Despite the fact that more and more kids are raised on empty calories and that somehow they will get by and build healthy brains and bodies on the junk purveyed by the industrialized food suppliers (the folks who make the stuff advertised to kids on TV, attractively packaged in supermarket aisles and sold as “treats” and “fast foods” (including carbonated and sweetened drinks of all sorts), a recent study (one of a gazillion) makes the
Glyphosate is a highly toxic substance well documented to be associated with infertility, cancer, auto immune diseases and a host of other serious or potentially lethal problems in people.
Even if the glyphosate is not produced in your body, the foreign DNA and virus bits inserted into the food during the process of genetic modification are not digestible by our enzymes. They wander around and eventually can become parts of your own DNA where they act to produce what are called “novel proteins”. These novel proteins, which have never been produced before in the history of living things, have impacts which are totally unknown. So eating prepared and processed foods, sure to be larded with GMOs, is a sure way to make yourself and your kids part of the largest experiment in human history. Ready to be a guinea pig and pay for the privilege? I thought not.
Neither am I.
Remembering that the FDA permits foods to be marketed once their owner has a patent, WITHOUT ANY SAFETY ASSESSMENT OR TESTING, and also prohibits the labeling of foods which contain GMOs because they know that if you knew they contained GMOs you would not buy them (honest! that is what they actually say!) and remembering that organic foods, while not perfect, may not contain GMOs, my suggestion to you is to eat organic. Yes, it can be more expensive. How much does cancer cost? How about pediatric diabetes? Brain tumors? Lupus? What about the cost of not being able to have a child? Think about the real cost of cheap food one more time and switch to organics, at least for your children.
Here’s a recent study documenting how important protein is for kids. But the study is about natural protein, not the unnatural ones created by genetically modified plants and animals.
The foreign DNA from GMO foods migrates to the genetic material in the nucleus of our cells and inserts itself there. Once there, it moves around from site to site and instructs your own DNA to do things: mostly make proteins which have not been made before in your body (or in anyone’s body). They are called “Novel proteins” and the impact they can have is literally unknown. Eating GMO foods is therefore participating in the largest experiment in human history without any thing like an informed consent form since no one is willing to tell you that you are participating in that experiment by clearly labeling your food (at least in the US) and giving you the chance to participate or eat natural, non GMO food.
In the European Union there is a labeling requirement. In Benin there is a moratorium on GMO foods. Many other countries have policies somewhere in between. Those novel proteins, which the inserted genetic material instructs the cells to make have never before been seen in any living creature. No one knows what they will be (since they can change from cell to cell) or what they can do. They can literally be anything, and do anything, including causing organ damage, infertility, cancer or a host of other, as yet unknown, consequences. Eating these unnatural proteins will certainly have consequences for children. But no one knows what they are. What we can say is that when rat pups are exposed to GM food, most of them die before birth and those that do survive are stunted. Those that survive to adult hood are infertile and their kidneys, intestines, immune systems and other organs are damaged, small and poorly functional. So by all means, feed your kids (and yourself) good protein, not FrankenFood protein.
Here’s the study:
Smart Kids: High-protein adds points to your child’s IQ
21 February 2008A nutritious diet can make your baby smarter, a new study has discovered. Babies who are given a high-protein diet in their first four weeks have higher IQs by the time they reach adolescence.
Researchers from the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London have discovered the special diet also changes the structure of the brain. It increases the size of the caudate nucleus, which is associated with higher intelligence.
The caudate nucleus has its main growth spurt during the first four weeks following birth.
Although scientists have speculated whether nutrition can influence the caudate nucleus, nobody had tested the theory in a study involving babies. The research team had their opportunity during the 1980s when they gave a standard diet and a high-protein diet to two groups of premature babies.
When they tested the same two groups again when they were adolescents, the researchers discovered that those who had been given a high-protein diet as babies had higher verbal IQ scores, and scans revealed their caudate nucleus was larger.
(Source: Pediatric Research, 2008. Doi: 10.1203/PDR.0b013e318163a271).
Fish are being genetically modified, too. And eating them offers the same hazards as eating any other GMO or FrankenFood. But giving kids real fish oil, from real fish (not genetically modified FrankenFish) is really good for their brains! Here is a report documenting that impact.
Fish Oils: They make kids smart, and speed up brain growth
15 March 2007
Fish oil supplements have helped a small group of schoolchildren dramatically accelerate their learning skills and stimulate brain growth.After just three months, the children’s reading abilities were a year ahead, and their handwriting was neater and more accurate. But, most astonishing of all, their brains showed the sort of growth in three months that normally would be seen only after three years.
Brain scans revealed a far higher level of NAA (N-acetylaspartate), a biochemical indicator of brain development.
The children took two supplements a day of VegEPA, which contains omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, and were encouraged to cut down on fast foods and fizzy drinks, and to be more active.
(Source: The Times, 12 March 2007).
of course, there is another danger in FrankenFish: they are designed to grow faster and reproduce earlier than their natural fore bearers so once they break out of their netting pens in the ocean (which happens regularly in fish farming, by the way, they can be expected to drive the natural species to extinction: they are bigger, better preditors and reproduce faster so over time, they can be expected to be the only salmon or flounder or whatever remaining.
Right now, anyone who understands nutrition well knows that farmed fish are inferior to wild-caught ones because they are customarily fed grains (which fish did not evolve eating!) and kept in such unhealthy conditions that the cancerous parts of the fish are routinely cut out when they are being processed – and they are found in a huge percentage of fish reared in fish farms. Salmon, for example, reared in fish farms is a grey-ish white color, not the vibrant red we are accustomed to. Since a normal wild diet of smaller prey animals and cold waters give salmon both its robust red color and its omega-3 fatty oils, and farmed fish have nether, these animals are given red food dye to make them acceptable to the unwary consumer. Nothing, however, can give farmed fish the omega-3 fatty acids which confer heart and brain benefits on those who consume wild-caught salmon.
In addition to eating organic vegetables and products, it is also important to eat only wild caught fish – until natural fish are exterminated and join the list of forbidden foods for health conscious people.
Don’t let that happen. Join the growing movement for real foods without genetic modification. Purchase only organic foods, supplements and health products. Visit www.Organics4U.org to browse our all-organic on-line store. Every purchase supports your health, the Natural Solutions Foundation and gives you a tax deduction of approximately 40% on your purchase! And, best of all, every product is free from GMOs or ingredients derived from them (unlike many commercially available brands of supplements!).
Join the Natural Solutions Foundation by visiting www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and sign up for the secure, free Health Freedom eAlerts.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
Are Science and the Biotech Industry Sleeping in the Same Bed?
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
One day in April 1998, Professor Phillip James walked into the office of Arpad
Pusztai and placed a large stack of documents on his desk . The documents were
submissions from biotech companies seeking approval of their GM soy, corn, and
tomatoes. He called in Arpad’s wife Susan from the adjoining office. James was
the director of the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe’s leading
nutritional research facility.
He told the Pusztais, both senior scientists there, that the British
agriculture minister was meeting with European ministers in Brussels to vote
on genetically modified (GM) foods, and he wanted a scientific opinion on
them.
Arpad Pusztai looked at the stack-nearly 700 pages-then back at James. He was
confident that his director and the other eleven scientists on the committee
that approves GM foods for the UK were far too busy to actually read these
studies.
The Pusztais, however, had worked for more than two years on a UK government
grant, leading a 20-member research team to design the ideal testing protocol
for evaluating GM foods. They also conducted safety tests on a new variety of
GM potatoes intended for commercialization.
The Pusztais were therefore among the most qualified scientists in the world
to evaluate the papers James had just given them. Arpad asked how much time
they had. “Two and a half hours,” said James. They quickly got to work,
focusing on the design and the data.
Arpad was shocked at what he discovered. The research was incredibly poor. He
described it as superficial, flimsy, and just plain bad science. Reading those
studies was a turning point in the life of this very pro-biotech scientist.
Arpad was the leading researcher in his field, with more than 300 articles and
12 books to his credit. Based on his reputation and experience, the government
had awarded him the GM research grant over 27 competing applicants.
As a man of integrity, accustomed to thorough and rigorous science, Arpad
expected the same from others. But he realized that the approach taken by
biotech industry scientists was diametrically opposed to his own. “I was doing
safety studies,” he said. “They were doing as little as possible to get their
products to market as quickly as possible.”
Abominable Scientific Methods Ignored
Pusztai called the minister and told him that although he wasn’t expecting to
have such a strong opinion after only two and a half hours, there was
definitely not enough information to declare the foods safe for humans.
But the minister responded, “I don’t know why you are telling me this,
Professor James has already accepted it.” It had already been on the market
for two years.
Months later, Arpad had another shock. Young rats fed a genetically engineered
potato developed extensive health problems. Some had smaller, less developed
brains, livers, and testicles, and also partial atrophy of the liver. Some
suffered damaged immune systems and organ damage. And there was excessive cell
growth in the stomach and intestines.
The potato was engineered to produce its own insecticide, but the insecticide
itself was not the cause of these problems. In fact, other rats that had eaten
natural potatoes that were spiked with the insecticide fared much better.
Thus, since the insecticide was not the cause of the poor health of the GM-fed
rats, it was almost certainly the process of genetically modifying the
potatoes that was the culprit.
Arpad realized that if his potatoes had been subjected to the same superficial
industry studies he had reviewed, the potatoes would have been approved. The
organ damage, cell growth, immune functions, and so on, would be undetected.
More worrisome was the fact that the soy, corn, and tomatoes that were
approved were not tested for these potential problems. And they were created
with the same process that Arpad used to engineer his potatoes.
The Cost of Speaking Out
With permission from his director, Arpad accepted an invitation to be
interviewed on television and express his concerns about GM food. For two days
he was a hero at his institute.
Then, on a Tuesday afternoon, two phone calls from the prime minister’s office
were allegedly forwarded through the institute’s receptionist to the director.
On Wednesday morning, Phillip James fired Arpad after 35 years and silenced
him with threats of a lawsuit. His 20-member research team was dismantled and
the UK government abandoned its plans for long-term safety study requirements
for GM foods. The Rowett Institute then issued several statements trashing
Arpad and his research in an apparent attempt to protect the biotech
industry.
Eventually Arpad was invited to speak before Parliament, his gag order lifted,
and his research published in the prestigious Lancet.
Despite his work being cut off in the middle, his rat study remains the most
in-depth animal feeding safety study ever published on GM foods. Tragically,
no similar studies have yet been applied to the GM foods on the market. No one
is monitoring to see if the organs, immune system, and cells of humans eating
GM foods are being similarly influenced.
Arpad has since been commissioned to review all published animal feeding
studies on GM foods. There are only about a dozen. In his paper, published as
a chapter in the book Food Safety, he reported consistent shortcomings in
industry-sponsored research. Their poor designs allow significant problems to
go unnoticed. When problems were identified, they were not followed up.
Arpad and his wife have made presentations on GM foods around the world. In
2001, they appeared before New Zealand’s Royal Commission of Inquiry on
Genetic Modification, where the sentiments and experience of several other
presenters echoed their own.
Are Science and Commerce ‘Sleeping in the Same Bed’?
Parliament member Sue Kedgley testified: “Personally I have been contacted by
telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about
aspects of the research that is taking place… and the increasingly close
ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced
that if they express these fears publicly, even at such a Commission… or
even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out
of their institution.”
Mae-Wan Ho, a biophysicist and geneticist, told the Commission that the
scientific evidence on GM foods “simply did not support the claims… that the
technology is precise and safe.” Ho has endured numerous attacks for her
opinions, including being hounded out of her position at the UK’s Open
University.
Epidemiologist Judy Carman testified that the few animal feeding studies on GM
foods are too short to adequately test for cancer or for problems in
offspring. Further, they are not evaluating “biochemistry, immunology, tissue
pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function.” Carman, who has
investigated outbreaks of disease, said that health problems associated with
GM foods might be impossible to track in the human population, or take decades
to discover.
Carman is repeatedly attacked for her critical stance. One pro-GM scientist
threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor. Another circulated
a defamatory letter to government and university officials in October 2004,
alleging that Carman was unethical and that her work was similar to
“inaccurate
anti-vaccine scaremongering [that] kills people.”
Geneticist Michael Antoniou, who works on human gene therapy, told the New
Zealand Commission, “genetic engineering technology, as it’s being applied in
agriculture now, [is] based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years
ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each
other.” He explained that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of
families.”
Falling on (More) Deaf Ears in the UK and Around the World
In 2003, Antoniou represented non-governmental organizations on the UK’s
supposedly balanced GM Science Review Panel that was part of the nationwide
“GM Nation?” public debate. He was shocked to find scientists there still
supporting obsolete theories of gene independence. Some even claimed that the
order of genes in the DNA was entirely irrelevant. Antoniou was outnumbered by
eleven scientists representing either the biotech industry or appointed by the
pro-biotech UK government. His well-supported arguments fell on deaf ears.
Since the debate, new studies have further verified Antoniou’s position by
showing that genes are not randomly located along the DNA, but clustered into
groups with related functions.
Virologist Terje Traavik testified that GM crops “might be the basis for real
ecological and health catastrophes.” Three years later, in a February 2004
meeting with delegates to the UN biosafety protocol conference, Traavik
presented preliminary evidence from three studies which might fulfill his
earlier prediction.
a.. Philippinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms
while the corn was pollinating.
b.. Promoters-genetic material routinely inserted into GM crops-were found
to transfer to rat organs after a single transgenic meal. Key safety
assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into
question the safety of using these viruses as vaccines.
Traavik, naturally, was attacked.
Biologist Phil Regal told the Commission, “I think the people who boost
genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for
forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition; you know, ‘we made a
mistake, let’s start over.'”
Sue Kedgley had another idea. She said, “I would recommend that perhaps we
could set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetically engineered
scientists and their families, because. they are so convinced of the safety of
the products that they are creating. they would very readily volunteer to
become part of a human clinical trial.”
(C) Jeffrey Smith, 2004
Not eager to eat GM foods? At least 70% of all prepared foods in the US have GM components. Organic foods, on the other hand, do not. Eat organic. It’s cheap compared to disease.
I’ll admit it. I got scooped! I was planning to blog, e-blast, write press releases, do a series of interviews and generally focus attention on a burning question that could save your life or your child’s (or someone else’s): “Drugs: What are You Taking and Why?”. But a wonderful campaign got there first and is doing a spectacular job of providing information about the serious, and potentially lethal, disconnect between psychiatric drugs, psychiatric diagnoses and biochemical reality.
I want to tell you about this campaign and urge you to consult the first class information provided on their site, their radio shows, articles and tools for empowerment and choice-making. Psychiatric drugs can be dangerous, they are largely untested, their efficacy is unproven, and they are powerful toxins which can have lasting, and often highly damaging, impact on the brain and behavior. Their long term effects are little known in adults and virtually unknown in children. None the less, they are quick and easy to use: they provide an initial damping of disturbing or irksome behaviors in many patients. True, the distressing and dangerous downward spiral of more symptoms, more drugs, more symptoms, more drugs, more symptoms, more drugs is a well established cycle rooted in biochemical reality. Unfortunatley, the use of these drugs is not rooted in any such biochemical solidity. The much-vaunted “Chemical Imbalance” has never been shown to exist. Treating it with expensive, life-threatening drugs whose efficacy is more a matter of glossy, but brilliant, media than of of non-commerically-tainted science is highly questionable at best and may be a lot worse. The system is broken (see below), drugs are highly questionable and should only be taken with full knowledge of the risks and benefits, and of all other options available (including questioning any diagnosis made so that you understand completely why you [or your child]) should, or should not, take the drugs offered by a harried, time-compressed, well-meaning, but well-indoctrinated physician or other prescriber.
What to do? Go to “The Truth About Psychiatry” and spend some time there. The information is sound, good science and, where there are only questions instead of answers, clearly and simply stated. While the site is not yet complete (the bookstore, for example, is yet to come), the information is top notch as are the experts who have banded together to get the word out: if YOU do not know what, and why, you are taking medication, it is your right and your responsibility to find out. Their radio archives, currently contain 11 easily downloadable archived interviews which are uniformly high quality, non technical and riveting. Each one is more potent, and more empowering, than the last. And each one prepares you to ask the right questions and evaluate the answers you get from your doctor or any where else.
The “Just Say Know” site is not about drug bashing. It is about ignorance busting.
To help you be in the know so you can make truly informed decisions, there is a very elegant, simple, clear (and clearly useful) form which you can download at www.psychtruth.org/justsayknow.htm. Working through it with your doctor you can see what you are taking and why. And, whatever your decision about the drugs themselves, as an informed consumer you are “doing a body good!” — Yours!
October is “Just Say Know” Month. I salute this initiative and will support it. And oh, by the way, the alternatives to drugs are all natural items (including a clean diet and high potency nutrients) which would become a thing of the past – world wide – if we do not preserve our right to health and health freedom. Donate now to the Natural Solutions Foundation to keep health freedom alive and well — so you CAN “Just Say ‘Know'” this month and every month using your choice of nutrients, supplements, clean food, detox, etc. Don’t let Codex take that away from you and those you love!
If you choose drugs, then let it be a knowing, understanding and well-informed choice. Just Say KNOW!”
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Day 12: June 23, 2006
Today we had another full day of meetings and had the same level of success at each of them in this bustling African commercial capital. What a day! For reasons that you will instantly understand, we cannot tell you exactly where we are but you can be assured that it is hot, difficult to arrange anything, complicated and thrilling. Today, in addition to the editors and reporters from two of the largest newspapers in this country we have seen people who know either nothing or quite a lot about Codex but who have not thought about it from our view point. Each one listens with great interest since each one appears to genuinely care what happens to the nutritional status of his or her countrymen. This is a unique and thrilling aspect of these countries: there are problems which we in the US cannot even begin to comprehend, poverty at breath taking levels, corruption in many places at a level we almost never contemplate and yet civil servents and public advocates, activists and business people, Members of Parliament and Ministers of Health are truly interested in listening to what we are saying and in making changes to further public nutrition!
Of course, we shall see what the actual actions their delegates take are during the Codex meeting. At this level, however, we are dealing with people who genuinely seem to want their countries to do the right thing. We think American can learn a thing or two!
Day 13: June 24, 2006
A major newspaper in this country runs a full page story on the importance of our stand on Codex and health freedom! We will scan it and share it with you AFTER the Codex meeting. It urges the country to take care to protect its access to healthy and natural options! In color, no less!
Then we get word that a major African country has apparently shifted its position to support South Africa’s superb initiative for the implementation of the WHO Global Strategy at Codex. Again, we shall see, but it would appear that the shift is because of the work that we have been doing! We are thrilled: hot, tired, exhausted but thrilled!
I have gotten bitten by at least 3 mosquitoes (all of which are presumed to carry malaria) and so I begin taking Artemesia annua and ionic silver to prevent the development of malaria. No one else got bitten who was near me. That’s the way it usually is, by the way.
Then a large and festive meal with our supporters in this country and off to the airport for a flight to Geneva.
Day 14: June 25, 2006
The flight started out fine but sometime during it I became sicker than I have ever been. Every orifice which could empty itself did so repeatedly. And then again and again. I assume that the problem was food poisoning since I recovered after many, many hours of sleep both in the airport waiting for connecting flights and then in the hotel room. UGH! Bert was fine. Go figure.
Oh, by the way, someone stole my Blackberry from our hand luggage so if you wanted to call me, you can’t!
Day 15: June 26, 2006
After some more extended recovery (that equals sleep), we had a leisurly day during which I went through several thousand emails. If I have not gotten to you, please be patient! We are preparing a White Paper on the Codex issue of national options to hand to the delegates whom we will be continuing to meet with with the help of our outstanding legal team.
Let me tell you, even sitting in a hotel room in Geneva is easier, but the work that we have done in Africa has gone so well that I would gladly do it all over again! Thanks for your letters of support and your donations.
This is a very expensive proposition and if you have not given generously yet, please, please do so.
We have a lot to do before us, but what we have done so far on this trip can, just possibly, change the world!
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Don’t forget to sign the Citizen’s Petition and visit www.EatSafeEatSmart.com! REL
The medical industry has allowed itself to become the drug distribution system of the Pharmaceutical industry. And the prestigious and supposedly neutral medical journals are prime tools in that distribution system since they appear objective and are consulted by doctors for trustworthy and accurate information which they can rely upon to guide the treatment of patients. It is therefore both dangerous and ominous to consider the profound lack of objectivity and corruption which permeate even the most respectable of medical journals.
Advertising revenues for drugs keep them in business. Peer reviewers (who are supposed to keep the system honest) have considerable financial ties with pharmaceutical companies – the more revered the reviewer, the more lucrative the ties. “Research studies” are funded by the companies that stand to benefit from positive outcomes with predictable results. In fact, in many cases, senior authors put their names to research they did not conduct and articles written by company ghost writers. To make matters worse, the data of the studies are owned by contract not by the author (as the case used to be) but by the funding organization so results can be manipulated by the funder despite what the did or did not show.
FDA committee and task force members, too, have significant financial ties to industry. Drug related objectivity is, for the most part, in the mind of the beholder since it is not in the bank account of either the journal or the scientist.
Is it any wonder, then, that highly prestigious and [supposedly] objectivemedical journals participate in propagating the on-going poison press designed to wear away America’s allegiance to natural health options?
Our $20 billion per year supplement spending means that people don’t buy as many expensive and dangerous drugs as they would if they were not protecting their health naturally. That is a real problem for the illness care industry since healthy people are bad customers for the illness industry. That means that our supplement habit must be broken for current profits and the future. The Codex agenda is to making nutrients available only at doses so small they have no impact on any human being is to be brought to the US.
You see, the will of the American people and their legislators to keep DSHEA (the 1994 Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act) intact has to be broken, too. DSHEA says that nutrients are considered as foods and, as such, have no upper limit. The Codex Vitamin and Mineral Guideline says that nutrients are to be considered only in terms of their risk; the WHO guidance on the matter says that ANY CHANGE IN A BIO-MARKER (e.g., anything that can be measured) CAUSED BY A NUTRIENT IS AN ADVERSE EVENT!
The propaganda war is on, big time. Read what Peter Chowka, long time health journalist, has to say about the latest participation by the medical journals.
Saturday, Apr. 15, 2006
Recent Negative Studies of Alternative Medicine:
Bad Medicine or Bad Reporting?
© By Peter Barry Chowka
(April 15, 2006) In recent weeks, the news hasn’t been good for alternative medicine. First came the stories, reported prolifically in the mainstream media, that low-fat diets don’t help to prevent breast or colon cancer or heart disease. This reporting was based on three studies that were published in the February 8, 2006 issue of JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association), one of the world’s leading medical journals. That same week, another prestigious scientific publication, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), in its February 9 issue published a study contending that one of the most commonly used herbs, saw palmetto, was no better than placebo for the treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy or enlarged prostate.
That article was the opening salvo in a new, ongoing series of critiques of alternative medicine in the pages of the NEJM. In the February 16 issue, two studies called into question the effectiveness of using vitamin D and calcium to reduce the risks of bone fractures and colorectal cancer – conditions that have been found in previous studies to benefit from calcium and vitamin D supplementation. The following week (the February 23 issue of the NEJM) another study appeared, proclaiming the uselessness of the nutritional supplements glucosamine and chondroitin for osteoarthritis.
What these negative studies have in common is that the diets or supplements that were being tested have all been previously studied or subjected to review, with consistently positive findings. In fact, a list of the positive studies and references indicating the benefits of low-fat diets, calcium, vitamin D, saw palmetto, glucosamine, and chondroitin sulfate would be quite extensive.
But typically, as soon as the media catch wind of (or read a press release about) a negative study, they tend to exhibit selective amnesia, forgetting or ignoring all of the positive studies that preceded it.
The recent negative studies may have attracted the media’s attention because they appear to go against previously held beliefs – particularly in regard to the presumed benefits of low-fat diets and calcium/vitamin D supplementation. If the results of a new study had indicated instead that low-fat diets prevented heart disease or calcium supplements provided bone protection, they would probably never have made it on the nightly network TV newscasts or in wire service stories. Such news would have been met with a ho-hum, “What else is new?” shrug from most mainstream media producers and editors.
As in the case of any scientific study, however, the published results of these recent negative ones were not as black and white as the media portrayed them to be. The inaccurate or incomplete reporting is partly the result of the limitations of the sound-byte driven news business and also accountable to the somewhat misleading way that the researchers reported the conclusions in several of the studies.
Low-fat Diet Effects on Heart Disease and Cancer
The Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial (which began in 1991), the source of the conclusions in the February 8 JAMA articles, was designed to determine the potential long term effects of a low-fat diet on the risk of heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, and colon cancer in 48,835 postmenopausal women, ages 50-79. The study goal was to decrease total dietary fat to 20% and increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables to five servings daily and whole grains to six servings daily. The dietary intervention group was then compared to a control group of women who were not asked to make dietary changes but who were given diet-related educational materials.
This type of study is problematic for many reasons. In the real world, an individual’s dietary changes are usually made gradually, over a long period of time. In fact, in the JAMA articles, by the sixth year of the study the participants in the low-fat dietary intervention group had only decreased their fat intake by 8.2% and the saturated fat intake (the fat most often associated with heart disease) by only 2.9%. In addition, in the low-fat group there was an average daily increase of only 1.1 servings of fruits and vegetables and 0.5 servings of whole grains. Even with these somewhat subtle dietary changes, however, there was a trend toward decreased heart disease and breast cancer incidence in the study participants who consumed the lowest levels of saturated- and trans-fats and in the ones who ate at least 6.5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily. These positive trends are important since the protective or preventive effects of a low-fat diet can take many years, if not several decades, to be fully realized.
Another significant problem with the negative JAMA studies is that the participants in the dietary-change groups were asked to reduce total dietary fat to 20%. Such a blanket recommendation does not take into account the fact that there are “good fats” and “bad fats.” Thus, this group may have been decreasing heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, such as the ones in salmon and other cold water fish. These same fatty acids have been found in numerous studies to help prevent cancer.
Saw Palmetto and Enlarged Prostate
The New England Journal of Medicine kicked off its latest series of articles on alternative medicine on February 9, 2006 with the publication of a study on the herb saw palmetto for the treatment of enlarged prostate (benign prostatic hyperplasia or BPH). The study’s design looked good, the dosage of saw palmetto seemed appropriate, and the herbal product that was used appeared to be of high quality. The study may have been compromised from the outset, however, by the choice of study participants – men with moderate-to-severe prostate enlargement. Previous studies on saw palmetto have usually looked at men with mild-to-moderate BPH.
The design of the February 9 NEJM study brings to mind an earlier one, published in 2002 in JAMA, on St. John’s wort for moderately severe major depression in which the dosage used was one that had been found in previous studies to benefit people with mild-to-moderate depression. Rather than confirm these findings in a group with milder depression or increase the dose to one that had been noted in clinical reports to benefit people with more severe depression, the researchers used the lower dose and then concluded that St. John’s wort was useless for the treatment of depression. A similar negative conclusion (including the failure to indicate that the study was in men with moderate-to-severe benign prostatic hyperplasia) was drawn by the saw palmetto researchers: “In this study, saw palmetto did not improve symptoms or objective measures of benign prostatic hyperplasia.” This conclusion, of course, is the bottom-line one that was fed to the media, most of whose representatives no doubt did not read or carefully analyze the study itself.
It is not unusual for the conclusions of a medical journal’s article or study, or the press release issued by the publication promoting it, to be negative, while the details of the complete study suggest a more nuanced, inconclusive, or even positive picture.
In the case of the NEJM saw palmetto study, it seems doubtful that men who have found that the herb helps to keep them from having to get up five times a night to urinate will stop taking it because of this single study. But the negative reporting will likely deter others who might have experienced benefits from using this safe and effective herbal alternative.
Calcium and Vitamin D for Decreasing
Fracture Risk and Preventing Colon Cancer
The fact that calcium and vitamin D are important to bone health is fairly well established accepted. Less widely known, but supported by significant positive research, is the fact that both calcium and vitamin D appear to offer protection against certain types of cancer, including colon cancer. Therefore, it was surprising when the news reported that a study in the February 16 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine had concluded that calcium and vitamin D do not prevent colorectal cancer or bone fractures.
One of the more questionable reports in the print media about the February 16 study was published in The New York Times on February 15. The Times article, “Study Finds Calcium Supplements Don’t Prevent Broken Bones,” opened with the following statement: “Calcium and vitamin D supplements increased the risk of kidney stones but did not prevent broken bones or colorectal cancer in middle-aged and elderly women, according to an extensive study whose results are to be published Thursday.”
It’s not hard to understand why the media would get it so wrong since the concluding statement in the official abstract of the published study, “Calcium plus Vitamin D Supplementation and the Risk of Fractures,” states: “Among healthy, postmenopausal women, calcium with vitamin D supplementation resulted in a small but significant improvement in hip bone density, did not significantly reduce hip fracture, and increased the risk of kidney stones.”
A closer look at this study reveals that it was also part of the Women’s Health Initiative (described above in the section on the low-fat diet studies). The bone fracture-colon cancer study included 36,282 postmenopausal women, ages 50-79 years. They were randomly assigned to receive either 1,000 mg of calcium in the form of calcium carbonate and 400 IU of vitamin D or placebo pills. The study’s protocol was confusing and the conclusions raised more questions than they answered.
Many of the women (16,089) were also enrolled in the hormone replacement arm of the study, confounding the results because hormone replacement can have a significant effect on bone density. Women in both the calcium/vitamin D group and the placebo group were also allowed to take personal calcium supplements (up to 1,000 mg daily) and vitamin D supplements (up to 600 IU daily – 1,000 IU daily after 1999) outside of the study as well as other medications for bone health.
Despite all of these significant variables, the study resulted in a 12% overall lower rate of hip fracture in the calcium and vitamin D treated group compared with the placebo group. The study’s authors deemed this result to be not statistically significant. However, when the supplement group was analyzed for compliance it was determined that participants in the group who took at least 80% of the assigned supplements had a 29% decrease in hip fractures. A major question is why non-compliers were even included in the final analysis. In addition, when the women were stratified according to age, those age 60 and older – the group most likely to suffer from hip fractures – experienced a 21% decrease in hip fractures, even when the study didn’t remove the non-compliers.
The calcium/vitamin D group had a 17% greater likelihood of kidney stones. While the increase in kidney stone rate was reported widely, none of the positive results reached the attention of the mainstream media, even though the increased likelihood of kidney stones was less than the improvement in the hip fracture prevention rate. It should also be noted that the form of calcium used in the study was calcium carbonate, one of the more poorly absorbed forms of calcium. Had the researchers used a more absorbable form of calcium, for example, calcium citrate, they would probably have gotten better results and even decreased the risk of kidney stones, since citric acid (citrate) has been found to help prevent the most common type of kidney stone.
Since this same group of people was analyzed for the effects of calcium and vitamin D on colorectal cancer, some of the same problems with the study design apply – for instance, the fact that the placebo group was also allowed to take significant amounts of personal vitamin D and calcium. In addition, the study lasted seven years and, due to the length of time it takes for cancers to develop, this may have been too short a period to observe a truly beneficial effect of vitamin D and calcium in preventing cancer – a fact that was acknowledged by the researchers (but not in most media reporting).
Glucosamine and Chondroitin for Arthritis
In the study on glucosamine and chondroitin published in the February 23 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, these two commonly used nutritional supplements for arthritis were compared to the anti-inflammatory medication celecoxib or to placebo. The study randomly assigned 1,583 people with osteoarthritis of the knee to receive 1,500 mg glucosamine HCl, 1,200 mg chondroitin sulfate, a combination of glucosamine and chondroitin, 200 mg celecoxib, or placebo for 24 weeks. People in all groups were allowed to take up to 4,000 mg acetaminophen (Tylenol) daily if necessary. The groups were further divided according to pain severity with 1,229 in a group with mild pain and 354 in a group with moderate-to-severe pain.
The study design was reasonable, although one might ask why glucosamine HCl was used, rather than glucosamine sulfate, since the majority of positive studies of glucosamine for arthritis used the sulfate form. The results reported by the researchers seemed accurate and relatively unbiased, and included the following conclusions: “Glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate alone or in combination did not reduce pain effectively in the overall group of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Exploratory analyses suggest that the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate may be effective in the subgroup of patients with moderate-to-severe knee pain.”
In fact, the combination supplement was significantly effective in the group of participants that needed it most – the ones with the most severe pain. On the scales used to analyze benefit, those taking the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin experienced significant benefit – 24.9 percentage points higher than placebo. This improvement was compared to the effects observed in the group taking the anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib that resulted in only 15.1 percentage points improvement over placebo. Yet, the mainstream media reportage on this study was simply that glucosamine and chondroitin don’t work for arthritis. There was no mention that it does work in those who need it most or that celecoxib may not work so well, either.