Low Cholesterol Linked To Elevated Cancer Risk

New data from the Framingham Heart Study finds that low LDL-cholesterol is related to the future development of cancer. Scientists studied 201 participants with cancer who were matched with 201 controls who were cancer free. The researchers looked at the trend of LDL-cholesterol for an extended period of time prior to cancer diagnosis, using data taken at four points over an average of 18.7 years prior to diagnosis. They found that LDL-cholesterol levels were lower in the participants with cancer than their matched controls at each of the data points.

As compared to the cancer-free subjects, the trend of low LDL-cholesterol in those who developed cancer was consistent throughout the period of the study. (Medicalnewstoday.com 3.27.2012)

This is another, in an ever-growing number of studies showing an association between low cholesterol (including LDL-cholesterol) and cancer development. The AMA and most cardiologists have been beating the drum claiming that we need to lower cholesterol levels down to numbers only obtainable through the use of medications such as statin drugs.

However, they don’t inform the public that there is a risk to lowering cholesterol levels. One risk is developing cancer. Another risk is poor immune system function since cholesterol helps the cells maintain their integrity. Also, lowering cholesterol to miniscule levels will worsen toxicity symptoms as cholesterol helps to buffer toxicities in the body. One of the highest levels of cholesterol in the body is in the brain. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to predict that lowered cholesterol levels would be associated with brain disorders. In fact, lowered cholesterol levels (and LDL-cholesterol levels) have been associated with the development of neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.

Cholesterol-lowering medications are overused. There is no known benefit of these medications in the elderly as lowered cholesterol levels predict a shorter lifespan in this population. If you have not had a stroke or a heart attack, there is no known benefit of a statin drug. Women have never been shown to benefit from taking a statin drug. The only benefit that statins have been shown to provide is for patients who have already suffered a cardiac event—patients who have previously had a heart attack or a stroke. In this case, the research shows a slight reduction in non-fatal heart attacks (approximately 1%) after three years of use.

More information about statins can be found in my book, Drugs That Don’t Work and Natural Therapies That Do. Educate yourself about how these drugs work. When you do, you will see that the use of statin drugs does not make biochemical sense. Furthermore, the research behind statin drugs does not make common sense. If you have high cholesterol levels, search for the underlying cause and treat it. That is a common sense approach to a medical problem.

No, WLS Does NOT Cure Diabetes--Study By Doctor with Conflict of Interest

The PR people from the Cleveland Clinic sent me a fact sheet about the study that was all over the news yesterday, which is being headlined as if Weight Loss Surgery was a cure for diabetes.

The facts presented in the sheet were slightly different and more informative than the summary presented in the New England Journal of Medicine research report.

Here's the research report: NEJM: Bariatric Surgery versus Intensive Medical Therapy in Obese Patients with Diabetes.

Here are extracts from the press release sent to me by the Cleveland Clinic's PR team. 150 patients participated in a 1 year-long trial. 50 had gastric bypass surgery, 50 had gastric banding, and 50 got the usual crap treatment from doctors including, undoubtedly, the advice to eat low fat/high carb diets. Here's what they report.

"After 12 months, a normal HbA1c (less than 6.0) was achieved in 42.6 percent of patients who underwent gastric bypass and 36.7 percent of patients who underwent sleeve surgery..."

Translation, 56.4% of those who had chunks of their stomachs amputated still ended up with blood sugar far from "cured" or even normal. The NEJM report says the average A1c for those having bypass was 6.4±0.9% that means, many still had A1cs up to 7.3%.

Those with gastric banding did even more poorly. 63.3% of them had A1cs over 6.0% The NEJM report says that their Average A1c was 6.6±1.0%, meaning that some still had A1cs of 7.6%.

Many of us can get A1cs under 6.0% just by cutting carbs. I have heard from hundreds of people, some of whom started out with A1cs well over 10.0% who did just that.

The study continues:

"The study authors reported some complications of surgery, but most were not serious. However, four patients did require a second operation. The study authors caution that the favorable results were observed after a relatively short follow-up period (12 months) and that long-term studies are needed to determine the durability of the findings."

Translation: 4 out of 100 people who had surgery ended up with a "complication" like their incisions opening internally that required them to be rushed to the hospital. The rest of the complications aren't detailed, but while not disturbing to the doctors, they may have been tough on the patients. Some complications of WLS can be projectile vomiting whenever people eat, severe mineral deficiencies caused by malabsorption syndrome, and surgical site infections that heal poorly.

It's important to note that this study only lasted 1 year and that previous studies of WLS find that the participants uncure themselves pretty quickly as time goes by. I blogged about earlier results claiming similar cure rates. You can read that post HERE.

This study reports, "There were no deaths." The current kill rate for this surgery ranges from 1 to 6 per thousand, so with only 100 people having the surgery, the fact that no one died doesn't mean its safe. If the kill rate is 1 per thousand and 150,000 people have the surgery, that's 150 people dead.

You can see the death rates for the surgery on this surgeon-created site. Bariatric Surgery Source: Gastric Bypass Surgery Deaths Note that surgeons only list the deaths that happen immediately after the surgery. Not those that occur from malnutrition and other longer-term surgically-caused problems.

To read more about the actual death rate associated with WLS when people are tracked more than 1 year, read the post I made two years ago HERE..

WHAT WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE COVERAGE

Here's the kicker, which appeared at the bottom of the press release: "This study was funded by Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, which is a company that designs and manufactures medical devices and surgical instruments. Dr. Schauer is a paid advisory board member of Ethicon, and is in complete compliance with all Cleveland Clinic COI policies."

Dr. Shauer is the first author listed on the NEJM paper. The disclosure, which didn't make it into any of the press coverage, makes it clear that he profits from the sale of the devices used for these weight loss surgeries. This is not research folks, this is a business promotion.

Do you really want to risk your life for a surgery that would give you results no better than you could get by getting serious about cutting down on your carbs? The same people who warn you it is "dangerous" to lower your A1c by cutting your carbs urge you to have this potentially fatal surgery to "cure" your diabetes. Shame on them!

If that's a cure, I'll stick to the disease. My A1cs have been far better than that for longer than 5 years, and so have those of many of you. (Post them in the comment section if you're inclined to.)

Announcing A NEW Book By Dr. Brownstein: Vitamin B12 for Health

I am pleased to announce the release of my newest book, Vitamin B12 for Health. I wish I could tell you that I learned about the wonders of vitamin B12 in medical school. Unfortunately, vitamin B12 therapy was derided by nearly all of my professors. They claimed there was no scientific evidence to support the use of vitamin B12 unless a severe deficiency was found on laboratory testing. I can assure you that my training on vitamin B12 was nearly 100% wrong (ok, maybe 99%).

Vitamin B12 for Health was written to educate both patients and health care providers about the benefits of vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 is truly a unique and essential nutrient as we cannot survive without it. Twenty years of clinical practice has clearly shown me the benefits of B12 therapy.

This book describes how vitamin B12 deficiency can be the underlying cause of many common illnesses including: anemia, brain fog, bursitis, depression, fatigue, fibromyalgia, and heart disease. Vitamin B12 deficiency is occurring in epidemic numbers.

I will also show you the fallacy of B12 testing. For the vast majority of patients, B12 laboratory tests do not correlate with the clinical picture. I have found a therapeutic trial of vitamin B12 can make miraculous health changes.

Vitamin B12 for Health should be read by all who are searching for safe and effective natural therapies. This book is now available at: www.drbrownstein.com.

Don't Let the FDA Get Away With It!

The FDA wants to take away our right to purchase nutritional supplements. They have proposed draconian recommendations on supplement manufacturers that would essentially remove most supplements from being available to consumers. Why would the FDA try to do this? One would hope that they must be doing this to protect us from the danger of vitamins and mineral neutraceuticals.

How many people are taking neutraceuticals in the U.S.? It is estimated that 69% of U.S. adults take nutritional supplements with multivitamins being the most popular form. That means that nearly 215,000,000 Americans are taking nutritional supplements. I can assure you that the vast majority are taking these supplements on their own—without the advice of their doctor or without being monitored by anyone.

If, as the FDA states, vitamins and minerals are so dangerous, one would assume that many people must be dying from their ‘unauthorized’ use. However, there is no data showing that neutraceuticals are a danger. The latest (2010) statistics available from the U.S. National Poison Data System (http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NPDS/AnnualReports/tabid/125/Default.aspx) show zero deaths due to multivitamins as well as individual vitamin supplements. Contrast this with report after report detailing the toxicity of FDA-approved prescription medications. FDA-approved Cox-2 inhibitors Vioxx and Celebrex are responsible for over 50,000 deaths and 100,000 strokes and heart attacks. That is one single class of medications. There are estimates that adverse drug reactions (the drug was taken and prescribed appropriately) that resulted in death are the second or third most common cause of death in the U.S.

Perhaps the FDA should focus its energy on what is truly harming patients; the toxicity of prescription medications. Most medications (Cox-2 inhibitors included) work by poisoning enzymes and blocking receptors in the body. As I stated in my book, Drugs that Don’t Work and Natural Therapies That Do, you can’t expect a good long-term result by relying on therapies (i.e, prescription drugs) that poison enzymes or block receptors. There are far too many patients taking far too many toxic prescription medications.

What can you do? Number one, don’t let the FDA take away your right to use nutritional supplements. Contact the FDA (1-888-463-6332) and tell them how you feel. Next, take the basic steps to provide your body with the proper balance of natural items it needs to optimally function. That means eating a healthy diet, exercising, and ensuring that you don’t have nutritional deficiencies. The best way to accomplish this is to work with a health care practitioner who is knowledgeable about how to use a holistic approach to promote health.

FDA's Warnings About Mercury

This week, the FDA released a consumer update titled, “Mercury Poisoning Linked to Skin Products.” The article stated, “Federal health officials are warning consumers not to use skin creams, beauty and antiseptic soaps, or lotions that might contain mercury. The products are manufactured abroad and sold in the U.S. illegally. If you have a product that matches these descriptions, stop using it immediately.”

Dr. Charles Lee, a senior advisor to FDA stated, “Exposure to mercury can have serious health consequences. {Mercury} can damage the kidneys and the nervous system and interfere with the development of the brain in unborn children and very young children.”

The article points out that if a product contains mercurous chloride, calomel, mercuric, mercurio, or mercury it is wise to stop using the product.

Now, I have nothing bad to say about this update. Mercury should be avoided at all costs as it is the second most toxic item known to mankind.
What irritates me about the FDA’s update is there was no mention about the danger of mercury fillings. Mercury fillings, the dark material that dentists use to fill cavities, contain 50% mercury by weight. The American Dental Association (ADA) has stated that mercury fillings are perfectly safe. The ADA is very wrong. Mercury fillings are poisonous and should never be placed in any living being’s mouth.

If the FDA was looking out for us, they would ban the use of mercury fillings. There should be a class-action lawsuit against the ADA for its defense of mercury fillings. I have treated many patients for mercury toxicity. It is the most common toxicity that I see.

What can you do? Avoid all sources of mercury. This includes refusing mercury fillings and vaccines preserved with mercury (such as the flu vaccine). Also, it is wise to limit your intake of fish as all fish is contaminated with mercury. It is best to avoid high mercury-containing fish such as white tuna and swordfish. To help the body excrete mercury it is important to take vitamin C (3-5,000mg/day) and alpha lipoic acid (300mg twice per day). Other ways to aid the body’s detoxification pathways can be found in my books and newsletter.

More Reasons to Avoid Statins

The FDA added two new warnings to statin drugs this week. These warnings include an increased risk of diabetes and mental confusion among statin users. The FDA report said that all statin labeling must carry warnings about increased risk of elevated blood sugar and transient memory loss and cognitive problems.

Since their inception, there have been reports of mental confusion and cognitive problems with statin drugs. This should be no surprise to anyone who studies how statins work in the body. In fact, I have written extensively about the side effects of statins in my book, Drugs That Don’t Work and Natural Therapies That Do. Statins are a class of medications that poison the enzyme HMG-CoA reductase. This enzyme is important for facilitating cholesterol as well as CoQ10 production.

The majority of the brain is made up of cholesterol. It does not take a rocket scientist or a doctor to predict that cholesterol-lowering medications will cause brain dysfunction. Due to their mechanism of action, statins are bound to cause a decline in brain function. I have seen many patients who take statin drugs and consequently suffer with memory loss, forgetfulness, anxiety, and other brain problems. I counsel these patients to stop taking statin drugs and begin natural therapies to help the brain recover.

Millions of Americans are suffering from diabetes. If statins increase the risk of diabetes, perhaps they should be not be given to overweight patients or any other patients at risk for diabetes.

Statins cause a myriad of side effects because they poison a crucial enzyme in the body. Remember, you can’t poison a crucial enzyme for the long-term and expect a good result.

The FDA warnings were long overdue. I suggest educating yourself about how statins operate in the body. If it makes sense to you to poison a crucial enzyme, then consider using it. A better course is to search for safe and effective natural therapies that help to support the body. More information about these therapies can be found in my books and newsletters.

When To Test? A New Study Pinpoints Timing

One of the most common questions people email me is when exactly they should start measuring the "hour after eating" at which I suggest they should test their blood sugar. Does that hour start after the first bite or at the end of the meal?

Luckily for us, an obscure paper published last year give us a definitive answer. Luckily for me, that answer is identical to the advice I've been giving people who have asked me this question for the last five years. (I based my answer on a previous study and the reports of people posting about when they tested on online discussion groups.)

The study used used data collected from people with both Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes, using insulin, who were wearing continuous glucose monitors. You can read it here:

Peak-time determination of post-meal glucose excursions in insulin-treated diabetic patients. Daenen S, et al. Diabetes Metab. 2010 Apr;36(2):165-9. Epub 2010 Mar 11.

For insight into why this study is so useful you have to keep in mind that the whole point of testing at one hour is to find the highest blood sugar reading after the meal.

This study found that the average blood sugar peak after breakfast was found at 72 minutes after the start of the meal, with most people's values falling between 49 minutes and 95 minutes.

However, one person in five saw a peak after 90 minutes from the start of the meal. The researchers observe that "Peak time correlated with the amplitude of postprandial excursions, but not with the peak glucose value." I.e. A rise of 100 mg/dl to 170 mg/dl from a starting value of 70 mg/dl would take longer than a rise of 30 mg/dl from 140 g/dl to that same 170 mg/dl, which makes sense.

Since many of us spend about 15 minutes eating a meal, this explains why many people will do just fine if they test hour after finishing their meal.

But not everyone gulps down their meals, so how fast we eat along with several other factors, including how fast our digestion works and what kinds of foods we eat, will also influence when that blood sugar peak occurs.

For example, some people find that meals heavy in fat digest more slowly than those that are made up mostly of starches and sugars. Large meals of any composition may produce a slightly delayed spike. And meals heavy in protein may, under some conditions, produce a rise in blood sugar at the next meal because dietary protein can be converted into blood glucose over a period of six hours.

So what we can take from this is that, as is so often true with anything to do with blood sugar, the only way we can know for certain when our own blood sugar is likely to peak is by testing at various times after eating the exact same meal and discovering when we see the highest reading for that meal.

If you always see the peak a lot earlier or later than the average person would, adjust your testing schedule. But don't make yourself crazy about it. A rough approximation of an hour after the end of the meal or an hour and fifteen minutes after the first bite will give you a reading that for most people will be informative enough.

Given the poor accuracy of meters, a reading in the middle 100 mg/dl range could easily be 15 mg/dl higher or lower strictly due to meter variation so once you've determined that your highest readings aren't occurring significantly later than average--two hours after you start your meal, for example, don't fret about exact timing.

The other important piece of information we look for when we test after eating is how fast our blood sugar is coming down after that peak because the longer blood sugars stay over 140 mg/dl, the more damage they do. (Details on what researchers have found about wht blood sugar levels cause damage can be found HERE.)

When you take a second reading is up to you and depends on how many strips you have and what previous tests have taught you about how your blood sugar works. Most of us will find it informative to test an hour after the peak occurs to see how fast our blood sugar is dropping from its peak.

In this particular study people's blood sugar dropped on average 0.82 mg/dL per minute or 49.2 mg/dl per hour. But the actual range of how fast their blood sugar dropped was very large, with the range in which most readings clustered extending from 7 mg/dl per hour to 91 mg/dl per hour and some outliers dropping not at all or even faster.

If you see only a very small drop in your own blood sugar an hour after its peak, or a rise, you should check in another hour. If the usual pattern you see is for your blood sugar to stay high for two hours or more after peaking, it's time to cut back on the carbohydrate in your meals, since carbohydrates are what raise blood sugar.

If cutting carbohydrates doesn't get your blood sugars rising less and dropping faster, it's time for a visit to the doctor to discuss adding a safe medication would be advisable. (Metformin and insulin are by far the safest choices. You can read about all the drugs doctors prescribe to drop blood sugar HERE.)

If you start using insulin at meal times you should also test your blood sugar towards the end of the insulin's period of activity. How long the insulin stays active varies both with the kind of insulin you use and the dose.

Regular Human Insulin (R insulin) which is sold as Humulin or Novolin, is active for a period that can extend as long as 6 hours, so testing at 4 or 5 hours can warn you if you are in danger of a hypo.

For Humalog, Novolog (Novorapid), and Apidra, which have shorter times of duration, testing at 3 or 4 hours is wise until you determine you aren't in danger of a hypo.

If you see a low value at any time when your insulin still has more time left to work, take some glucose to raise your blood sugar and adjust your dose the next time you eat that meal or a one with similar amount of carbohydrate.

If your doctor hasn't taught you how to adjust your dose of fast acting insulin to match your carbohydrate intake, ask for that kind of training. If you can't get it, educate yourself by reading John Walsh's book, Using Insulin or Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution by Dr. Richard K. Bernstein.