Log in below to read the full article.

Log in below to read the full article.

Log in below to read the full article.

That question comes from an HSI member named Marion. And the answer is simple. “Maybe.”

Neuropathy is nerve damage. It’s a common side effect of diabetes. It causes numbness or painful tingling in the hands and feet. It also contributes to dementia.

Some doctors treat the symptoms of neuropathy with drugs. Opioid pain relievers, anticonvulsants, and antidepressants are commonly used.

But these drugs do nothing to address the root cause of nerve damage.

So the first important step is to manage blood sugar levels. After that, an alpha-lipoic acid supplement might help.

A few years ago, four trials tested a high dose of ALA (600 mg per day) given intravenously. Patients reported a significant reduction in symptoms after just three weeks.

Other trials have shown that some diabetics may also respond to oral supplements of ALA at the same dosage.

Neuropathy is a serious condition that can lead to grave health problems. Find a doctor who can help monitor your progress without resorting to drugs that only mask the symptoms.

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

What happens in the vagus does NOT stay in the vagus. The vagus nerve, that is. And that’s good news for anyone who copes with chronic stress.

Deep abdominal breathing stimulates the vagus nerve, which runs from your brain stem down through your abdomen. This is the main nerve of the relaxation response.

Once stimulated, the vagus activates a chemical compound called acetylcholine. That’s a neurotransmitter that sends messages from your brain throughout your body.

And all the messages say, “Relax.”

As treatments go, you can’t do better than that. It’s free. It’s easy. You can do it anywhere. Perfect. I’ve used it myself while driving. It doesn’t exactly erase stress. But when I’m running late and the construction has every highway down to one lane, it helps calm me down.

That’s one way to reduce your stress.

OR…

You could get a stress vaccine that contains modified genes (yikes!) attached to a herpes virus (double yikes!).

This vaccine neutralizes stress hormones. But you should know that those hormones that get “neutralized” are important. They play anti-inflammation and anti-cancer roles in the immune system.

Now what could possibly go wrong with THAT plan?

Stepford world

This stress vaccine is not quite ready for prime time. In fact, it’s still in the animal-testing stage. But it already has a nickname — the “Sapolsky shot.” It takes its name from Dr. Robert Sapolsky, a Stanford University neuroscience professor.

But as Dr. Sapolsky himself admitted to the Daily Mail, “To be honest, I’m still amazed that it works.”

Well…it works in rats. Let’s not jump to the conclusion that it will work SAFELY in humans.

The vaccine tampers with brain chemistry to produce a state Dr. Sapolsky calls “focused calm.” The hope is that stressed-out individuals will be able to cruise through a stress-filled life.

A Stanford colleague of Dr. Sapolsky’s explains that the shot will “short-circuit the neural feedback caused by stress.”

Okay, but what about crises that take years to pass? Long-term issues with health, finances, and family life are the factors that fuel chronic stress.

For those mired in one of these circumstances, would the Sapolsky shot actually produce a focused calm and a Stepford Wife smile?

If so, that’s pretty scary.

Dr. Sapolsky’s colleague boldly predicts: “This could change society.”

But who wants to live in a society of calmed-out zombies injected with herpes?

The opening line of the Daily Mail article suggests that we forget age-old stress remedies like yoga and meditation. And yet, just a few years ago, Dr. Sapolsky participated in a science and meditation conference. Research shows that meditation supports immune function and manages depression. It also reduces levels of cortisol, the “stress hormone.”

I’m not sure how Dr. Sapolsky got from a conference like that to a genetically modified vaccine that uses herpes virus to mess with hormones in the brain. But this we do know: You can’t make a fortune telling stressed out people to breathe deeply and wait for their focused calm.

Oh, and we also know this: If you do tell them that, it actually works.

Sources: 

“Jab that could put a stop to stress without slowing us down” Rachel Quigley, Daily Mail, dailymail.co.uk

“Dalai Lama Gets Meditation Lesson” Dan Orzech, Wired, 11/30/05, wired.com

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

That’s what I wonder every time I read about a significant new health benefit linked to vitamin D.

Here’s a quick recap of things you can avoid with high levels of vitamin D:

• Heart disease
• Cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Flu
• Muscle atrophy
• Cognitive problems

And soon, we might be able to expand that last item to include Alzheimer’s.

In a new study, researchers compared Alzheimer’s cases to dietary data gathered from 500 elderly women. None of the women took D supplements.

Results linked the highest dietary intake of vitamin D with a 77% reduced risk of Alzheimer’s. Researchers also concluded that low D intake appears to precede Alzheimer’s onset.

This research doesn’t consider sunlight exposure — the best source of vitamin D, of course. But like many of the women in this study, you can get plenty of vitamin D from cod liver oil. After sunlight, that’s the richest source.

The other best sources also come from the sea: salmon, mackerel, tuna, and sardines.

Hmmm… Fish has always had a reputation as “brain” food. Maybe this link to reduced Alzheimer’s risk is the most obvious D benefit of all.

Sources:

“Increased Vitamin D Intakes May Reduce Alzheimer’s Risk” Lee Swanson Research Update, May 2012, swansonvitamins.com

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

Sometimes I think her role as the “Flying Nun” might have prepared Sally Field for life as the Boniva spokesperson. Meaning well, trying to help, and constantly getting it wrong.

Osteoporosis drugs are getting plenty of bad press these days. So Sally might want to see when that contract ends.

Of course, we’ve come to expect this kind of confusion from our FDA officials, but not from beloved icons we thought we could trust.

Weak in the knees

I’ve been telling you this for years. A class of osteoporosis drugs known as bisphosphonates may actually INCREASE risk of bone fracture.

Boniva, Fosamax, and Reclast are three of the popular brands in this class.

Even experts who recommend these drugs say that many women who use them might avoid fracture by taking a “bone holiday.” So let’s review… Take this drug to save your bones. But after awhile, take a “holiday.” Stop taking it to save your bones.

Hmmm… in my book that’s a BIG red flag.

But now the FDA actually suggests that the “holiday” should be a permanent vacation.

A new agency report says this potentially dangerous drug offers little or no benefit after three to five years of use.

That’s devastating news to women who have taken the drug years beyond that cutoff.

In 2008, I told you about two Fosamax studies that came to the same disturbing conclusion. Women who take the drug long-term (about seven years or more) have a higher fracture risk.

And now the FDA tells those women they’ve been putting their bones at risk FOR NOTHING!

Their only consolation is the word “rare.” Experts toss this word around when they talk about fracture risk. Oh, you know, it’s RARE. Like winning the lottery. Very rare. And a New York Times article on the new FDA report joins right in with the “rare” chorus. The article repeatedly stresses the rarity of fracture risk.

Don’t buy it for a second. This risk is not rare like “alien abduction” rare. It’s more like spotting a deer by the highway rare. Infrequent? Yes. Rare? Not so much.

Two years ago, when ABC News reported on Fosamax fracture risk, scores of women went to the ABC website and shared their experiences. Here are just a few of the typical comments from bisphosphonate users…

“…developed aches in my hips, and weakness in the legs…”

“…my femur broke worst pain in the world…”

“…my mother’s femur fractured…”

“…had a slight fall and my left femur shattered…”

“…my right leg just gave out and I fell…”

“…had compression fractures of the spine…”

“…fell and broke my right femur bone…”

“…fell to my knees splitting my femur…”

These painful testimonials go on and on and on. Just try to convince these women that their drug-related fractures are “rare.”

The new FDA report might open a few eyes among doctors. But it’s a typically toothless report. The agency isn’t hinting that these drugs might come off the market. There’s not even talk about a black box warning. In fact, it’s nothing more than talk! Chances are it will never reach the people who need to hear it most. Not unless we do something about it.

Help me sound the alarm. These drugs are ineffective at best and potentially dangerous at worst.

Oh Gidget…

Sources: 

“New Cautions About Long-Term Use of Bone Drugs” Tara Parker-Pope, New York Times, 5/9/12, well.blogs.nytimes.com

“Fosamax: Is Long Term Use of Bone Strengthening Drug Linked to Fractures?” Christine Romo, Lara Salahi, ABC News, 3/9/10, abcnews.go.com

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

With a box of chocolates, you may not know what’s in the middle, but know you’re going to get chocolates. With a newly approved drug, you REALLY never know what you’re going to get.

As I’ve mentioned before, the FDA often approves drugs with known safety risks. Then the agency requires postmarketing safety research. That’s not a comforting thought for consumers. But then most people who take a new drug have no idea that safety is a secondary concern.

I recently read an article about drug company adherence to postmarketing obligations. Many companies meet their follow up deadlines. But a high percentage of them don’t.

To be honest, the article was pretty dry. But at the end, things suddenly got interesting with a proposal from a former FDA commissioner. He believes the agency should flip the approval process. That is, they should approve drugs based on safety. Then use postapproval studies to establish drug efficacy.

It’s revolutionary!

And it’s sort of odd. Just imagine your doctor saying, “Let’s try this new drug. Nobody knows if it works. But it’s safe!”

That would be a hard sell. But at the very least, it would satisfy the old medical maxim: First do no harm.

Sources:

“Drugmakers & Their Post-Marketing Commitments” Ed Silverman, Pharmalot, 3/5/12, pharmalot.com

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

I confess. I have a strange relationship with Dr. Otis Webb Brawley.

Dr. Brawley is the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. Now, that’s a very mainstream position. And yet, I agree with nearly everything he says about mammography.

It just doesn’t compute! I’m so used to rolling my eyes and gasping whenever I read official ACS comments about mammograms.

But Brawley says things about mammography that every woman and doctor need to hear. I just wish I could take him aside and whisper one word: “Alternatives.”

So far, this word seems to be missing from his vocabulary. And it couldn’t be more important. Because every woman and doctor need to hear this too.

LOUD and clear…

We have breast cancer screening alternatives that are safer and more accurate than mammograms.

The importance of being flexible

Here’s Dr. Brawley on mammography. “Truth be told, it cannot avert all or even most breast cancer deaths.”

That’s astonishing! That’s the sort of thing you expect to hear from me. But you don’t expect it from an ACS official writing in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

In a recent AIM editorial, Dr. Brawly candidly notes several risks linked with mammography…

• Radiation exposure
• Breast compression pain
• False positive results
• False negative results
• False-positive biopsy results
• Overdiagnosis

Two new mammogram studies accompany Brawley’s editorial. Each study concludes with the same recommendation. A woman at high risk of breast cancer should get a mammogram every other year beginning at age 40.

In these studies, two conditions define high risk: extremely dense breasts, and a first-degree relative with breast cancer.

Now, these risk factors are not new to anyone. But every breast cancer expert is aware that mammography is inadequate at revealing tumors in dense breasts. So why in the world would they recommend mammograms to these women?

This brings us to that one important word. Alternatives!

More than two years ago, I told you about ultrasound breast cancer screening. And it just so happens that ultrasound reveals dense breast tumors better than mammography. And the added double-bonus: no compression, no radiation.

Ultrasound has one drawback. It can’t confirm tumor malignancy. In recent years, a technique called elastography changed all that. Elastography detects tumor flexibility. Benign tumors are soft and flexible. Malignant tumors are more rigid.

Ultrasound screening is widely available, of course. But ultrasound plus elastography is still relatively new, so it may be harder to find.

But it would be MUCH easier to find these combined techniques if Dr. Brawley and his colleagues would only recognize their existence!

Is that too much to ask? Sadly, it probably is.

Mammography is big business. And over the past five years, radiologists invested millions in upgrading to digital mammography. But the digital aspect only enhances the image. Radiation is still used. Breasts are still compressed.

So in spite of Dr. Brawley’s frank review of mammography, radiologists will continue to heavily promote it, and doctors will continue to call it “life-saving.”

Ladies, if you want a true lifesaver, you’re going to have to go off the mammography grid. You can start by checking online and searching “ultrasound,” along with the name of your town or city. And if you’re feeling particularly lucky, try typing in “elastography” too.

Sources: 

“Analysis of two Annals papers on benefits of mammography in younger women” Gary Schwitzer, Health News Review, 4/30/12, healthnewsreview.org

“Ultrasound Elastography Developments Lead to Increased Sensitivity of Malignant Nodes” Diagnostic Imaging, 3/4/11, diagnosticimaging.com

“Elastography Reduces Unnecessary Breast Biopsies” Science Daily, 12/1/09, sciencedaily.com

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

Imagine you’re the one hearing the news from your doctor. “It’s diabetes. And it’s bad. We need to get aggressive about treatment right away.”

What would you do next? The same thing we all do these days when we get any diagnosis…head to the internet.

And when you search on “diabetes” or “diabetes treatment,” you’re likely to end up on one of the most dangerous sites for you or anyone suffering with blood sugar issues: The American Diabetes Association website.

Be afraid…be very afraid…

Smoking gun

Last week, I told you about Steve Cooksey. As I mentioned, Steve’s type 2 situation was severe. In addition to diabetes medication, he also began taking four insulin injections each day.

Two different nutritionists steered Steve to the American Diabetes Association for dietary guidelines. But he soon realized that the ADA carb-loaded path was a road to ruin.

After embracing a strict non-carb diet, Steve was soon able to control his diabetes without insulin or type 2 medications. He started a blog to share the details of his success.

Throughout this process, Steve learned more and more about the ADA. And the more he learned, the less he liked.

In one post, Steve writes that the ADA, “promotes a meal plan that creates more and more drug usage… while they receive MILLIONS from the companies that profit from the meal plan.”

That’s a brazen charge. Of course, when I read it, I didn’t doubt it for a second. Nevertheless, I wanted to get evidence to back it up. All it took was about half-a-dozen mouse clicks.

First, we’ll look at donations. On the ADA website, I found a page titled “Our Corporate Sponsors.” And there they are, corporate logos and all! Here are some of the drug companies that donate at least a half million dollars per year to the ADA…

• Merck
• Lilly
• Abbott
• Sanofi Aventis
• Takeda
• Novo Nordisk

Okay, but does the ADA really advocate dietary choices that promote drug use?

On the website of Diabetes Forecast (the ADA magazine), I found an article titled, “Are Carbs the Enemy?”

And there it is — the smoking gun.

The article weighs the pros and cons of carb intake. And the question is “settled” with the observation that diabetes patients can eat their favorite foods in moderation. But that good news is qualified with this: “…as long as they lower their blood glucose with medication and exercise.”

Exercise? Absolutely.

Control portions? Excellent advice.

Eat what you want and balance that with medication? APPALLING! (Unless you’re a Merck executive.)

The wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing that is the ADA website is an abomination. And it is the last place any diabetic should go for advice on how to safely and effectively manage or cure diabetes.

Want to take the danger out of your surfing? You can find plenty of tips for living drug-free with diabetes on Steve’s blog: diabetes-warrior.net.

Sources: 
“$19 million paid to ADA by BigPharma?” Steve Cooksey, Diabetes Warrior, 2/8/11, diabetes-warrior.net

“Are Carbs the Enemy?” Tracey Neithercott, Diabetes Forecast, American Diabetes Association, forecast.diabetes.org

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