Posts Tagged ‘science’

Drugs Are the New Blankets

July 13, 2009

Science Daily today posted a study summary that concludes “that simply warming the skin [with a blanket] can decrease shivering in many patients, without the need for drugs.

What does this say about the state of our treatment regimens when before a shivering person is given a blanket she is given drugs?

It tells me that hospitals have a knee jerk reaction to giving drugs and give them for anything immediately. I think it’s safe to say that most people at home taking care of a sick family member who is shivering would get him or her a blanket.

Apparently this has to be proven to the healthcare industry and the article goes on to quote a clinician who actually has to explain the benefits of using a blanket over medication:

“[the blanket’s] simplicity, low cost, widespread availability, lack of adverse effects, and the potential to avoid sedation … make it an attractive treatment option.”

It looks like instead of studies that focus on developing new treatments, we are having to backtrack to correct treatment mistakes of several years. Of course there have got to be treatment manuals with guidelines for helping patients, but who could blame the writers of these manuals for assuming doctors and nurses would have the basic human decency to get someone a blanket if she is cold?


Urgent Action Needed: FDA Might Pull B6

June 26, 2008

Please follow this link and urge the FDA not to pull vitamin B6. Add your comment. If you do not currently take the vitamin, consider this research to understand how beneficial this vitamin is, and how it should continue to be available over the counter to the countless Americans already supplementing with it :

It has been proven to help protect heart disease, reduce the risk of cancer, reduce contraceptive pill side effects, help correct anemia, control blood pressure, and many others. See this research and more here.

It is not just an important vitamin to increase health, but having a B6 deficiency can actually reverse health and cause nerve damage.

The pharmaceutical company medicure is petitioning the FDA to ban the vitamin so it can release its own drug made from it. The same thing happened with red yeast rice. According to

Drug companies ripped off the lovastatin molecules from red yeast rice, then patented them. Once they achieved FDA approval for their “statin drugs,” it was easy to file a petition requesting the outlawing of red yeast rice, claiming the supplement was “adulterated” with drugs! Which drugs? Statin drugs, of course — the very same drugs that were isolated from red yeast rice in the first place!

What the FDA has done and might do in this case seems inherently flawed. They are trying to make a natural component of some foods only available by a prescription. They could still make their own higher potency vitamin B6 drug WITHOUT pulling lower potency products from the shelves, and because of the benefits, many Americans would choose to go to their doctors. But not all. That’s competition, and unfortunately because modern medicine has been slow to catch on to the benefits of natural health products, this is the consequence it must face.

Pharmaceuticals do still have a monopoly, and as a result, we pay the highest amounts for drugs in the world! And unfortunately it seems that the FDA would like to ensure the future of pharmaceutical companies more than the American citizens, many of which pay outrageous amounts for health care, and may rely on vitamins and minerals they can buy at their local stores. The FDA, who receives major funding from pharmaceutical companies, and the pharmaceutical companies themselves, need to suck it up and face this loss.

If this goes through, we might soon have to get all of our vitamins from doctors, as it will continue to carve out the precedent that any vitamin can be pulled if a pharmaceutical company wants to market it. And why wouldn’t they? Americans spend $7.5 billion a year on vitamins.

Add your comment to the FDA:

Aspartame: The Calorie Free Carcinogen

May 3, 2007

The latest research against aspartame comes from a team of scientists in Hungary that found the chemical food additive can alter rat DNA in as short as one week at various doses, including the recommended maximum for daily consumption. Read the study’s abstract on PubMed.

Several studies have confirmed the dangers of aspartame. Author/Columnist David Lawrence Dewey includes many on his website including a long term study conducted by Cancer Research Center of the European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Italy that confirmed aspartame’s carcinogenicity in 2005 when it demonstrated “that aspartame, when administered to rats for the entire life span, induces an increase of lymphomas and leukemias in female rats.”

Aspartame was first approved in 1974 but withdrawn in 1975 due to studies confirming its toxicity. It was approved again in 1981 during the Reagan administration, a highly questionable decision believed by some to be the result of the CEO of Searle (aspartame’s manufacturer) Donald Rumsfeld’s position on the Reagan transition team. The day after Reagan took office, he appointed a new FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, who not only approved aspartame for consumption but eventually went to work for Searle’s PR firm.

Neuroscience researcher Dr. John Olney, who is credited for removing monosodium glutamate from baby foods, found that aspartame causes holes in the brains of infant mice. He and his co-authors also compiled data and “found an overall 65% increase in brain tumors in humans since aspartame approval.”

The data against aspartame is overwhelming.
Read aspartame’s history.

Check your labels; there are over 6,000 products that contain aspartame.