This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://drdavidbrownstein.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://drdavidbrownstein.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

Low Cholesterol = Higher Mortality

True or false:

1.     Low cholesterol levels are healthy.

2.    You will live longer if you have a low cholesterol level.

3.    If you have congestive heart failure, it is better to take a cholesterol-lowering drug.

The answer to all three statements is easy:  All are false.

How can that be?  Have we been mislead by the media, American Heart Association, AMA, and nearly everyone else out there?  This time, the answer is yes.

A study in the American Heart Journal (Dec.  2008) pointed out the problems with low cholesterol levels in those with congestive heart failure.  This study looked at 17,791 hospitalized patients at 236 sites who were admitted for congestive heart failure.  The researchers divided the patients into four quartiles:

1.    Total cholesterol of <118

2.    Total cholesterol of 119-145

3.    Total cholesterol of 146-179

4.    Total cholesterol of >180

The most important number to look for in any study is the mortality numbers.  Guess who lived the longest in the above four groups?  If you guessed group one, you guessed wrong.

Those in the lowest cholesterol group (quartile 1 above) had the highest death rate (3.3%).  Those in the quartile 2 had a death rate of 2.5%.  The next quartile (3 above) had a death rate of 2.0% and the group with the highest cholesterol levels had the lowest death rate at 1.3%. 

Other data from this study showed that those with lowered cholesterol levels had longer hospital length of stay and worse symptoms on discharge.  Compared to those with the highest cholesterol levels (>180), those with the lowest cholesterol levels (<118) had a 65% higher risk of mortality.

How can this be?  Does it sound like Alice-In-Wonderland to you?    It really isn’t that hard to understand when you understand the physiology of the body. 

It is well known that lowered cholesterol levels have been shown in many studies to be associated with a higher mortality rate.  Cholesterol is a necessary and important substance in the body.  It is necessary for proper mineral absorption and utilization, cell wall strength, immune system functioning and vitamin D production.  There are many other important functions of cholesterol.   

My clinical experience has clearly shown that it is not wise to use a drug that blocks the production of cholesterol.  It does not make physiologic sense and it does not make common sense.  Cholesterol research studies do not prove that taking cholesterol-lowering medications prolong life.  In fact, the best statin drugs have been shown to do is to lower the risk of a non-fatal heart attack by 1% over 2-3 years. This positive effect is seen only in the most favorable trials (i.e., those trials that Big Pharma Cartel decides to release for publication).   However, there are many serious adverse effects of cholesterol-lowering medications including muscle and liver problems and an increased cancer rate. 

What should you do?  Read and educate yourself about any drug or natural item that you are prescribed.  Look at how the item works in the body and look at the possible adverse effects.  Then, make your decision on whether it is in your best interest to take that substance.  If it does not extend your lifespan or improve the quality of your life then perhaps you should avoid the substance.   Cholesterol-lowering drugs have never been shown to improve longevity or quality of life.

For more information on cholesterol and cholesterol –lowering drugs, I refer the reader to my book, Drugs  That Don’t Work and  Natural Therapies That Do, where I review the cholesterol controversy in more detail.  

Big Pharma Cartel's Payoff

Over half of the United States’ medical residency programs in internal medicine accepted financial support from the Big Pharma Cartel.  While accepting this money, 75% of the residency directors found accepting the aid “not acceptable.”[i]

After graduating medical school, new doctors are required to undergo residency training where they are taught how to practice medicine by more senior physicians.  It is a time for growth and learning for the new doctors. 

A survey was conducted in 2006 and 2007 which found the Big Pharma Cartel  paid for educational materials in 83% of the programs that accepted money.  Furthermore, in those programs that took aid, the Big Pharma Cartel paid for meals in 90% and office supplies in 68% of the programs surveyed. 

I remember my residency well. Anytime there was a Pharma Cartel-sponsored meal, I and my colleagues did not miss it.   We never thought we were being influenced by the perk, but we were.  Studies have shown that small gifts such as pens or meals can influence a doctor’s prescribing pattern.  Think about it; do you really think the Big Pharma Cartel would spend millions of dollars per year paying for doctors’ meals if they were not influencing prescribing patterns?  Of course not.

The most interesting part of the survey was that 72% of the residency directors felt Big Pharma Cartel financing was not desirable.  However, most still took the money. 

Looking back on it, of course Big Pharma’s presence at nearly every one of our lunches and many of our dinners was, most certainly, influencing us.  They gave us pens, paper, books, stethoscopes and other items.  I clearly remember hearing about a drug from a Pharma representative and trying it out with the next patient.  I trusted that this industry-paid representative was telling the truth.  Now, I regret using those medications on my patients.  I should have studied those medications further before using them.  I was being influenced and I didn't even know it.  When I think back on it, I am amazed at how cheaply Big Pharma influenced us--with pens and paper.  To top it off, Big Pharma-sponsored meals were never that good anyways (full of refine carbs and soda). 

Unfortunately, nothing much has changed today.  Big Pharma Cartel sales people can not give out as many items as in the past, but they still sponsor meals and still influence prescribing patterns.  If the AMA was really looking for a way to improve medical decision making they should be looking to ban the practice of Big Pharma Cartel representatives going to doctors offices as well as ban any Big Pharma-sponsored meals and events.  Perhaps if Big Pharma Cartel was spending less money trying to woo doctors, the price of prescription medications would go down (I won’t hold my breath for that one). 

What can you do?  Make sure your doctor is not being influenced by the Big Pharma Cartel.  If you see a line of Pharma drug representatives trying to see the doctor, your antennae should go up.  Ask the doctor how much he knows about the medication he/she is going to prescribe you and how long has the medication been available.  Generally, newer medications have not been appropriately studied for adverse effects.  If you are prescribed a new medication, consider using an older medication if it is appropriate for your condition.  Better yet, try and use safe and effective natural therapies to avoid using pharmaceuticals, if possible.   

---

[i] New York Times.  2.22.10

Avoid Aspartame

Over the years, I have written and lectured  about the dangers of artificial sweeteners.  One product seems to stand out from the rest:  aspartame.  Aspartame is used to provide a sweetened taste to food and drink.  It is found in a wide range of food products including diet sodas and low fat foods.  It is even found in most chewing gum products.

Aspartame was first synthesized in 1965.  The FDA approved aspartame for use in food products in 1980.   The FDA has concluded that aspartame is safe for consumption.  “Few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated, close scrutiny, and the process through which aspartame has gone should proved the public with additional confidence of its safety,” the FDA claims.  If only that statement were true. 

Aspartame is presently marketed under the names Equal and NutraSweet. It accounts for over 75% of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA per year.  I see many patients adversely affected by aspartame.  Patients have reported a variety of negative symptoms from aspartame exposure including headaches, seizures, muscle aches and pains, weight gain, rashes, depression, insomnia, hearing loss, palpitations, vertigo, memory loss, and numbness.  I ask every new patient if they are eating/drinking food and drink containing aspartame.  If they are, I counsel them to remove it from their diet.  I have found it nearly impossible for overweight patients to lose weight when they continue to ingest aspartame. 

Aspartame is a known excitotoxin.  It acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain and can kill brain cells by over-stimulating them.  There are multiple illnesses associated with exposure to excitotoxins including:  multiple sclerosis, ALS, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia.  I have successfully treated many patients, in part, by having them remove all aspartame from their diet. 

The maker of aspartame, Ajinomoto, has announced a new name for aspartame—AminoSweet.  It has the same ingredients as aspartame.  The company is trying to give the product a friendlier name.  Don’t be fooled.  There is no difference between NutraSweet and AminoSweet.  Both products need to be avoided.  Especially avoid aspartame if it is heated such as in coffee or tea as it changes its chemical structure to a formaldehyde-like product. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen. 

If the FDA was truly looking out for us, the citizens, it would remove aspartame from the market place.  I would advise you to avoid any food product (gum, soda, diet food, etc.,) which contains aspartame.  And, remember, DO NOT use aspartame in any heated product. 

      

No Cure for Heart Disease?

The headline in today’s (2.12.10) Washington Post reads, “No cure for heart disease, Clinton’s case shows.”  The article states, “Bill Clinton has a new lease on life, but there’s no cure for the heart disease that has twice forced the former president to get blocked arteries fixed.”     Further in the article the writer states that bypass surgery grafts usually last around 10 years, on average. 

Bill Clinton was taken to the hospital yesterday for chest pain and found to have one of his bypass grafts blocked.  The doctors performed a cardiac catheritization where they placed a catheter near his heart and injected dye to find the blockage.  Once the blockage is visualized, they put a stent (a mesh tube) in the artery to open it up. 

Placing stents in blocked arteries have never been shown to prolong one’s life.  But, stent placement can help with symptoms such as chest pain and fatigue.  Furthermore, in an acute situation of an evolving heart attack or an impending heart attack, stent placement can be a life-saving procedure. 

Having said that I can assure you people do not have heart attacks due to a stent-deficiency syndrome.  They have heart attacks for a variety of reasons, but the main reason heart attacks occur is due to oxidative stress of the coronary arteries.  How do you get oxidative stress in the cells of the coronary arteries?  You can get increased oxidative stress by becoming nutrient deficient, particularly vitamin C deficient.  Research has shown that vitamin C deficiency can cause scurvy or sub-clinical scurvy in the arteries and result in the development of plaque. Eventually plaque can build up and lead to a heart attack. 

Other nutrient deficiencies can lead to oxidative stress in the coronary arteries including deficiencies of omega 6 fats, magnesium, vitamin E and CoQ10.                                                                                                            

            I assume Bill Clinton is being treated with statin drugs.  In the Washington Post article it states that since Mr. Clinton’s original bypass surgery six years ago, “he has really toed the line.  This (the new stents) was not about his lifestyle or his diet.”  

Perhaps Mr. Clinton does not know that 50% of all heart attack patients have low cholesterol—below 200.  This one statistic blows apart the whole theory that lowering cholesterol levels prevents heart attacks.  That theory is nonsense.  In order to decrease heart attacks, the most important idea is to lower oxidative stress.  How do you do that?  Eat whole foods, drink water and correct nutrient and hormonal imbalances.  Exercise also helps to lower oxidative stress.

My father was a textbook case of what holistic medicine can do for heart disease.  In fact, he was my first heart disease patient treated with holistic medicine.  He had his first heart attack at age 40 and a second heart attack a few years later. He was treated with two bypass surgeries and numerous angioplasties and drugs.  At age 60 he was dying from heart disease.  Unfortunately, my dad never took care of himself.  He smoked cigarettes, was overweight and never exercised.  When I began using holistic medicine, I treated him with bioidentical hormones and a nutritional regimen of vitamins and minerals.   The change in his heart disease symptoms was astounding; 25 years of continual angina went away in a week.  He lost weight (without changing any bad habits) and, more importantly, he looked better and felt better.  His story is in my book The Miracle of Natural Hormones.  After using a holistic approach, he lived another 10 years and had a good quality of life during that time.       

Heart disease can be helped and, in some cases, cured.  However, heart disease is not cured from stents or prescription drug use.  Poor lifestyle choices which lead to nutrient and hormonal deficiencies as well as oxidative stress lead to heart disease.  I believe Bill Clinton needs a holistic evaluation to treat the underlying cause of heart disease.  There is no reason he cannot get the same positive results that I see from my patients. 

Eat Your Vegetables

Maybe your mother and grandmother were right when they told you, “Eat your vegetables.”  A new study (Cancer Causes Control.  2009.  20:75-86) pointed out that among dietary factors, vegetables were the only food group shown to have a favorable effect on thyroid cancer. 

Thyroid cancer encompasses approximately 1% of all malignancies diagnosed worldwide.  There were approximately 140,000 cases and 35,000 deaths worldwide occurring in 2002.[i]  Thyroid cancer has been increasing in the U.S. at near-pandemic rates over the last 20 years.  Fortunately, most people with thyroid cancer survive with appropriate treatment. 

The authors of this study looked at 42 original research papers that studied the relationship between thyroid cancer and dietary factors.  The scientists compared two groups of vegetables—cruciferous and non-cruciferous vegetables.  Cruciferous vegetables include cabbage, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprout, broccoli and bok choy.  These vegetables contain enzymes which can inhibit thyroid function.  I have found people eating a raw food diet who consume large amounts of cruciferous vegetables usually have thyroid abnormalities.  However, small amounts of these items eaten as part of a healthy diet usually do not interfere with thyroid function.

The authors found that a diet that contains the largest amount of vegetables (non-cruciferous) as compared to a diet with the smallest amount of vegetables had a 20% lower risk (relative risk) of thyroid cancer.  Those that ate cruciferous vegetables did not have a significant decline in thyroid cancer rate. 

Why would vegetables lower your risk for getting thyroid cancer?  Vegetables contain many antioxidants and flavinoids which are known to inhibit cancer cells. 

What other things can you do to prevent thyroid cancer?  Ensure that you have adequate iodine levels and avoid exposure to ionizing radiation.  For more information on thyroid cancer, I refer the reader to my books, Iodine Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It, 4^th Edition, and Overcoming Thyroid Disorders, 2^nd Edition.  

---

Cancer Causes Control.  2009.  20:75-86

Too Many Snacks for Children

The article in the N.Y. Times is titled, “Snack Time Never Ends (NYT 1.20.2010).”  The author of the article was complaining about the number of snacks she and the other mothers have to bring to her children’s school.  She wrote, “Apparently, we have collectively decided as a culture that it is impossible for children to take part in an activity without simultaneously shoving something in their {mouths}.”  

When my children, Hailey and Jessi were in elementary school, I couldn’t believe how many snacks were brought to school.  Every birthday, school event, soccer game, etc., there were snacks.  Some mothers brought good snacks, fruit and vegetables, while others brought bad snacks full of refined carbohydrates (cookies, cakes, and such).  I would estimate that the good snacks were brought about 10% of the time.

I thought the snacks would be over as my kids got older.  I was wrong.  Even in high school, we get the dreaded snack notice.   I don’t recall my mother bringing a single snack to high school.  I don’t think anyone ever brought a snack to high school.

From 1977 to 2002, the department of Health and Human Services has reported a nearly 400% increase in snacking by Americans.  What do we have to show for this increase in snacking?  Obesity, diabetes, and hypertension are all related to snacking on poor quality food and are occurring at epidemic rates.   In fact, all of these illnesses are occurring in our children at epidemic rates.

I believe this over-use of snacking is teaching our children how to eat poorly.  They would certainly eat better if they were not snacking.  Also, children should be conditioned to eat at mealtime. They do not need to eat constantly during the day, particularly high-calorie, low- nutritious food.   We are bound to see more and more childhood illnesses such as obesity and diabetes if we keep up this practice.  

What can we do?  For starters, the schools should limit the number of snacks brought in.  Also, there should be guidelines about what kind of snacks should be allowed.  What is wrong with fruit and vegetable snacks?  Instead of fructose-flavored juice, what is wrong with serving water with snacks?

I can assure you that if we do not change course with our children’s diet, we are in serious trouble.   You can forget about healthcare reform if our young population becomes too fat and too ill to work.   The looming health care debacle is the obesity epidemic.  This epidemic is a lifestyle epidemic and we all share in the blame. Unfortunately, this epidemic is already here.  On the other hand, we can all share in the cure for this epidemic; we can eat better and feed or children healthier food.  So, if you get  the dreaded snack letter, think about bringing fruit and vegetable snacks and water to drink.  At least if they have to eat, let them eat healthy food.