on the drugs.
Published in the journal, Frontiers of Evolutionary Psychology, another highly signficant finding was made. Not only do antidepressants worsen the condition they're meant to treat, the underlying theory that there is a chemical imbalance in the brain is pure nonsense. Antidepressants do not treat an imbalance. These drugs actually create it!
The Study
The study, entitled "Blue again: perturbational effects of antidepressants suggest monoaminergic homeostasis in major depression", shows that these drugs interfere with the brain's homeostasis. The meta-analysis discovered that people who don't take any antidepressants have a 25% chance of relapsing, while those who do have a relapse rate of 42%.
The studies reviewed included virtually every permutation of antidepressant use: those who started on placebos and were switched to the real medications, those who started on real medications and were switched to placebos, those who took placebos throughout the studies, and those who took only placebos.
The authors looked at studies of four types of antidepressants; MAOIs (monoamine oxidase inhibitor), SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), SNRIs (serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors), and TCAs (tricyclics). Each of these affects at least one of the following: serotonin, norephinephrine, or dopamine. The specific drugs were:
MAOI
SNRI SSRI TCA
Phenelzine
Selegiline
Desvenlafaxine
Duloxetine
Milnacipran
Venlafaxine
Citalopram
Escitalopram
Fluoxetine
Fluvoxamine
Paroxetine Sertraline
Amitriptyline
Clomipramine
Desipramine
Imipramine
Nortriptyline
The result of the study, in a nutshell, was expressed by the lead author, Paul W. Andrews in Science Daily:
We found that the more these drugs affect serotonin and other neurotransmitters in your brain—and that's what they're supposed to do—the greater your risk of relapse once you stop taking them. All these drugs do reduce symptoms, probably to some degree, in the short-term. The trick is what happens in the long term. Our results suggest that when you try to go off the drugs, depression will bounce back. This can leave people stuck in a cycle where they need to keep taking anti-depressants to prevent a return of symptoms.
Antidepressant drugs may do a little bit to relieve symptoms, though note that Andrews is less than enthusiastic about that effect. However, they result in more depression, and that results in a vicious drug-taking cycle.
Is There a Positive Side to Depression?
We tend to think of negative emotions as being harmful. In today's society, we're expected to be happy and perky all the time. When we aren't, we're often treated as if we're ill and should either just snap out of it or take drugs to somehow fix it. As anyone who's been there, we can't just flip a switch and be over it. But, as Andrews' study documents, the drug-taking approach doesn't work.
Andrews is inclined to believe that the symptoms of depression, such as tiredness, low appetite and sex drive, and loss of interest in associating with people, may be survival techniques for coping with stress. In other words, our bodies are simply forcing us to avoid more stress to give us a chance to resolve the problems we're facing.
When we take drugs to avoid the feelings that go with depression, we're working against our own nature. We're literally avoiding the issue and thus destroying our ability to learn how to deal with our problems.
By taking antidepressant drugs, we avoid facing our problems. By not facing our problems, we never get a chance to heal. Instead, we end up stuck in a genuinely addictive cycle of drug-taking.
None of this even addresses the adverse effects of these drugs, which are significant. Truly, is there any upside to antidepressants? Any benefit they have is minimal. They double the depression relapse rate. They cause some horrible adverse effects, including violence and suicide. Dr. Peter Breggin documents that they cause brain damage and describes their effect as a chemical lobotomy.
But, it seems to me that the worst effect of all is that antidepressants destroy the opportunity to grow and become truly fulfilled human beings.
References:
•Blue again: perturbational effects of antidepressants suggest monoaminergic homeostasis in major depression
•Patients Who Use Anti-Depressants Are More Likely to Suffer Relapse, Researcher Finds
Currently 5/5
12345Rating: 5/5 (1 votes cast)
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Low vitamin D impairs strength recovery after knee surgery
Low vitamin D impairs strength recovery after knee surgery
August 1, 2011
This weekend, scientists from an American medical institution published a study that has practical implications for patients undergoing ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament) surgery.
The study, by a group in Utah, may have answered in part the long sought question of why some patients do well after knee surgery (quickly regain strength in their quadriceps) and some do not. Dr. Tyler Barker, of the Orthopedic Specialty Hospital in Murray, Utah, and his colleagues at the University of Utah (where I did a surgical internship back in 1976) discovered that vitamin D levels are associated with muscle strength recovery after knee surgery (anterior cruciate repair). Those with levels above 30 ng/ml recovered much better than those with levels below 30 ng/ml.
Tyler Barker, Thomas B. Martins, Harry R. Hill, Carl R. Kjeldsberg, Roy H. Trawick, Lindell K. Weaver, and Maret G. Traber Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine. published 29 July 2011, 10.1177/2156587211413768
I found it somewhat disappointing that the authors refused to say that vitamin D deficiency should be treated before knee surgery. All they would say was that Americans should fund more studies before any action is taken. Of course this is neither practical or ethical, as physicians are (and always have been) obligated to act on what is known now -- not on what may or may not be discovered in the future. Randomized trials of vitamin D supplemention need to be undertaken to discover what the optimum vitamin D level for knee surgery is. But such trials will take years, while orthopedists need to act, or not, now.
-John J. Cannell, M.D.
August 1, 2011
This weekend, scientists from an American medical institution published a study that has practical implications for patients undergoing ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament) surgery.
The study, by a group in Utah, may have answered in part the long sought question of why some patients do well after knee surgery (quickly regain strength in their quadriceps) and some do not. Dr. Tyler Barker, of the Orthopedic Specialty Hospital in Murray, Utah, and his colleagues at the University of Utah (where I did a surgical internship back in 1976) discovered that vitamin D levels are associated with muscle strength recovery after knee surgery (anterior cruciate repair). Those with levels above 30 ng/ml recovered much better than those with levels below 30 ng/ml.
Tyler Barker, Thomas B. Martins, Harry R. Hill, Carl R. Kjeldsberg, Roy H. Trawick, Lindell K. Weaver, and Maret G. Traber Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine. published 29 July 2011, 10.1177/2156587211413768
I found it somewhat disappointing that the authors refused to say that vitamin D deficiency should be treated before knee surgery. All they would say was that Americans should fund more studies before any action is taken. Of course this is neither practical or ethical, as physicians are (and always have been) obligated to act on what is known now -- not on what may or may not be discovered in the future. Randomized trials of vitamin D supplemention need to be undertaken to discover what the optimum vitamin D level for knee surgery is. But such trials will take years, while orthopedists need to act, or not, now.
-John J. Cannell, M.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
