You. Average Consumer. You need help. And you probably didn’t even know it.

You need help making informed decisions so you can include the products you love in a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle.

Just about word for word, that’s how a top executive at the American Academy of Family Physicians puts it.

And here’s the good news. Next January, that help will be available – absolutely free – on the AAFP website.

Where’s the catch? No catch. Unless you consider very lucrative partnerships with deep-pocket corporations to be some kind of silly “catch.”

Howdy, partner!

Kowtowing to corporate America is actually pretty easy.

First you accept a big check with a long line of zeros. That part is a breeze. Then you take a little heat from those who trusted you not to sell out. That’s harder, but eventually the dust settles and everything’s fine (as long as your mission doesn’t stray too far from your corporate overlord’s mission).

Right now we’re at that “dust hasn’t quite settled yet” phase for AAFP.

Last month, AAFP execs announced the launch of their new Consumer Alliance program. Their first partner, Coca-Cola, has provided a six-figure check to help provide “consumer-oriented beverage and sweetener content.”

And with that, several AAFP members hit the ceiling. They still haven’t come down. In fact, some long-time members called it quits. And they did it in a big way, telling the press they don’t want to be associated with an organization that promotes soda consumption.

Of course, AAFP execs say their partners will have no sway over editorial control. So don’t you worry about a thing! AAFP CEO, Dr. Douglas Henley, told the Associated Press that the website information will include “research linking soft drinks with obesity and will focus on sugar-free alternatives.”

Oh! You ALMOST slipped that one by us, Dr. Henley! But I’m pretty sure you don’t mean water.

You can see it coming three months away. The research will be “inconclusive,” and will “suggest” that soft drinks “may contribute” to obesity. But diet sodas will make it all better.

I wonder, though, if the new content will include research presented earlier this month with some not-so-upbeat news about diet sodas. In a Harvard Medical School study, women who drank two or more diet sodas every day had a significant decline in measures of kidney function compared to women who drank less than two diet sodas a day.

Here’s another study that just might not make the AAFP cut. Two years ago I told you about research that followed more than 6,000 soda drinkers for four years. Subjects who drank one or more sodas each day were nearly 45 percent more likely to develop obesity, high triglycerides, impaired fasting glucose, and high blood pressure.

And the kicker: These results were nearly identical among regular soda drinkers and diet soda drinkers.

Uh oh. This partnership business might turn out to be along, hard slog for the AAFP.

And it won’t get any easier with guys like Harvard nutritionist Dr. Walter Willett tossing up quotes like this to the AP: “Coca-Cola, like other sodas, causes enormous suffering and premature death by increasing the risks of obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, gout, and cavities.”

Yikes! Suffering and death might not have been what the AAFP had in mind when they decided to get cozy with corporations.

But then, it’s not like AAFP is a babe in the woods when it comes to schmoozing corporation fat cats. The AAFP Foundation (described as a philanthropic group, separate from AAFP) has an impressive list of “partners,” including several major drug companies (Merck, Pfizer, Lilly, etc.) as well as General Mills, PepsiCo, and McDonald’s.

Well, I guess one way to “balance” a diet of Coca-Cola and Diet Coke is with sugar cereals, more soft drinks, and plenty of drive-thru dinners.

To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson

Sources:
“Coca-Cola Grant Launches AAFP Consumer Alliance Program” AAFP News Now press release, 10/6/09, aafp.org
“Family Doctors Group Loses Members Over Coke Deal” Lindsay Tanner, Associated Press, 11/5/09, ap.org

[_EMBED1]

His idea is that a new generation coming along might have a much higher number of kids who have older parents due to widespread use of Viagra and other ED drugs.

He could be on to something there. And if he is, it could signal an unfortunate wave of health challenges for that generation.

A few years ago, a New York University School of Medicine study showed that children born to fathers in their late 40s were twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as children born to fathers in their 20s.

Autism and breast cancer rates are also higher in children born to older fathers.

New research from the UK may reveal what’s going on here. Scientists have found that a specific type of testicular tumor that occurs in older men may be made of the same cells that produce sperm that carry a mutant gene. As men grow older, the number of sperm carrying the mutation increases.

Researchers note that older men shouldn’t necessarily avoid fatherhood. The risk of having children with mutant genes is relatively small. Still, they need to be aware of possible repercussions when they contribute to Generation V.

To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson

[_EMBED1]

Drug company executives would rather you never know anything about these three words: red yeast rice.

For more than 1,000 years, red yeast rice (a yeast product grown on rice) has been used in Chinese medicine to improve blood circulation and aid digestion.

But when modern drug companies developed drugs to lower cholesterol, they didn’t want to compete with this inexpensive botanical product. So red yeast rice was demonized. It was even banned for a while because it contained exactly the same active chemical used in lovastatin, one of the commercial statin drugs. (Of course, RYR contained it first!)

A couple of years ago, the FDA issued a news release, warning consumers about two RYR formulas that were found to contain lovastatin. Why the warning? “These red yeast rice products are a threat to health because the possibility exists that lovastatin can cause severe muscle problems leading to kidney impairment.”

See how cleverly they worded that? The “red yeast rice products are a threat to health.” But only because they contained a statin!

Here’s another helping of irony: New research shows that patients who experience severe muscle problems caused by statin drugs can use red yeast rice instead. They’ll still lower cholesterol, but they won’t damage their muscles or kidneys.

Gee! Someone should have thought of using this stuff, like, a thousand years ago!

Enter Vega

HSI Panelist Allan Spreen, M.D., recently sent me a Medscape write up about the new RYR study.

Medscape is a very mainstream resource for medical professionals. And I admit, I just rolled my eyes when I started the article. The opening paragraphs read like an advertisement for statins. For instance: “The significant benefits of statins are hard to refute.”

Ah yes. Same old same old.

But after getting the required homage to statins out of the way, surprises are in store.

For instance: The author notes the prevalence of muscle pain and weakness caused by statins. But then he actually offers evidence that this problem may be more widespread than generally believed.

Didn’t see that coming!

Then, on to red yeast rice, and the author actually states that “there is good research to support its efficacy.” What!? Who is this blasphemer and how did he get in the cathedral? (He’s Charles P. Vega, M.D. – a California family physician.)

Dr. Vega reviews the new clinical trial that shows how RYR significantly lowered LDL cholesterol in a group of patients who had previously suffered muscle problems while taking statins. And yet, no muscle pains were reported with RYR.

But he’s just getting warmed up. Next he has the audacity to mention research that suggests RYR may be “as or more effective than a statin.” Then he cites a study of 5,000 subjects, all with a history of heart attack. What did RYR do for them? It reduced risk of non-fatal heart attack by more than 60 percent and death due to heart disease by more than 30 percent.

Nailed it, Dr. Vega!

Talk to your doctor before using RYR to lower cholesterol. Or better yet, direct him to Dr. Vega’s article on Medscape. But a word of caution: Do some serious research or consult an herbalist before choosing an RYR product. You want to be absolutely sure you’re getting a good product…one that’s good enough that Big Pharma wants it banned.

To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson

Sources:
“Red Yeast Rice and Hyperlipidemia: How Strong Is the Evidence?” Charles P. Vega, M.D., Medscape, 10/28/09, medscape.com
“Red Yeast Rice for Dyslipidemia in Statin-Intolerant Patients” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 150, No. 12, 6/16/09, annals.org

Get urgent health alerts, warnings and insights delivered straight to your inbox

I was amused by the recent “scandalous” news that some Wall St. giants such as Goldman Sachs had actually received doses of H1N1 flu vaccine ahead of many hospitals.

The morning TV anchors were up in arms. Not fair! We bailed them out with billions of our tax dollars! They should get in line along with everyone else.

No question, it does seem fishy, as long as you ignore the fact that throughout history the rich and powerful always have their way at the expense of Joe Working Guy.

But the Joes might actually find pleasure in the situation if they realized some little known details about the vaccine.

Like: The nasal spray form of the vaccine contains live attenuated virus, while the injection form contains the mercury preservative thimerosal. And those who actually manage to get the vaccine might raise their risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralyzing immune system disorder.

Something tells me if the Joes knew the truth about the vaccine, they’d gladly let the million-dollar-bonus tycoons cut in line.

To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson

Get urgent health alerts, warnings and insights delivered straight to your inbox

A friend of mine told me she’s going to start taking two baby aspirin every day. Dr. Oz told her to. Apparently this is his recommendation for everyone over the age of 40.

Why take two? A couple of years ago in an online chat for Readers Digest, Dr. Oz said, “The reason we give two rather than one is that many Americans are resistant to aspirin. And because the side effects are so minor, it makes sense to give double the dose.”

First of all…Many Americans are resistant to aspirin? That’s a truly bizarre comment. Europeans? Africans? Asians? No resistance there? What mysterious mojo is going on here that makes “many” of us resistant to aspirin?

And the side effects are so minor, it makes sense to double the dose?

Oz, don’t you read those mainstream medical journals that come in the mail? You really should.

If you go back and check the March 7, 2005 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, you’ll find the results of a 10-year study. In a group of more than 39,000 healthy women over the age of 45 with no cardiovascular problems, half took 100 mg of aspirin every other day and half took placebo tablets.

Results: Aspirin provided no protection from heart attack and only a slightly reduced risk of ischemic stroke. Side effects: In the aspirin group, risk of gastrointestinal bleeding severe enough to require transfusions was 40 percent higher than placebo!

And that was with 100 mg. You’re recommending 162 mg every day.

Two years later, a British Medical Journal study showed that elderly people who took a low dose of aspirin daily had a sharply increased risk of bleeding in the brain or the gastrointestinal tract.

This cannot be said often enough: ASPIRIN SAFETY IS A MYTH!

Aspirin is a drug. Period. When this drug is taken every day, year after year, it increases risk of GI conditions such as bleeding and ulcers, kidney impairment, and hypertension in women.

Don’t buy the hype, even when it’s from good-looking TV doctors like Oz.

To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson

Get urgent health alerts, warnings and insights delivered straight to your inbox

She’s an actor who’s played a variety of parts in many New York theaters. She’s directed numerous summer stock productions, served as artistic director for a regional theater, and just a few years ago she was the managing director of one of the leading acting schools in Manhattan.

She’s talented, intelligent, witty, energetic, and fun. And now it’s time to start saying good-bye.

I recently found out that an old friend of mine named Betty was diagnosed with vascular dementia at age 51. As a type 1 diabetic from the age of five, Betty always knew she probably wouldn’t enjoy a long life of good health. So she tore through her youth and middle age like a woman possessed, traveling the world and making friends everywhere she went.

Now she lives in assisted care. Her long-term memory is still somewhat intact. But her short-term memory is fleeting, so she requires constant care. Her husband, Donald, visits her frequently, but he knows that within a year or two his wife will be gone. She might still be alive, but the vibrant companion he spent so many happy years with will be gone.

For caregivers like Donald, this transition is tragic, of course. But Donald is fortunate because he’s talked about Betty’s condition with doctors and assisted care staff. He knows what to expect.

He understands better than many caregivers that advanced dementia is a disease of the body as well as the mind. And that makes a big difference when the time comes for major decisions about care.

When less is more

Care giving has two stages: aggressive and palliative.

If you’re diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, for instance, it’s time for aggressive care. You eat mindfully, exercise regularly, get frequent check ups, and work with your doctor to prevent or manage the health problems that trail that disease.

Terminal cancer patients who are in hospice receive palliative care. No preventive measures are taken. It’s all about reducing pain and providing comfort.

But when caregivers are not informed about the nature of advanced dementia, inappropriate aggressive care is common and can be harmful to the patient.

In a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that a very large percentage of bedridden dementia patients received aggressive treatments described as “burdensome” when their caregivers didn’t understand advanced dementia. Treatments included emergency room visits, hospitalization, insertion of feeding tubes, and other measures that did more harm than good.

Lead author of the study, Dr. Susan L. Mitchell, told the New York Times, “When family members understood the clinical course of dementia and the poor prognosis, the patients were far less likely to undergo these distressing interventions.”

It’s simple, but it couldn’t be more difficult. The caregiver has to readjust to a new concept of care. As one medical school doctor told the Times, palliative care does not mean less care.

To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson

Sources:
“The Clinical Course of Advanced Dementia” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 361, No. 16, 10/15/09, content.nejm.org
“Treating Dementia, but Overlooking Its Physical Toll” Tara Parker-Pope, New York Times, 10/20/09, nytimes.com “Chat Transcript: Dr. Oz on Heart Health” Readers Digest, 3/22/07, rd.com

Get urgent health alerts, warnings and insights delivered straight to your inbox

“The Word is Out on Unapproved H1N1 Products.”

That’s the barking from some FDA watchdogs. They’re in a mad hunt for products “claiming to diagnose, prevent, or otherwise act against the 2008 H1N1 influenza virus.”

This has actually been going on for several months. The LA Times reports that more than 80 companies have been warned against promoting unproved treatments as H1N1 fighters, cures, etc.

Well, I’ve already got a hot tip on an outrageous claim being made for an unproved flu treatment. Admittedly, it’s not an H1N1 claim, but it is outrageous and it is about the flu. And some medical types are actually stating that this magical pill will reduce your risk of dying if you’re hospitalized with seasonal flu.

Drum roll, please…

Meet the newest unproved flu treatment: statins.

I kid you not. And the so-called “evidence” is reed-thin. But that hasn’t stopped Dr. William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University from calling it “intriguing and exciting,” adding that the benefit from statins is “substantial.”

Of course, he was one of the doctors who worked on the study, so he may have been intoxicated by visions of Nobel Prizes dancing in his head.

Go ahead…try ‘em

Dr. Schaffner told the Associated Press that there are “relatively few downsides to trying statins.”

Hysterical! “Relatively” few? Yeah? Not nearly as few as not trying them at all. He also said they’re cheap and “relatively safe.” Again – hysterical!

Downsides and safety – shall we quickly run down some statin side effects? Sure. Why not? Let’s go with Zocor, a popular statin made by Merck. Downsides include risk of myopathy (muscle pain and weakness), liver dysfunction, nausea, headache, and abdominal pain. But the most common adverse reaction reported in clinical trials was (really, you won’t believe it) upper respiratory infection.

And they want to use this stuff to treat influenza – an upper respiratory infection. Hmmm. Can you think of any problems with that scheme?

I have to admit, I didn’t pick Zocor at random. Because there’s another safety wrinkle with this particular statin. Earlier this year I told you about two different studies that showed Zocor to be effective in lowering cholesterol. Just one little problem. In both studies, artery wall thickness increased among Zocor users.

Yeah. Read that again. It’s amazing. This drug is designed to prevent narrowing of arteries. But ARTERY WALL THICKNESS INCREASED!

If the Three Stooges made a statin drug, Zocor would be their product.

But never mind all that because, you know, statins are “relatively safe.”

In this new study, a small number of flu patients died in the hospital or within a month of being released. The difference between statin users who died and non-statin users who died was about two percentage points.

So based on this one study (which, by the way, was not a placebo-controlled clinical study mainstreamers are always holding up as the “gold standard”) we’re supposed to believe that statins offer “significant protection” against death due to flu complications?

Sorry. Doesn’t wash. Not even close.

And one more interesting note: Some subjects received the flu vaccine before the study began. But not only did they get the flu, and not only were their conditions bad enough to require hospitalization, but the vaccine also provided no protection against flu-related death.

Maybe that flu product should have stayed unapproved.

Sources:
“Role of Statins in Preventing Death among Patients Hospitalized with Lab-confirmed Influenza Infections” Presented at the Infectious Diseases Society of America Annual Meeting, 10/28 – 11/1/09, idsociety.org
“Study: Cholesterol Drugs May Improve Flu Survival” Marilynn Marchione, Associated Press, 10/29/09, ap.org

[_EMBED1]

Twenty-first century moms know what to say too: “It’s a beautiful day. Go outside and play. But first get your hat and cover yourself in SPF 50 sunblock!”

There’s a whole generation (maybe two generations?) of kids who have learned to fear the sun. But of course, sunlight isn’t a problem. Excessive exposure is the problem.

And then there’s the obvious flipside to excess: Too little can be as bad as too much.

Blood samples taken from nearly 5,000 kids, ages 1 to 11, across a wide range of demographics and locations, show that U.S. kids are vitamin D deficient. Not a surprise, given the way parents “protect” them from the sun.

Unfortunately, most kids don’t get a regular intake of the type of fish that contain vitamin D (since frozen fishsticks are not your best source!). That’s why lead researcher, Jonathon Mansbach, M.D., of Children’s Hospital Boston recommends that all children take vitamin D3 supplements.

And if you decide to go the fish oil route, look for one designed especially for children…so you don’t end up wearing a face-full of it.

Source:
“Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels Among US Children Aged 1 to 11 Years: Do Children Need More Vitamin D?” Pediatrics, Vol. 124, No. 5, November 2009, pediatrics.aappublications.org

The massive, deep currents of the oceans create five gigantic permanent whirlpools. Two in the north and south Atlantic, two in the north and south Pacific, and one in the Indian Ocean.

You may never come within a thousand miles of any of these gigantic gyres. But they could already be affecting your health in the most disturbing way.

Actually, the gyres aren’t the problem. Plastic is the problem.

Minimal use…maximum problem

For centuries, sailors have avoided the North Pacific Gyre, an area of about 10 million square miles. Sailors call it the “doldrums” because an immense high-pressure system combines with powerful currents to make travel slow going.

Captain Charles Moore, an ocean researcher, has a more colorful term for the gyre. He calls it “a toilet that won’t flush.”

About 12 years ago, Moore sailed straight through the gyre and found something appalling. As he neared the center he came across more and more plastic objects bobbing on the ocean’s surface, all slowly drawn to the center of the whirlpool.

Even more disturbing was what he saw just below the water’s surface: a ceaseless flow of small bits of plastic.

Moore dubbed this vast “microplastic” debris field the Pacific Garbage Patch. Scientists estimate that it’s roughly the size of Texas, Minnesota, Connecticut, Maryland, and California, combined.

That’s staggering. But even more disturbing: This patch is constantly growing — as are similar patches in the other four gyres.

Every year, the world produces about 100 million tons of “minimal use” plastic, such as soda bottles, ink pens, and Styrofoam cups. One use and they’re discarded. Many of those items end up in streams and rivers, and are eventually washed out to sea. Over time, ocean waves, storms, and sunlight break the plastic down into confetti- sized, microplastic bits.

And into the five swirling gyres they go.

Climbing the food chain

If these garbage patches were only unsightly, that would be bad enough. But birds and marine animals eat the plastic bits, mistaking them for food. According to a Surfrider Foundation report, microplastic ingestion is responsible for the deaths of more than a million seabirds yearly, as well as thousands of fish and marine mammals.

And this is where it becomes not only a moral and environmental nightmare, but it begins to affect our health.

Toxins from decomposing plastic are ingested at the lowest level of the marine food chain. From there, these poisons work their way up to larger fish, which are eaten by humans. The long-range effects are unknown, but little by little it adds to our toxic load.

In the years since the Pacific Garbage Patch was discovered, environmental scientists have been studying the problem, trying to figure out how to clean these unflushable toilets. It’s daunting. We’ve been pumping plastics into the oceans for decades. You have to wonder if we’re up to the task of reversing all those years of pollution.

I recently read about a microchip that can be attached to a leaf on a field crop. The chip senses when the plant needs watering and sends a text message to the farmer’s cell phone. “Hey! Water me!” If we can make plants send text messages, you would think we’d be able to clean up the garbage patches in our oceans before they do us all in.

You can find more information about efforts to reverse ocean microplastic pollution at junkraft.com.

Sources:
“Plastic Purgatory…A Profile on Ocean Pollution” Chrissy Bailey, Surfrider Foundation, surfrider.com
“An Ocean of Plastic” Kitt Doucette, Rolling Stone, 10/29/09
“Sailing to Hawaii on 15,000 Plastic Bottles and a Cessna 310, to Raise Awareness About Plastic Fouling Our Oceans” Junkraft, junkraft.com

Most of us living in the U.S. eat only a small fraction of the phytonutrients we need for the best of health. (You can read about this shortfall of dietary phytonutrients in “Living Colors” 10/29/09.)

So where do you find these phytonutrients? Fruits and vegetables. Phytochemicals give them their colors. And phytochemicals contain more than 25,000 phytonutrients.

Want to support heart health? Eat your phytonutrients. Want to keep hawk-like vision and curb risk of age-related diseases? You get the idea. Spinach, blueberries, tomatoes, oranges, and squash are all great sources of phytonutrients.

After reading “Living Colors,” one of my colleagues reminded me of an excellent phytonutrient source we’ve told you about before. She wrote: “I can’t believe you forgot Vital Purples. Vital Purples is delicious and it’s FULL of phytonutrients from 19 different darkly colored whole fruits, veggies and extracts.”

She’s right. Vital Purples is a great way to include blueberries, pomegranates, beets, figs, eggplants, plums, black cherries, and a dozen other antioxidant powerhouses in your daily diet.