Monday, May 12, 2008

Alzheimer’s disease cures on the horizon

It is difficult to fathom, that with the prolonged life expectancy of Americans and the predictable explosion in numbers of senior Americans with Alzheimer’s memory loss, that American medicine at this juncture in time has no cures, no preventive measures, and only ineffective acetacholinesterase inhibitors (Tacrin, Aricept) that don’t stop the progression of the disease. The public is slow to catch on to the fact most medicines are not designed for cure but for dependence. This is true with all of the drugs currently used to virtually sedate Alzheimer’s patients so they don’t make trouble in the nursing home.

Drugs under development

With this said, it is interesting to see what pharmaceutical companies have in their research and development pipelines for Alzheimer's disease. One developmental drug appears to properly address the cause ofAlzheimer's -- release of unbound copper and iron in the brain.

Researchers now believe cholesterol converts into the beta amyloid plaque seen in the brain of Alzheimer’s subjects and that copper inhibits its clearance. In cholesterol-fed rabbits given water laced with 0.12 parts per million copper, one tenth of the US safety limit for humans, three-quarters of the rabbits showed senile plaque-like deposits in their brains after 10 weeks. These rabbits also showed an 80 per cent deficit in memory in complex conditioning tests. [New Scientist August 12, 2003]

More saturated fats, more brain disease

In an animal study, the provision of supplemental copper to mice that naturally produce high levels of cholesterol, results in greater accumulation of beta amyloid brain plaque. Even the addition of copper to drinking water results in increased brain levels of beta amyloid plaque, whereas distilled water had a reverse effect. [Journal Nutrition Health Aging. 2006 Jul-Aug; 10(4):247-54]

The combination of saturated fat plus copper in the diet may be destructive to the brain. It has been shown that saturated fat (beef tallow) increases iron absorption from the diet, while omega-3 oils (fish oil, olive oil, flaxseed oil) inhibit iron absorption. [Biology Trace Element Research 2004 Mar; 97(3):265-78]

The threat to the brain posed by diets rich in iron and saturated fat, as commonly provided in fattened red meat, cannot be ignored.

The more unbound copper in the blood serum the greater the abnormalities in brain scans (electroencephalograms). [Clinical Neurophysiology 2007 Jun; 118(6):1244-60]

Researchers are investigating the use of a metal-chelating drug (clioquinol) has been used successfully in animals and small human clinical trials. [Drug News Perspectives 2006 Oct; 19(8):469-74] Also, the above mentioned drug, COPREXA, is undergoing human clinical trials.

A contradiction

Surprisingly, in one of the many misunderstood contradictions of modern medicine, copper supplements have been proposed as a cure for Alzheimer’s disease based upon a study showing Alzheimer’s patients with mid-level copper levels in their blood serum made fewer mistakes in a memory test compared to patients with low serum copper levels.

Patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease received a whopping 8 milligrams of copper per day, four times more than the typical diet provides (~2 mg). All of the patients were found to have plasma copper levels of between 65 and 165 micrograms/deciliter. In 87.5 percent of the patients, there was a significant correlation between plasma copper and cognitive ability. Those with medium plasma copper levels made fewer mistakes in the memory test than those with low plasma copper levels. [Journal Alzheimer’s Disease 8: 2005]

A prior animal study also showed that copper in drinking water slowed the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in 2003 Nov 25; 100(24):14187-92] Researchers warn that copper supplements may only be useful in slowing the disease once it has been diagnosed, not before.

More or less copper?

So how can the two poles of therapy be true, both less and more copper accelerates the progression of brain disease?

The body has an intricate system to control metallic metals. When more metals are released in an unbound form, tissues will produce more protective iron and copper binding proteins (ferritin, ceruloplasmin) and more protective antioxidant enzymes (superoxide dismutase- SOD), which binds to metals are they are released. Copper or zinc are needed to produce SOD.

Researchers say a vicious circle exists whereby less copper is available within brain cells as they age, which then results in reduced SOD activity to protect the cells from damage by metallic metals like iron. [Clinical Neuropathology 25: 163-71, 2006]

The four major brain diseases, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease, are characterized by diminished SOD activity. [Neurochemistry Research 2008 Feb 29]

Meticulous research conducted by investigators in Germany shows that as more beta amyloid plaque forms within brain cells, copper export is increased, leading to a decreased intracellular copper level. In turn, this produces diminished superoxide dismutase enzyme (SOD) activity which under normal circumstances helps to control unbound copper and iron. [Journal Alzheimer’s Disease 2005 Nov; 8(2):201-6]

Greater antioxidant enzyme (superoxide dismutase- SOD) activity has been measured in brain tissue samples of Alzheimer’s patients. [Journal Neural Transmission 2004 Sep; 111(9):1167-82]

So the likely reason why mega-dose copper works to slow progression of brain disease is because it floods brain cells with copper which then activates greater superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity in a protective response.

Misunderstood science

One of the false assumptions made by doctors is that low blood serum levels of a mineral equate with a deficiency. In one study, Alzheimer’s patients had low blood serum concentrations of copper which caused researchers to mistakenly conclude that “a mild copper deficiency might contribute to Alzheimer’s disease progression.” But there was also an accompanying low ceruloplasmin level. Cerulplasmin is the protein that transports copper. So a low copper level could be translated to mean the body has lost its ability to dispose of copper. [Journal Neural Transmission 2006 Nov; 113(11):1763-9]

Nature’s copper chelator

One of nature’s primary copper controllers (chelators, pronounded “key-lay-torz”) is resveratrol. Known as a red wine molecule, resveratrol exhibits modest antioxidant activity and is better known to produce beneficial health via its copper-chelating properties. [Life Sciences 1999; 64(26):2511-21]

Resveratrol has been demonstrated to increase SOD activity in the brain. [Surgical Neurology. 2008 Jan 18] Resveratrol also causes brain tissues to produce another iron-protective antioxidant enzyme called heme oxygenase. [Annals New York Academy Science 2003 May; 993:276-86; discussion 287-8]

Even at the lowest dose, resveratrol has been shown to eradicate beta amyloid plaque buildup in the brain and has been called “a boon for treating Alzheimer’s disease.” [Brain Research Reviews 2006 Sep; 52(2):316-26]

It is no surprise that resveratrol at every dosage tested improved the mental performance of mice, including boosting SOD activity, inhibiting the memory erasing enzymes acetacholinesterase without side effects. [Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2006 Aug; 31(4):566-9] -Copyright 2008 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc. Bill Sardi has a commercial interest in resveratrol pills

Labels: Alzheimer's, copper, resveratrol

posted by Knowledge of Health at 5:56 PM

Sunday, May 11, 2008

When the moment is right..... direct-to-consumer drug advertising

In this modern world, consumers have been lulled into believing things they hear and see on television. It's all of us, out of our laziness, to accept without question things we hear from trusted sources, you know, like NBC's Brian Williams, CBS's Katie Curic, ABC's TV news anchor Bob Woodruff.

And then, laced in between reports on the evening news comes……….. "when the moment is right…… CIALIS." Can you take your eyes off of the commercial for CIALIS when a naked man and woman are shown in individual bathtubs? There is a sexual tension there. The ad appeals to human emotions rather than delivering factual information about the safety and effectiveness of the drug. Also recall the visually-gripping ad for anti-inflammatory drug CELEBREX, with people in a park performing Chinese qigong exercises? You couldn't take your eyes off of the screen.

"As seen on TV" creates a credibility of its own. TV news knows of its success in marketing prescription drugs --- every advertising dollar spent there yields $6 in new business! TV advertising works. So when Congress says it is mulling over the idea of banning direct-to-consumer advertising, this means it is going to pull billions of ad dollars ($5.4 billion last year) away from the big TV networks. They're not gonna let that happen.

Direct-to-consumer advertising, which the Food & Drug Administration first allowed in 1997, is only permitted in the USA and New Zealand.

One of the most interesting direct-to-consumer ads is found here: www.havidol.com Havidol is a drug, made by FUTURE PHARM, for a newly identified social disorder. Havidol's advertising claims that more than 50% of people over the age of 18 may have the disorder and that Havidol (slogan: "when more is not enough") is the "first and only" treatment. You don't have to stop drinking to take the drug; in fact, the safety information warns that Havidol is not for you if you have abruptly stopped using alcohol or sedatives. Yet read on and you find that the side effects may include "inter-species communication, dermal gloss, excessive salivation, and terminal smile."

As an article says in the British Medical Journal: "Look carefully and it's obvious that Havidol is nothing but a glorious hoax. The fake marketing campaign started as a New York art exhibition by the Australian artist Justine Cooper. The campaign is so clever that some people have been duped into believing that the fake drug and illness are for real and have contacted the art gallery for prescription information." Havidol's sales pitch was even folded into a website for depression. [British Medical Journal 334: 396-97, 2007]

The FDA allowed a drug company to advertise Vytorin on TV, a cholesterol-lowering drug, when its manufacturer knew a major study had shown the drug to be useless. The drug company had withheld disclosure of the data from the FDA and continued to pocket profits off of the advertising.

The FDA is not likely to ban direct-to-consumer advertising. The agency is now considering a punt position -- the FDA Amendments Act would authorize the FDA to require manufacturers submit draft TV ads up to 45 days before they are scheduled to airing, and civil fines for making fraudulent claims. The American Medical Association wants drug companies to first educate doctors about newly approved drugs before they advertised on television.

But can the drug companies be trusted to deliver truthful information to doctors? In the Vioxx scandal the entire medical professional was misled by misleading information. A recently published review of drug ads in medical journals reveals that 35% of the time the sources cited in drug ads for physicians were untrue. Advertising claims for a particular drug's effectiveness were not supported by the evidence provided in the ad 47% of the time. [Journal Mental Nervous Disorders 2008 Apr; 196(4):267-73]

In a study of direct-to-consumer TV advertising entitled "A wonderful life or diarrhea and dry mouth?," investigators claim drug companies are not complying with "fair balance" requirements which mandate ads address potential side effects. [Health Communication 2007; 22: 241-52]

Kurt C. Stange, MD, PhD, editor of the Annals of Family Medicine, says only an outright ban on direct-to-consumer advertising will work. [Annals Family Medicine 2007: 5: 101-04] -Copyright 2008 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

Labels: drug advertising, vytorin

posted by Knowledge of Health at 7:05 AM

Monday, May 05, 2008

Ever heard of cardiac bridging?

Have you every heard of cardiac bridging? It is a anatomical phenomenon where one of the major arteries that supply the heart with oxygenated blood traverses through cardiac muscle and becomes compressed during the contracted pumping stage (systole), a transient problem that reverses when the heart returns to its resting phase (diastole). You may be surprised to learn that odds are your coronary arteries exhibit “cardiac bridging.”

An excellent online visual display of myocardial bridging can be found here: http://indianheartjournal.com/2001-5/NovDec2002/Myocardial%20Infarction%20due/myocar16.gif

Recognized more than 200 years ago, and first reported in depth in 1951, cardiac bridging is generally thought to be of little significance. But with so many cases of sudden cardiac death, hundreds of thousands of unexplained cases a year, and evidence cardiac bridging may be a triggering factor, a re-investigation of this largely unknown phenomenon is in order.

The left anterior descending coronary artery is usually the location of cardiac bridging. Cardiologists generally estimate the prevalence of cardiac bridging ranges from 1.5% to 16% when assessed by coronary angiography, but in some autopsy series, it is as high as 80%. Yes, that’s 8 in 10 people.

The inner wall thickness of the tunneled artery is significantly thinner (66.3 µm) than that of the nearby segment (406.6 µm) of the artery.

Researchers have found that cardiac bridging (tunneling of coronary arteries under heart muscle) impairs widening (dilatation) of the left descending artery and arterial plaque is not found within the bridged area of the artery itself, but in the area in close proximity to the bridge (75% of cases). [Echocardiography 2006 Aug; 23(7):577-81]

When acetycholine, a nerve messenger chemical, was infused into the left coronary artery among middle aged men (57-58 years, mean age), arterial spasm was more likely to occur among men with cardiac bridging (62 of 81, or 76%) than men with no cardiac bridging (31 of 195, or 16%). [American Journal Cardiology 2007 Oct 1; 100(7):1083-6]

The question is what to do about cardiac bridging. Strategies to strengthen coronary artery would be in order. Humans are known to exhibit weak arteries with the lack of vitamin C in the diet. There are many vitamin C human studies involving carotid (neck), radial (outside the heart) and peripheral (leg) arteries, but none available on the effect of vitamin C upon the four coronary arteries.

A study that may have application to cardiac bridging is a published study involving vitamin C among cigarette-smoke exposed hamsters. White blood cells tend to accumulate and adhere to damaged areas inside arteries, meaning they are attempting to heal a wound there. Adherence of white blood cells to the arterial wall occurs more frequently among smokers. Dietary vitamin C supplementation prevents this occurrence. Smoking depletes vitamin C and weakens arteries. [Journal Clinical Investigation 99: 2358-64, 1997]

In another study, the provision of supplemental vitamin C and E to swine showed that these antioxidant vitamins inhibited damage to coronary arteries caused by inflation of a balloon. [Arteriosclerosis Thrombosis Vascular Biology1995 Jan; 15(1):156-65] This would be similar to the damage caused in proximity to the cardiac bridging.

While there is no study involving vitamin C and cardiac bridging per se, it would seem prudent to take vitamin C supplements throughout the day to maintain high blood levels, and thus minimize arterial damage in proximity to the bridge that provokes plaque formation. The transient but repeated compression of a coronary artery due to cardiac bridging is an overlooked cause of coronary artery disease and most likely, sudden cardiac death. - Copyright 2008 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

Labels: myocardial bridging, sudden cardiac death, Vitamin C

posted by Knowledge of Health at 3:36 PM

Revisiting Lipoprotein(a): good, bad or ugly?

Take a step back in time to 1990 when Matthias Rath and Linus Pauling published two landmark studies showing species of animals that internally produce a natural form of vitamin C (ascorbate) do not exhibit a blood fat-protein called lipoprotein(a), but humans, monkeys, guinea pigs and other species that have incurred a genetic mutation that has resulted in an inability to synthesize vitamin C, do have variable levels of lipoprotein(a) in their blood serum.

In a legendary experiment, Rath and Pauling removed vitamin C from the diet of a guinea pig and noted the development of arterial plaque that contained lipoprotein(a). The provision of supplemental vitamin C, at an oral dosage of 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, which is equivalent to 2800 mg in a 160-pound adult human, completely abolished arterial plaque formation.

Their published paper said “We suggest an analogous mechanism in humans because of the similarity between guinea pigs and humans with respect to both the lack of endogenous ascorbate production and the role of Lp(a) in humans.” [Proceedings National Academy Science U S A. 1990 Dec; 87(23):9388-90] Pauling and Rath’s earlier paper that year hypothesized lipoprotein(a) as “a surrogate for ascorbate in humans and other species.” [Proceedings National Academy Science U S A. 1990 Aug; 87(16):6204-7]

Pay careful attention to that description. It suggests lipoprotein(a) as a substitute for vitamin C of some kind. It was guilt by association --- lipoprotein(a) was declared a risk factor for heart disease because it was found within arterial plaque. Is lipoprotein(a) a villain to the coronary arteries, as often portrayed? Or does lipoprotein(a) accumulate within artery walls in defense of otherwise weakened tissues, as a substitute for ascorbate?

Is lipoprotein(a) a risk factor?

Lipoprotein(a) is not a highly regarded risk factor for coronary artery disease. Authorities say Lp(a) cannot yet be regarded as a conventional, well established risk factor for cardiovascular disease, although studies show an ASSOCIATION of Lp(a) and cardiovascular disease, which does not automatically mean it is a causal factor. [Circulation 102 (10): 1082–5, 2000]

Lp(a) concentrations vary over one thousand-fold between individuals, from <> 200 milligrams per deciliter of blood serum. Lipoprotein(a) - Lp(a) is sometimes considered a risk factor for heart disease, as describe in one book. [Ryan, George M; Julius Torelli (2005). Beyond cholesterol: 7 life-saving heart disease tests that your doctor may not give you. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, page 91]

Desirable: <>

Borderline risk: 14 - 30 mg/dL

High risk: 31 - 50 mg/dL

Very high risk: > 50 mg/dL

Researchers in Denmark measure the increased relative risk for a heart attack based upon the Lp(a) level. [Circulation 2008 Jan 15; 117(2):176-84]

Lp(a) level Relative risk for heart attack

5-29 mg/dL 1.1

30-84 mg/dL 1.7

85-119 mg/dL 2.6

120+ mg/dL 3.6 times greater risk

Usually when increasing amounts of something produce undesirable effects, it is said to be causal.

Among smoking women over age 60, their risk for a heart attack is 10% when their Lp(a) levels is less than 5.0. Their risk for a heart attack rises to 20% (doubles) when their Lp(a) is greater than 120.0. [Circulation 2008 Jan 15; 117(2):176-84]

So Lp(a) shows up at the scene of the crime, but does it directly cause heart attacks, strokes, etc?

Lp(a) concentrations may be affected by disease states, but are only slightly affected by diet, exercise, and other environmental factors. Commonly prescribed cholesterol-reducing drugs have little or no effect on Lp(a) concentration. In one study, a statin drug (atorvastatin) modestly lowered Lp(a) levels (~10%). [Annals Pharmacotherapy 2008 Jan; 42(1):9-15]

Niacin (nicotinic acid) and aspirin are two relatively safe, easily available and inexpensive drugs known to significantly reduce the levels of Lp(a) in some individuals with high Lp(a).

Back in 1995 researchers in Germany found that blood serum concentrations of Lp(a) greater than 25 milligrams per decliter were indicative of rapid progressing coronary artery disease – 67% of men with rapid progressive disease, but only 33% of men without progression. [Circulation. 1995 Feb 15; 91(4):948-50]

Among patients admitted to a hospital due to a heart attack, a baseline lipoprotein(a) concentration of > or =30 mg/dL was associated with a 62% increase in subsequent cardiac death compared to a lower concentration group (actual 29.8% vs 18.6% increased risk). [European Heart Journal 1998 Sep; 19(9):1355-64]

A telling experiment was conducted at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in 1995. Angina (chest pain) patients undergoing balloon angioplasty (a catheter is inserted into the coronary artery and a balloon is inflated at the site of narrowing or blockage), were tested for Lp(a), total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A-I, and apolipoprotein B-100 and the recurrence of angina was also monitored. Only elevated Lp(a) predicted the recurrence of angina (27% recurrence of angina in the group with the lowest Lp(a) and 60% recurrence in the group with the highest Lp(a). Other cholesterol factors were not predictive. [Circulation. 1995 Mar 1; 91(5):1403-9]

Some time ago researchers in London attempted to rank the predictors of a future heart attack among middle-aged men. High total cholesterol increased the risk by 1.5 times. Diabetes by 4.1 times. Smoking by 2.5 times. Lipoprotein(a) by 1.9 times – which was more predictive than cholesterol! [American Journal Medicine 2001 Jan; 110(1):22-7]

It is very interesting to evaluate factors which raise the risk for coronary artery disease. Metabolic disease (diabetes, insulin resistance) produces significantly higher Lp(a) levels (29.2) versus healthy controls (16.2). Homocysteine and C-reactive protein levels are about the same among patients with metabolic disease versus healthy controls. However, the assumption here is that the Lp(a) “contributed to the premature atherosclerosis observed in these patients.” [Anadolu Kardiyol Derg. 2008 Apr; 8(2):111-5]

There is no sound reason why lipoprotein(a) is being overlooked as a risk factor for coronary heart disease.

Plaque rupture and sudden death

A mortal and often unforeseeable event is sudden death heart attack. Whereas the lack of vitamin C within artery walls would make them prone to collapse and the sudden development of a blood clot that impairs the heart of oxygenated blood, sudden coronary death is often attributed to the sudden rupture of small plaque and subsequent development of an arterial blockage in a coronary artery. [Journal American College Cardiology 2006 Apr 18; 47(8 Suppl):C13-8]

Plaque rupture is more common among men who suddenly die after physical exertion. [Current Opinion Cardiology 2001 Sep; 16(5):285-92] Shear forces within the artery likely tear open the already existing scar tissue to produce a blockage.

Upon autopsy, it is found that the sudden rupture of a fibrotic (scarred) cap, only about 2 to 17 millimeters long, is what many authorities believe causes sudden cardiac death. White blood cells called macrophages arrive in droves within the ruptured plaque in a typical wound healing response to prevent infection. However, this results in massive inflammation. [Circulation. 1996 Apr 1; 93(7):1354-63]

Lp(a) has been found to be a risk factor for plaque destabilization and thrombosis (blood clotting) in patients with high risk unstable angina. [Anadolu Kardiyol Derg. 2006 Mar; 6(1):13-7]

An interesting finding is that cigarette smoking, which depletes vitamin C, is more likely to result in an acute thrombosis (blood clot) within coronary arteries whereas in non-smokers, sudden death is more often caused by vulnerable plaque rupture. [New England Journal Medicine 1997 May 1; 336(18):1276-82]

It is the scarred tissue in response to wound healing that produces the volume of plaque in the artery. Prior healed ruptures were found in 61% of men who died of a sudden heart attack. [Circulation. 2001 Feb 20; 103(7):934-40; Journal American Medical Assn 1999 Mar 10; 281(10):921-6] These would represent prior silent heart attacks these men would not have been aware of.

Contrary data

What is difficult to fathom is that centenarians (those who live to 100 years and beyond) lipoprotein(a) is surprisingly high. [Haematologica. 2007 Apr; 92(4):e48] Strikingly, lipoprotein(a) is a longevity factor!

Surprisingly, Lp(a) levels are generally consistent from decade to decade and are not related to other traditional risk factors such as total cholesterol, sex, age or blood pressure. [Archives Internal Medicine 2008 Mar 24; 168(6):598-608] There is not an age-related increase in Lp(a).

While elevated levels of Lp(a) are positively associated with coronary artery disease among younger men (2.45 times increased risk for men under 65 years of age) but not for men over the age of 65 (44% reduced risk). [Annals New York Academy Science 2007 Apr; 1100:179-84]

How can this be?

So is Lp(a) only a risk factor for younger aged males? We need to dig deeper for answers to this question.

Only recently has the relationship between coronary artery calcification and lipoprotein(a) been investigated. Researchers at the University of Michigan found that Lp(a) was a significant predictor of presence and quantity of coronary artery calcification in women (mean age 57 years). In men, Lp(a) was a risk factor for coronary artery calcification if they smoked tobacco. [Medical Science Monitoring 2004 Sep; 10(9):CR493-503]

An interesting study was conducted by cardiologists in Turkey. They screened 285 patients over 60 years of age for calcification of their aortic valve (stiffening of the valve). This is the valve that controls the flow of blood from the heart into the aorta, the first blood vessel outside the heart. These researchers found 112 of the 285 subjects had aortic valve calcification. Compared to healthy subjects, patients with aortic valve calcification were significantly older (73.0 versus 68.5 years) and had significantly higher serum levels of Lp(a) (27.4 versus 19.9). [Journal Heart Valve Disease 2007 Jul; 16(4):387-93]

Researchers at Yonsei University College of Medicine took the investigation of lipoprotein(a) and its role in coronary artery disease one step further. They found coronary artery calcification was more prevalent among individuals with a Lp(a) level of 35 mg/deciliter or greater (24%) than those with a lower Lp(a) score (15.7%). In younger patients (less than 60 years of age), Lp(a) was an independent risk factor for coronary artery calcification, but in older patients, coronary artery calcification but not Lp(a) was a risk factor. [Yonsei Medical Journal 2003 Jun 30; 44(3):445-53]

The riddle of lipoprotein(a) is solved. Calcification is the culprit.

An animal experiment sheds more light on the subject. Rabbits were bred so they produced more lipoprotein(a). These rabbits exhibited more advanced arterial plaque than normal rabbits. Most of these arterial plaques were calcifications which were barely evident in the normal rabbits. [Journal Biological Chemistry 2002 Dec 6; 277(49):47486-92]

The cholesterol theory of heart disease dominates. Yet the prevalence of coronary artery calcification is about 17.6% among males and only 4.3% among females age 39-45 years. [Am Heart J. 2001 Mar; 141(3):463-8] Younger premenopausal women would not have begun to lose calcium from their bones, to be deposited in their arteries, at this young age. Men accumulate calcium in their arteries once childhood growth ceases.

A few hundred thousand adult Americans succumb to sudden-death heart attack with low-to-normal cholesterol levels and clear coronary arteries. Yet a coronary artery calcium score of zero means a person’s risk for a sudden heart attack is near zero. Researchers have found, among adults who experienced their first heart attack, 86% had calcium artery scores of ~400. [International Journal Cardiology 2006 Jun 16; 110(2):231-6]

A study was conducted among 102 “fresh” heart attack patients who had survived their first heart attack (19-59 years of age, 88% male) and found coronary artery calcification in 95% of these patients compared to just 59% of healthy adults. The calcium arterial score was 529 (mean) among the heart attack patients and only 119 in healthy adults. In young patients with their first, unheralded acute heart attack, the presence and extent of coronary calcium are significantly greater than in matched controls. [Heart 2003 Jun; 89(6):625-8]

It was Dr. Stephan Seely who noted in 1991 that countries of the world that consume the most calcium (Ireland, Scandinavia, New Zealand and North America) have the highest rates of heart disease. At the time, Dr. Seely proposed rice bran IP6 as a natural antidote to arterial calcifications. [International Journal Cardiology 1991 Nov; 33(2):191-8]

It should also be noted that in the 1970s cardiologist Lester Morrison proposed and demonstrated that oral chondroitin sulfate blocks the calcification of arteries. [Atherosclerosis 1972 Jul-Aug; 16(1):105-18]

The subject of vitamin C as an inhibitor of calcification is limited by sparse data. A retrospective study showed that among 865 consecutive patients age 39-45 years without known coronary artery disease who consumed, on average, 371 milligrams of vitamin C daily, the prevalence of coronary artery calcification was 20% and vitamin C intake had no effect upon calcification. [Preventive Cardiology 9: 75-81, 2006] This is about 3 times the dietary intake level of vitamin C.

In another study, researchers at the St. Francis Hospital in New York conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of a statin cholesterol-lowering drug (atorvastatin 20 mg daily), vitamin C (1000 mg daily), and vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol 1,000 IU daily), versus matching inactive placebos in 1,005 non-symptomatic patients, apparently healthy men and women age 50 to 70 years with coronary calcium scores at or above the 80th percentile for age and gender. All study participants also received aspirin 81 mg daily. Mean duration of treatment was 4.3 years. Treatment with alpha-tocopherol, vitamin C, and low doses of atorvastatin (20 mg once daily) did not affect the progression of coronary calcification. [Journal American College Cardiology 2005 Jul 5; 46(1):166-72] The amount of vitamin C extrapolated from Pauling and Rath’s studies, 2800 mg for a 160-pound adult, was not employed. - Copyright 2008 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

Labels: coronary artery calcification, lipoprotein(a), Vitamin C

posted by Knowledge of Health at 7:45 AM

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Niacin drugs

With losses in the billions of dollars emanating from marketing of an unsafe anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx, the pharmaceutical giant Merck is making it sound like the FDA was unfair in its issuance of a recent disapproval letter for CORDAPTIVE, Merck’s new cholesterol control pill, which is nothing more than a slow-release non-flush niacin pill for management of cholesterol.

Merck’s niacin pill is combined with a statin drug to raise HDL “good” cholesterol levels while driving down LDL “bad” cholesterol. Here’s the big medical breakthrough for Merck --- CORDAPTIVE reduces niacin-induced flushing from 49% to 27% compared to plain slow-release niacin (Niaspan- Abbott Labs- annual sales ~$500 million). [American Journal Cardiology 101: 625-30, 2008] Flushing is the dilation of blood vessels causing redness of the skin coupled with warming or burning on the face and neck.

But will CORDAPTIVE users be any healthier, or lower their mortality risk for coronary heart disease? This is unlikely. Even Merck’s own promotional materials provided a lame rationale for CORDAPTIVE. It is assumed that elevation of HDL cholesterol lowers cardiac risk factors. An experimental Pfizer drug designed to raise HDL cholesterol had to be withdrawn from further clinical study because it increased mortality. But Merck could only say epidemiologic (population) studies have shown that for every 1 milligram/deciliter increase in HDL-C, the risk of developing cardiovascular disease decreases by 2-3 percent. A recent study shows CORDAPTIVE raise HDL levels by 20%.

But that is not direct evidence that Merck’s pill lowers the risk of sudden death heart attack. The problem with niacin, like statin drugs and even natural cholesterol-altering agents like policosanol and red yeast rice, there is no strong evidence they reduce mortality rates. They do alter circulating cholesterol numbers, but the cholesterol that circulates in your arteries is not the cholesterol that accumulates within the arterial wall. Cholesterol is produced in the liver and is needed for transport of antioxidants like vitamin E, lutein, lycopene, to tissues. Cholesterol is needed to produce sex hormones (testosterone, estrogen) and to produce bile for digestion of fats.

A few years ago researchers examine nearly 100 studies and concluded that niacin marginally reduces overall mortality by 4%, compared to 13% for statin drugs and 23% for omega-3 fish oil. [Archives Internal Medicine 165: 735-30, 2005] A broad review of studies involving statin drugs conducted by Harvard research John Abramson (author, Overdosed America) shows statins do not meaningfully reduce cardiac mortality rates. [Lancet. 2007 Jan 20; 369(9557):168-9]

As an aside, it is difficult to locate Dr. Abramson’s report on Medline – the National Library of Medicine’s library of published articles from medical journals. Searching under “statin drugs” and “Abramson” comes up empty. When you do locate the report, no abstract is provided. Investigators have to pay money to access the abstract or full report.

The cholesterol-lowering game is just a charade. Fish oil produces none of the side effects posed by statin drugs, none of the flushing of niacin, and even acts as an anti-inflammatory agent that is far safer than drugs like Vioxx. Fish oil also inhibits blood clots, which is what a heart attack is --- a blockage or clot in a coronary artery that supplies the heart with blood. Fish oil lowers triglycerides, another blood-fat that is considered a risk factor for heart disease. Fish oil makes the heart muscle less irritable and gives the heart muscle a rest by reducing the heart rate by about 6 beats per minute. [J Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation Prevention 2008 Mar-Apr; 28(2):92-8] Fish oil also lowers blood pressure. [Journal Nutrition 2007 Apr; 137(4):973-8] Statin drugs, niacin, red yeast rice, policosanol? Why even go there when there is omega-3 fish oil? -Copyright 2008 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

Labels: cholesterol, fish oil, niacin flush

posted by Knowledge of Health at 4:41 AM

Friday, April 18, 2008

Proposition 65: A California law to limit dosage of dietary supplements

A California law that has been in effect since 1986 to promote clean drinking water and keep toxic substances that cause cancer and birth defects out of consumer products is now going to be used to limit the amount of vitamins and minerals in dietary supplements or be faced with having to include a warning they exceed safe levels, if opposition isn’t mounted. The idea seems ludicrous.

First, for chemicals to be subject to this law, called Proposition 65, they have to be on a list of potentially toxic molecules. But vitamins and minerals aren’t on the list, with the exception of vitamin A as a potentially problematic vitamin in high doses which may (or may not) increase the risk for birth defects.

A chemical gets listed if the state's “qualified experts"-two independent committees of scientists and health professionals appointed by the Governor-find that the chemical has been clearly shown to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Even more troublesome is that manufacturers of dietary supplements, under Prop. 65, would be forced to test every product they sell for 800 different chemicals, with any detectable amount assumed to pose a risk. At $200 cost to test each for each chemical on the Prop. 65 list, a company would have to spend $160,000 for each product to comply with this law.

To enforce Prop. 65, private attorneys can file against any company and obtain 25% of the civil penalty plus attorney’s fees and costs. This unleashes a witch hunt on vitamins with the objective to plunder supplement companies rather than protect the public.

Under Prop. 65, the limitation on vitamins and minerals would not to exceed the Recommended Daily Allowance (“RDA”) established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (“IOM”). If no RDA is established, then the total amount cannot exceed 20% of the Tolerable Upper Intake established by the IOM. A chemical would be considered “beneficial to human health” only if a daily value or allowance has been established by the IOM.

There are big problems here. First, this law was written to limit toxic chemicals from getting into groundwater. However, nutrients like thiamine (vitamin B1) and iron are already added to fertilizers to aid in plant growth and health. Both iron and thiamine are growth factors for cancer cells, so they could be construed to be carcinogens, yet they are both essential nutrients.

The Upper Safe Limit for iron is 45 mg, and typically 65 mg is prescribed during pregnancy. So iron pills for pregnancy would be required to have a Prop. 65 warning, which appears to be counterproductive to the idea of why the law was passed.

The Safe Upper Limit for folic acid is 1000 micrograms (mcg), same as 1 milligram (mg). However, doctors commonly prescribe 5 mg of folic acid for women during pregnancy to prevent birth defects (spina bifida, anencephaly). So folic acid supplements would also be required to include a Prop. 65 warning label, and if this scares pregnant women away from these pills and results in a rise in birth defects, it would be an obvious backfire to the intent of this law.

The Safe Upper Limit for vitamin D is 2000 IU, which is obviously an outdated limit since 15 minutes of sunshine would produce about the same amount of natural vitamin D with no known side effects. Since virtually all African American pregnant women are abjectly deficient in vitamin D (Blacks require up to 10 times more sun exposure to make the same amount of vitamin D as Caucasians), a Prop. 65 warning on vitamin D supplements could possibly cause African American women to back away from vitamin D pills, resulting in widespread rickets among newborns and toddlers.

It certainly will be interesting to see how Prop. 65 gets enforced when it comes to dietary supplements. – Copyright 2008 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

Labels: minerals, prop 65, upper limits, vitamins

posted by Knowledge of Health at 9:07 AM

Health when traveling

Traveling overseas poses threats to health. The travel industry doesn’t want travelers to know that. For example, 30 to 80 percent of people traveling overseas develop traveler’s diarrhea. Other travelers are exposed to TB, Legionnaire’s disease when staying in hotels, or develop blood clots in the lower legs.

When you travel by airlines you re-breathe other people’s air. So someone seated in the same section of an airliner with an infectious lung disease like tuberculosis can infect you, especially if your immune system isn’t up to par. Such is the case of a passenger on a flight from India to the San Francisco Bay area, health officials say. The infected passenger sat within 16 rows of a TB patient for more than 8 hours. [San Francisco Chronicle, April 17, 2008] One third of the world’s population has tuberculosis of the lungs (that’s 2 billion people), and many travel on airplanes and expose others to TB. Natural immune boosters can ward off TB and protect against infection when traveling by air.

Furthermore, up to 10% of air travelers develop blood clots in their lower legs, especially travelers on long-haul flights. Natural blood thinners should be considered.

Viral infection from Norwalk viruses are also common, especially on cruise ships. In one year (2002), 17 cruises ships sailing the Caribbean experienced outbreaks of Norwalk virus. On four successive cruises on the same ship, outbreaks of Norwalk virus were reported despite efforts to sanitize the ship. [Emerging Infectious Diseases 11: 154, 2005] No mention is made that Norwalk viruses are harbored in shellfish and then transmitted from human to human. Norwalk virus is associated with approximately 90% of non-bacterial acute stomach upset worldwide. Travelers need to put up their guard before leaving for vacations or business trips. To learn more, read the Travel Survival Guide at http://www.lifespannutrition.com/Travelhealth.pdf

Labels: Norwalk virus, TB, travel health

posted by Knowledge of Health at 2:17 AM

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Attack Of The Killer Antioxidants, or Was It a Prescription Drug That Killed Your Mom and Dad?

Labels: dietary supplement safety, vioxx

posted by Knowledge of Health at 9:32 AM

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Health crisis declared over public withdrawal from vaccines

· Despite the fact more toxic mercury was being instilled in toddlers during vaccination than allowable by the EPA…

· Despite the fact Americans have been advised to obtained annual flu shots that do not protect against the flu strain in circulation and do not reduce mortality rates among senior Americans, who are a high-risk group…

· Despite the fact that the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine may never prevent one case of cervical cancer and will probably require re-vaccination, and only protects against the two common strains of the virus, leaving sexually active women to eventually infection by other viral strains…

· Despite the fact that there have been admitted production problems with vaccine manufacturers and “hot lots” that have caused side effects…

· Despite the fact that veterinarians are backing away from routine vaccination of dogs because of noticeable development of tumors at injection sites…

· Despite the fact mothers report they personally observed their children become autistic immediately following vaccination, and modern medicine has failed to explain any other cause of autism….

· Despite the fact the government has conceded that a 19-month old girl who became feverish after being given 5 shots encompassing 9 vaccines, and developed subsequent autism and was awarded compensation under the vaccine compensation act…

· Despite the fact the Amish don’t submit their children to vaccination programs and autism is not prevalent in their children…

…Americans are expected to dutifully subject their young children to the federal vaccination program that appears to be more about profiteering by vaccine manufacturers than making kids healthier. Yet Federal health officials are appalled at the current retreat by Americans away from their hallowed vaccine program and now call this “a crisis of public health.”

All the while, illegal immigrants cross the southern border of the U.S. carrying tuberculosis, whooping cough and hepatitis, with no health check points – a policy that spreads more and more disease among young children who find immigrant children in their preschools.

And just how have pediatricians dealt with this crisis? They have threatened to banish families from their practices who do not comply with the onerous vaccination schedule of 32 vaccines before the age of two.

The simple fact is dcotors are injecting weak, but live, bacteria and viruses into children who do not have a formed blood brain barrier till after the age of two. Many of these brain infections that vaccines cause are not apparent till around age two, when small children begin to display verbal skills and their impairment can be observed. Some children were infected in the womb when mothers were given vaccines during pregnancy.

At any time government health officials can take the annual fear-based flu vaccine campaign one step further and falsely declare a pandemic is underway and those who don’t comply with mandated vaccination will be sent to already prepared quarantine camps, or simply quartered in their homes with signage they are unvaccinated. They would become modern lepers.

Consider a mass vaccination program where all 325 million Americans would be subjected to forced smallpox vaccination. Such a program would result in nearly 100,000 cases of heart inflammation (pericarditis), over 50,000 emergency room visits, over 150,000 days of hospitalization, making one wonder exactly what the difference would be between the chaos caused by a smallpox outbreak and the adverse effects caused by the vaccine itself. [Clinical Infectious Disease, 46: S168-78, March 2008]

Recognize a terrorist of some sort spread anthrax via the U.S. mail system, a bacillus that was genetically traced back to the U.S. military laboratory in Maryland. The stamped and addressed envelopes eliminate any idea anthrax escaped by mistake from a government laboratory. Yet the public appears to be clueless here.

Fortunately we now have a potent weapon to keep young children healthy, vitamin D. This vitamin will rapidly marshal an army of neutrophils, a type of white blood cell, as the first responders to infection, and overwhelm any emerging infection. Furthermore, vitamin D produces an antimicrobial peptide, cathelicidin, which attacks any virus, bacterium or fungi. Any child with a high temperature given an ample dose of vitamin D3 will likely experience a rapid break in their fever and a reduction in symptoms of infection (runny nose, diarrhea, etc.).

Eight decades after discovery of vitamin D, doctors are largely oblivious to its power. The capacity of vitamin D to overwhelm infectious disease was apparent decades ago when tuberculosis patients were placed in solariums to produce natural vitamin D, which brought about cures for a disease that still today is difficult to quell with antibiotics. And vitamin D induces no germ resistance like antibiotics.

If you are among those who consider any objection to the nation’s vaccination program to be unamerican, think twice. How much more suffering will be tolerated, how many more brain damaged children, before we wake up and realize vaccination is a crude and outdated technology. We don’t have to subject ourselves to a little bit of disease to create antibodies to germs. We can rally our immune system to fight the most virulent pathogens. So many Americans appear to be naively oblivious to the vaccine propaganda campaigns conducted by government. Yet each year, at the first television news report of the coming wintertime flu season, nearly 100 million mindless Americans roll up their sleeves and obtain a flu shot. –Copyright 2008 Bill Sardi Knowledge of Health, Inc.

Labels: germ resistance, The Vitamin D, Vaccines

posted by Knowledge of Health at 9:29 AM

Search KoH