Essays and Links Related to Health and the Environment.
Disclaimer: we in no way present or advocate the links below as providing information of unquestionable truth. The essays provide only possible and we believe reasonable viewpoints worth some serious consideration on some important issues, and are intended to be used as starting points for your own research and verification.
We will touch on a range of topics from the implications of climate change forecasts to cancer with links to use as starting points for your own research.
We would like to note here that the continuity of reading the essays in this site is not always the best. (This essay is especially poor in flow since it covers a broad range of subjects to which we will offer a significantly different point of view.) This results from an ongoing effort to update the essays and to provide a reasonable range of the topic and that results in many insertions which sometimes disrupt the reading flow.
There is no doubt that science inevitably is loaded with the potential to do dangerous things to the environment, both to the world as a whole and to unfortunate individuals. Dangerous Ideas; The responsibilities of courageous inquiry. "--goal as teachers and educators should be to expose our students to the discovery process and to excite them about the challenges at the frontiers of knowledge. We should try to make students understand . . . why a scientist can never be sure that he or she has the final answer to anything." Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences, 2005 (Our emphasis.) That leaves the citizenry in a position of having to be vigilant as to what science may due to damage our environment and health. This is even true in the arena of expensive (and potentially toxic) medical treatments based on some science which provides limited information and which can lead to treatments much less effective or which have much more risk than is understood by the public. There are, for example, with cancer, new therapies available such as Metronomic or, Anti-angiogenesis, or Targeted Chemotherapy and these therapies are much less toxic. There is great danger that such therapies are being underused at the expense of some patients.
Even therapies believed safe have potential problems. For example, giving a women estrogen is a medical treatment that is not without risk. New Federal "Report on Carcinogens" Lists Estrogen Therapy,--- We wonder since this 2002 report, how many women have not been informed by their doctors that the National Institute of Health has made a finding that estrogen used in HRT is considered a carcinogen?
One also wonders about the general long term safety of medicines when you find sites like the following: Patients Taking Prescription Drugs Need to be Nutrition-conscious. The following is another link with different information on: Drug-Nutrient Interactions Use the search function at the bottom of the leftmost column. You can type in either a vitamin or a drug and then scan down the search page results for interactions. Don't rely on others for this safety check. Cancer fighting nutrition list.
If you cannot get a detailed vitamin regimen from your doctor, you can access a site by Dr. Weil (an M.D. with Integrative Medicine credentials) and answer a series of habit and health questions and get a vitamin recommendation. We certainly do not recommend just throwing down a high dose of a lot of vitamins. At the bottom of our Cancer Fighting Nutrient and Suggestions List essay are URLs which give some dosages which may be beneficial.
The need for major medical interventions in our lives starts with our genes and then what we breath, drink, and eat (or take in as nutrient supplements.) Unfortunately, what we eat is not of high quality since our soils have, over time, been depleted of nutrients. This link; "The Root of All Disease" will take you to an excerpt from a book of the same name. Soil depletion and plant and animal deterioration. We believe that there is some truth that our food quality is declining. Is Agribusiness Making Food Less Nutritious?
Vegetables Without Vitamins Is Conventional Produce Declining in Nutritional Value?
We are not advocates of depending on better nutrition alone in combating disease and especially not cancer. Check with your doctor even on normal nutrition if you have cancer or other serious medical problems. Nutrition can be determinate in the course of a disease.
We believe nutrition (carefully chosen, and not just organic foods in general) can play a major and determinate role even in fighting cancer. Cancer is so aberrant, however, from normal body function that while it is possible to address it in part with major diet changes, that is not often going to be sufficient alone.
To dwell for a moment on cancer, if you view the body as designed to protect against cancer on a cellular level, it is not hard to envision that the body (with proper nutrition) is not supposed to have to fight larger tumors or system wide malignancies of any sort. The body is supposed to prevent that from taking place. To whatever degree this is true, it means that it is probably asking too much of the body to attack and completely defeat all malignancies on its own.
It seems more reasonable to depend on an outside agency (standard medicine) to reduce the tumor burden back to the level where the body is designed to handle it, and from that point depend on the bodies natural defenses to complete the job with proper nutrition. This is the main reason that we advocate depending on a low toxicity medical process followed by a broad spectrum of nutrition of certain scientifically proven types to finish the job of destroying the cancers.
From the Journal of Nutrition; "Rationale for Using High-Dose Multiple Dietary Antioxidants as an Adjunct to Radiation Therapy and Chemotherapy" We believe that this type of study is urgently needed where multiple elements are tested for efficacy in combination. "This study of 34 chemotherapy patients and 31 combination-therapy patients reported beneficial effects on tumor response and tolerance to chemotherapeutic agents for a follow-up period of 1 y." (Our emphasis.) Note that there are some issues as to such an approach, so do not try this on your own. Talk to your doctor about it. Take the link address to your doctor or a copy for s/he to read. Note that the best benefit found in the study came from the use of four different vitamins used with chemotherapy!
The combination from the study is unusual in listing the amount of the nutrients and if your doctor approves, would be a good bench mark and very helpful to your doctor.
What follows later in this essay, is more information on nutrition as an aid to medical therapy in fighting cancer than other diseases, since we are more studied in that subject. There are, however, links to important findings relative to other diseases included below as well.
Medical science is, in any case, finally reaching the point where some "rational drugs" are becoming available for addressing the major part of the cancer. Our definition of rational drug would be one where there is a rationed amount of damage to the cancer cell which does little damage to the body. The scientific definition of "Rational Drug Design" is somewhat different, but the intent is to achieve less toxic and more effective drugs.
Being rational after the drug therapy, we would say would require the patient to change their nutrition in major ways to continue and win the battle long term. Another rational drug example would be; "Lapatinib could become an important new treatment option for breast cancer patients and potentially those with other difficult-to-treat solid tumours." We would recommend that a patient do a detailed search of the net for new drugs and low toxicity therapy combinations to "debulk" the cancer to get the body back to the point where it can take over with the right nutrition. Take such information to your doctor to aid their decisions on therapy. Talk to a medical professional knowledgeable of nutrition in depth.
Be aware that talking to your doctor about
nutrition is often going to be somewhat difficult.
It is very difficult for the medical profession to accept that which
is beyond "standard treatment." Don't be
dissuaded by this, there is a large body of scientific
studies (thousands) which prove that nutrition is important and can be
determinate. Reading the following link page will, however,
show what you may be up against;
The War Against Vitamin Therapy
Abram Hoffer, M.D.
We have not read the book, but the title indicates that for some patients, it might be a must reading if your Oncologist is closed minded; Overcoming Oncologists' Objections, Safe & Effective Non-Drug Support for Prostate and Breast Cancers
The concern doctors have about nutritional effects is not without some basis. One needs to be especially careful with nutrition in the case of hormonal cancers (breast, uterine, ovarian, and prostate) as the following link study indicates; Physiological Concentrations of Dietary Genistein Dose-Dependently Stimulate Growth of Estrogen-Dependent Human Breast Cancer. Genistein has been proven to be of major benefit in other cancers but even though this study was with the tissue in mice, it would be prudent to rely on some of the other (many available) nutrients proven to be beneficial in the hormonal cancers. (There is an important link found down the page on the above link which shows the benefits of Flaxseed in the same type of breast cancer.) Yes the study about Genistein was only with breast cancer, but there are some molecular similarities with the other hormonal cancers and prudence says to avoid Soy (or at least isolated Genistein as a supplement) in the case of hormonal cancers until science proves Genistein alone to be OK in a particular cancer and Flaxseed would now seem to be a better choice of a beneficial nutrient.
One bad apple in a bushel (Genistein is still probably good in most other cancers) absolutely does not justify ignoring the thousands of other studies showing nutrition to be very beneficial against cancer. It is highly probable that chemotherapy has killed many patients and likewise, that does not make all chemotherapy bad. The questions about chemotherapy are, however, one reason why Dr. Hoffer is not alone in raising concerns and advocating nutrition as a therapy adjunct. Nutrition is obviously less toxic if not taken to an extreme.
One wonders how much truth there is in the view of Dr. Lam who has very strong negative opinions about conventional therapy and cancer. We do not advocate Dr. Lam's position (nor propose to refute it) since there is no direct study comparing nutrition and conventional medical therapy that we have found. As noted above, logic would suggest not relying on nutrition alone in a situation the body is not designed to handle. We advocate using the best of both approaches and that does mean that we advocate low toxicity conventional medical therapies unless there is absolutely no other option from the standard medicine arm of the therapy. There are some reasons to believe that higher toxicity therapies may close off some nutritional benefits and the bodies ability to pick up where the medical approach end. Such would be the case, for example, if the digestive system becomes so damaged by toxic chemo or high radiation that the nutrition needed can no longer be tolerated. From the Mayo Clinic: Using pharmacogenetic test prior to chemotherapy to reduce toxic side effects.
Whether or not you have cancer, if you have a serious health problem, in any case, and want the best of natural and medical therapies, the following book online is worth reading (about 25 pages); Choices In Healing: Integrating The Best of Conventional and Complementary Approaches to Cancer by Michael Lerner
The patient needs to fully understand the situation with something as complex as cancer. Are patients adequately informed of standard medical treatment impacts on bodies? From the National Cancer Institute; Second Cancers Caused by Cancer Treatment. We have to wonder how many cancer patients are told that such is the case? How many would insist on newer lower toxicity treatments, which are now often available and becoming more so every day?
Serious questions about how clinical trials are run.
One even wonders how much truth there is to reports such as; "Killer cancer treatment: How toxic chemotherapy kills both cancer cells and cancer patients"
One at least needs to understand the issues raised by those who are against conventional medical therapies. (We only object to toxic therapies when other options are available and can be found if the doctor digs deep enough.)
There may still be times when only a toxic treatment will work. But if the link above is true to a significant degree, does it still have to be that way or are they options at hand now (based on good science) to kill/cure cancer with less toxicity? As we will outline on this and other pages (with numerous science supporting links), we believe that such options are at hand, especially in fighting cancer, but for other diseases as well, which make highly toxic treatments necessary only in a small percentage of situations.
The more we have studies the body, the more we believe that it is capable of incredible healing in most situations where the problem is not essentially mechanical, such as damage from accidents. Even in those cases, we know of a case where a women who is now a Washington State supreme court justice went from being somewhat crippled with chronic pain from a car accident to a champion senior weight lifter.
In terms of medical information, this web site is for educational purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for the diagnosis, treatment and advice of a qualified licensed professional. Seek the best of both natural healing and proven medical treatments which have reasonably low risk.
This site offers people medical information and informs to some degree about alternative medical options, but in no way should anyone consider that this site represents the "practice of medicine." This site assumes no responsibility for how this material is used. Also note that this website frequently updates its contents, due to a variety of reasons, therefore, some information may be out of date. The statements regarding supplemental treatments (in addition to low toxicity standard therapy where prescribed by a doctor) for cancer have not been in most cases evaluated by the FDA. The statements are supported in the majority of cases by articles available from the National Institute of Health PubMed on the internet.
When we think of our environment as it affects health, we should always include what the environment is doing to our food. This is not to say that their are not many other bad effects which are very important, but if good water and breathable are is present, the next priority is quality food and that followed by sanitation (polluted environment.) Misused or ignored science can result in all four basic required elements being less than needed for more than short term survival.
What follows below is mostly about nutrition and other disease as it relates to nutrition (mostly in regards to cancer), but one should not lose sight of the other concerns, and if global warming does occur to a significant degree, for example, the availability of the range of nutritional elements needed for even short term good health will be jeopardized.
This should not be interpreted to mean that we advocate draconian measures to slow global warming, but there is little question that the trend has to be reversed soon. The problem is trying to understand the level of measures which need to be taken now in light of uncertainties and biased reporting. IPCC Global Warming Report Fails to Deliver Sound Policy.
There is in fact uncertainty as to the degree to which the warming is a natural phenomena. The is also uncertainty as to what will happen in the long term. There is little doubt, however, that mankind is playing with fire and that a catastrophe could occur and will occur if the trend continues unabated long enough. What is not known is whether or not that time frame is in tens or hundreds of years. In any case, reasonable and modestly expensive measures need to be implemented soon to the degree that the economies of the world can afford. The world can certainly afford to begin reversing the trend.
Naturally Dangerous; Surprising Facts About Food, Health and the Environment It is not all black and white when it comes to natural.
Not only the global environment science is complex and very serious in its implications; the same is true of biological science. In the search for biological therapies, there are even dangers of bio-prospecting, with apparently little thought for public safety.
There are serious concerns about monitoring the biological implications of the trend to greater and greater dependence on drugs. Dangerous Practices; Critics see flaws in drug-safety monitoring.
The environment is being contaminated in subtle but very serious ways. USGS Study Finds Antibiotics in 48% of Streams Tested in 30 States What does this mean about our food supply and possible future epidemics?
It is virtually unarguable that we less environmental pollution and we all need to rely more on good nutrition and health maintenance practices (such as exercise) and less on strong (such as antibiotics) medicines as well. Epidemic Influenza And Vitamin D
Natural Antibiotic: Vitamin D Fights Severe Infections
From the Journal of the American Medical Association: "Inadequate intake of several vitamins has been linked to chronic diseases, including coronary heart disease, cancer, and osteoporosis" We would add that the same is true for certain special nutrient foods as well.
This is not to say that vitamins do not offer great potential for obtaining and retaining good health.
Beyond cancer, there are Syndromes where vitamin therapy could be of a major help.
It is even known that nutrients affect the expression of genes! Even Green Tea can affect gene expression.
It is not surprising that vitamin consumption of the right type can be beneficial for individuals such as those with Down Syndrome.
Getting adequate vitamin D can even help decrease you pain level.
Getting vitamin D from the sun or a sunlamp may actually reduce your overall risk of cancer (if you don't get any burn) and may be better than taking a supplement pill. Yes, Melanoma may be a somewhat higher risk, but even that is being reexamined. Keep in mind that; "Fifteen hundred Americans die every year from [skin cancers]. Fifteen hundred Americans die every day from the serious cancers." In other words, you have about a 365 times greater risk of dying from some other cancer than Melanoma and you can cut the overall cancer risk greatly by getting a limited amount of sunshine (avoid sunburn) or taking vitamin D supplements.
Note, the benefit of some sun exposure is limited to short periods (10 to 20 minutes) of unprotected (no sunscreen, etc.) exposure around noon. (Your body has to have the vitamin D precursor chemicals either a form of a cholesterol or ergosterols from plants in it in order to make the vitamin D if the sun is to be of benefit.)
We should note that there is a study of construction workers in Sweden which indicated that construction workers have a higher risk of some cancers from sun exposure. At the same latitude approximately in Russia, a study shows a decreases risk in breast cancer from sun exposure. The difference could be diet and the absence of ergosterols in the diets of the Swedish construction workers. Most likely, however, the difference is that the construction workers are getting sunburned and that depresses the immune system. It is known that at high latitudes; "Sun exposure at higher latitudes before 10 am or after 2 pm will cause burning from UV-A before it will supply adequate vitamin D." With this fact, why would anyone be surprised that in Sweden, construction workers who are exposed during that time would not benefit from that?
Simply never being exposed to the sun without sunscreen is not the answer either. Skin cancer on this rise (about 30%) in the generation growing up using sunscreen!
There are elements which can be used to protect against negative effects of the sun's rays. Blackberries contain protective chemicals against the damage induced by UV rays. If you do use get more exposure to UV rays via the sun or use a sunlamp, it would be wise to also consider eating Beta-Carotene (a form of A vitamin) rich foods (supplements may also be needed since gastric acid may be too low for good absorption) and brewers yeast which contains a substance called Beta-Glucan and vitamin E succinate to provide some protection for your skin. Retinoids can provide some protection from skin damage.
Genistein (from Soy) has been found previously to provide protection from oxidative damage induced by UV radiation both in vitro and following dietary administration. There is also some evidence that caffeine from any source may be protective. Silibinin (Milk Thistle), quercetin, and epigallocatechin 3-gallate (EGCG) have been shown to be skin cancer-preventive agents EGCG is found in green tea. (Note, the older you are, the more you need to be sure that you get the protective nutrition for safer sun exposure.)
Our light environment may, on the other hand, require being careful about late night light exposure. One wonders if a study of mice and artificial light at night might apply to humans.
Links for possible research of nutritional benefits with other diseases are included below and on other pages of this site.
Symptoms of vitamin deficiency or overdose.
Again, it is very important that you use this site or any other site only as a starting point from which you find other sites from which to confirm any medically related recommendation to be discussed with your doctor (such as nutrition as adjunct medical therapy.)
Sadly, the reality is that many doctors will either be closed minded or unwilling for various reasons to discuss treatment adjunct options (even common nutritional options.) The doctor will probably talk about studies which did not show benefits of nutrition, but the reality is that numerous scientific studies have shown benefit and a few studies which did not are not a reason to simply wave off the probable benefits of the right nutrition. One should be prepared for all of this and not be easily put off. Your doctor must evaluate all factors which will affect the clinical outcome of the cancer or other serious disease for which conventional medicine does not have a high probability long term (more than 5 years) cure.
If cancer is the problem, we would recommend starting a search string with such words as; "Cancer or Nutrition or Vitamin or Herb and NIH or NCI or Biology" not all these words, but several in some combination. Find science related sites and read the introduction or conclusion of the abstracts. Use the terminology and nutrition references you find for additional searches.
The way to use the link information made available in the linked link sites is to make copies of the report clinical studies summaries and take them to your doctor.
There is a vast amount of medical science information available on the internet beyond cancer, even muscle wasting with age or disease is now being studied in relation to special nutrients. (Muscle function is also being found to be very important in aging, diabetes, and cancer.) One such study is: "Green tea extract decreases muscle necrosis" (The only concern we have found about green tea is a possible link with one form of breast cancer and numerous other studies indicates benefits in fighting breast cancer. Green tea and risk of breast cancer in Asian Americans. Not the study used Asian Americans but there is no evidence that we have found to believe that the Green Tea benefit of possibly as high as a 47% reduction of risk is limited to that group.)
Like Green Tea, natural nutrients such as Dark Grapes, Broccoli, Garlic, and Pink Grapefruit (Naringin) and many others are proven by scientific studies to be very important for good health in many ways including fighting cancer.
Note that almost all of the medical links we provide are to sites where positive results were shown to be feasible at least with either certain vitamins or nutritional as adjuncts. Do not lose site of the fact that some studies (generally a minority) show no apparent cancer benefit in certain situations. A very few in special cases do in fact even indicate a possible negative effect.
Our contention is that many "no effect detectable tests" would be expected especially in single element studies if in fact multiple factors are needed to have a major effect. There is clear scientific reasoning and evidence that such is at least often the case and we believe the links we provide are meaningful enough to at least discuss with your doctor.
In any case, a large scale problem and an immediate health problem for many people is the fight against cancer. We especially recommend searching "Vitamin D3" or "Vitamin E succinate" along with the search term and "NIH". You will find that there is virtually no question as to at least some level of benefits in a range of diseases including cancer. (It is likely that it is necessary to have a sufficient calcium intake to get the full benefits of vitamin D. EFFECT OF VITAMIN D ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DEPENDS ON ADEQUATE CALCIUM (It is generally true that one vitamin is to some degree dependent on the presence of sufficient amounts of another vitamin.)
It is, in fact, amazing as to how deeply involved vitamin D is in such a large number of basic cancer related biological processes. Vitamin D is unquestionably of major importance to our immunological health and its importance is far more than just related to bone health.
We should note at this point that the NIH scientific reports are often done on animals or lab dishes. Such animal studies (in vivo) and other indirect science studies (in vitro) do often give overly optimistic results. This does not mean some benefit is not truly there and often if one digs deep enough into the science, one will find that there are deep (bio molecular) scientific reasons to believe that a major benefit will be there in humans as well. There is, nevertheless, always some uncertainty (as with most standard medical cancer therapies for example), and this is why we do not recommend any high level (potentially toxic) single nutritional therapy (even medical single therapies may not often be the best option.) Even with cancer, there is no fundamental science which says that a single therapy is the best or only approach.
One needs to be very informed so that they can take advantage of the best of all therapies (including nutrition), which have reasonable supporting scientific evidence at some level, in combination in reasonable moderation as approved by a doctor where possible. There is a lot of supporting science evidence which strongly suggests that the be approach is combination therapy. Amazingly, many cancer attacking foods (such as Resveratrol from grapes, or Green Tea) do in fact attack cancer at more than one level.) Cancer science studies now show major benefits to combinations of such nutrients, nutrients with chemo drugs, and even multiple drug combinations.
We would suggest, in any case, only trusting articles from such organizations and being very cautious in passing on suggestions or questions to your doctor from information found in sites like this one. Rely only on many verifying links to professional sites or other noncommercial sites or such as "NewsRx Cancer Weekly" which at most sell information. See; "Newsletter Issues" on the rightmost column for numerous summaries on cancer science, most of them understandable by laypersons.
We are not saying that one should total ignore the information in commercial sites, but such information should only be seriously weighted to the degree to which the site contains medical science site links which corroborate what is said in the commercial site. Finally, cross check all information and give it weight only to the degree to which other science sites confirm the interpretation of the reported science.
While all this is to be kept in mind in all medically related web research, using the search approach outlined above, we have found that there is a wealth of science proving there great hope for cancer for the combination of standard therapies (at least those of the low toxicity variety) used in conjunction with nutritional elements known to fight cancer.
While some vitamins (such as vitamin A) must be used quite cautiously, medical variations on vitamins A and D (the later is naturally very potent in fighting cancer but also has limits for some people of maybe as low as about 2 times the MDR.) All-trans-retinoic acid induces complete remission in acute promyelocytic leukemia. Where the oncologist says it is an option for a particular cancer and you find out that there are chemo options from the doctor. If your doctor knows of one, you might be wise to research the vitamin A or vitamin D analog chemo medicines, which are the closest in chemo to the normal body attack on cancer. (Note; we have not seen any studies of the normal vitamins along with the analog medicines.) Make sure your doctor is aware and approves of all supplements in all cases. Cancer: Should Patients Take Dietary Supplements? Talk to your doctor about such issues as this.
There is a wealth of scientific evidence which is basically understandable by a laymen (or at least someone with general science experience) which gives many proven avenues and evidence for carefully chosen nutrition as the pivotal element missing in many cases in fighting cancer. If you have trouble understanding the science links, there are sites like the following link (though commercial it has many science article references, even though the link the title is overstated) where there are scientifically verified explanations of the benefits of some nutrients that are easier to understand and we have verified that the list of nutrients they give are all proven scientifically to have some anti-cancer benefit.
There are even links which overstate what the science and the following link is not highly unusual for non science sites in overstating the situation but still having some important information to research further. They say; The cure for cancer already exists as key protein in healthy human tissues, stunned scientists discover. (We would disagree with their statement and rephrase it to read "proven to a good probability to be true with certain nutrition combinations (a number they have not listed such as Dark Grapes, Broccoli and others together with exercise as an adjunct to low toxicity standard medical therapy.) Yes there are times when very carefully limited high toxicity chemo is indicated.)
Again, in any case, we only present the medical information is for your education and discussion with your doctor and your further research on important and possibly key topics about your health. Unlike the link above, most of our referenced links are (in large majority) either direct science or at least not to any sites which are selling products, which should generally reduces the bias in the information. (No information from anyone is likely to be totally unbiased.)
The links in this site have in general been chosen based on our experience in analyzing general scientific data and detecting key information. One does not need to understand all of the science is a study report to be able to understand the essence of what is being studied and the conclusion from the study in general terms.
We believe the links we have chosen point to very important differences in interpretation in health sciences and problems or potential problems in our lives and our environment from those offered by most of the science/medical community. The links are chosen by using our decades of experience in analyzing technical data and looking for promising avenues of research and action. In the medical arena, note that we are not medically trained, but only self taught by much research and study, and our recommendations are to take to you doctor for discussion.
Fortunately, at least a small portion of medical doctors are starting to recognize the limitations of the science of conventional medicine all by itself. We highly recommend Ultraprevention by Mark Hyman, M.D. and Mark Liponis, M.D.. This book is written by two M.D.s whose personal health experiences have led them to understand the limits and problems of modern conventional medicine and how to blend it with natural approaches effectively. The book contain dramatic stories of healing in their medical practice by recognition of the limits of standard medical therapies in some cases.
See our page with links about new cancer science and therapy supported by science journal articles. Cancer is an extremely complex set of diseases and the science is changing the treatments rapidly, especially in regards to the benefits of nutrition during and after standard medical treatment. It is probably best in most cases where life is at risk not to rely only on one doctors opinion and experience. It may even be necessary to study the subject in regards to nutrition yourself for discussion with you doctor. If your doctor is closed minded on nutrition, he/she is not up to date on the science. Find another doctor in such a case.There is a possible dramatic effect of vitamin E and C combination on Alzheimer's. Note the need for the two in combination which is supported by a study done by the University of Washington.
In a report from the Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn University; "--combined use of vitamin E 400 IU daily and vitamin C 500 mg daily for at least 3 years was associated with the reduction of AD prevalence (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.60)--" (This data means a 78% reduction (1-.22) in alzsheimers.
Reduce homocysteine (via Folic Acid) and reduce Alzheimer's risk by half.
The herb turmeric contains a substance called Curcumin and it has been found to act against Alzheimer's. "UCLA-VA study names India dietary staple as potential Alzheimer's weapon" "A dietary staple of India, where Alzheimer's disease rates are reportedly among the world's lowest, holds potential as a weapon in the fight against the disease.
Remember also that the amount of the vitamin taken can be determinate. We have seen a study which indicated no effect of vitamin E on another disease but the amount was only 50 IU whereas in the same study report, there was a statement that 800 IU might be helpful. Soy may also be benifical in warding off or slowing Alzheimer's. It should be noted, however, that Soy (which can have very good benefits) might be bad for certain breast cancers and should be used with caution.
Clinical and genetic aspect of ataxia (DEGENERATION DISEASES) with vitamin E deficiency.
There is growing evidence that insufficient vitamin D may be a root cause of a number of diseases. Vitamin D Deficiency Called Major Health Risk. Could it be true that over a billion people are vitamin D deficient?
Vitamin D – Are You D-ficient? (Much more important than just bone support.) Over-the-counter vitamin D tester would be a boon to public health, cancer prevention. There are some studies which indicate that more than twice the MDR or more of vitamin D may be safe and may be needed, but, again, there are also potential problems with more than 2x MDR.
Comprehensive review of the latest research into Parkinson's disease with emphasis on prevention and complementary and alternative treatments Refer to the section on; "Antioxidants: The Key to Prevention and Control."
"Ironing iron out in Parkinson's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases with iron chelators--" There are natural Iron Chelators available as supplements and one easily available, namely Phytic acid found naturally in whole grains and beans.
Pesticide exposure and risk for Parkinson's disease.
Anti-Cancer Drug May Hold Potential for Treatment of Aging and Progeria
Treatment for accelerated aging studied
The NIH or MedPortal is where you can start searching and begin to understand your health problems better, learn to work with your doctor and ask the right questions of your doctor! Do not act, in any case, on the information provided in this site on any web medical information without getting your doctor's approval!
Cancer: Should Patients Take Dietary Supplements? (It is open to serious question as to whether or not a patient should take certain supplements (at least beyond vitamin D) during a treatment meant to kill cancer cells. You really need to listen to a knowledgeable integrative medicine doctor (M.D. with a special degree) on this. Nutrition of selected types is also very important.)
Opinion: Public health warning: our leaders' seduction by science is dangerous.
Beware of Double Blind Studies, they can be a barricade to the truth and against the interests of individual patients.
There are prescription drugs that are sometimes unsafe.
Studies Confirm Effectiveness Of Fentanyl Lozenges For 'breakthrough' Cancer Pain (Should be available for other chronic pain. A new concept in pain medicine and the new medicine comes in five strengths which is unusual and good in allow tailoring to need.) Note that vitamin D is not only important in fighting cancer but may be in reducing pain as well.
A drug that harnesses the power of deadly sea snail venom has been launched in Britain. Very potent new pain relief drug.
Novel approach to pain reduction could treat chronic pain. (Only early results yet, but hope on the horizon.)
More hope on the horizon; Scientists Spot Chronic Pain 'On/Off' Switch
On the horizon; Y. chemists hoping to ease pain, Morphine like compound may lack addictiveness
If the pain is from cancer, why it may be vital as to what pain medicine is used! The effects of tramadol and morphine on immune responses and pain after surgery in cancer patients.
New Drugs Help Reverse Blindness. (In some cases; the "wet" form of macular degeneration, which affects the elderly, and diabetic retinopathy.)
Are anti-depressants relatively safe and non-addictive? Seroxat is Paxil in the U.S.
Do you believe drug companies can be trusted?
Dangerous Practices; Critics see flaws in drug-safety monitoring.
How much should we trust scientists?
Is it true that; Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 225,000 Deaths Every Year? This link is to a doctor's website and a JAMA report reference! It is incredible if it is anything like the truth. If there is any truth in the link, it is worth thinking about and not being shy about questioning medical authority in some cases.
Here's a guide to managing the risks of medicines. U.S. Food and Drug Administration warnings.
Here's a recommended book on keeping your medicines safe.
Do you want to talk to your doctor about complimentary medicine?
Vitamin D3 and Multiple Sclerosis. (Note not all vitamin D is D3. There is also D2 which is not the same.)
Curcumin, a Major Constituent of Turmeric, Corrects Cystic Fibrosis Defects At least some possible help with many links at the bottom of the linked page.
AMD, a leading cause of vision loss, lowered their risk by about 25 percent when treated with a high-dose combination of vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, and zinc The need for a combination of vitamins (more than the MDR, but not too much more for some vitamins), is a rule, rather than an exception when it comes to health benefits. (There is no reason to believe that the studies combination was the best possible combination.)
What is technology doing to our societies? This site gives just a small sample of what is going on.
Is the university-industrial complex out of control?
Read about our food supply, environment, etc.
Modern Foods: The Sabotage of Earth's Food Supply
There are genetically modified food risks and the companies that are motivated by profit, not consumer health.
Genetic Engineering: Public Health and Environmental Risks
Genetic Food Accidents are already beginning to endanger us and the ecosystem.
Read about reduced nutrition in our food.
Is science actually making a new disease?
There's an increase in food-born illness.
Read about dangerous amounts of antibiotics in our food.
Adding to the risk of antibiotics in food by irradiating food, and even more about irradiated food.
Check this website with many links about genetic engineering dangers
The risk of catastrophic climate change may be much greater than science can begin to understand and evaluate. The changes may abrupt and irreversible.
Avoiding dangerous climate change.
More public involvement in science means less dangerous and more beneficial science.
Death by Medicine (Some things which are frightening if true. What is the truth?)