While in recent months there has been an upsurge in published studies that demonstrate successful use of vitamin C for a wide range of medical applications, it is not likely the public has heard of even one of them.

What the public did read about vitamin C was that it increases the risk for kidney stones when taken in high doses.  That assertion has been roundly rebutted.  If you consume high-dose vitamin C pill your increased risk for kidney stones in a year rises from 1/6h of one-percent to 1/3^rd of one-percent.  That minute risk increase gained worldwide headlines as a doubling of the relative risk for kidney stones.

Another recent news headlines is that supplemental vitamin C does not reduce uric acid levels involved in cases of gout.  But the researchers employed a single 500 milligram dose of vitamin C which is rapidly excreted and would not significantly raise blood levels.  Researchers measured uric acid levels, but not vitamin C levels.  Had they done that, it would have been obvious the study design was flawed.  Any sharp medical journalist could have spotted this flaw and called the results of the study into question.  None did.

This suggests the news media not only beats the drum for Big Pharma, but intentionally undercuts any competition by reporting negative studies involving dietary supplements that are in direct competition with FDA-approved drugs.  Even worse, those biology-trained medical reporters are allowing scientific distortions to go unchallenged.

By ignoring recent positive reports involving vitamin C, the public has missed major breakthroughs in cancer prevention, rescue from sudden hearing loss, reduction of adverse effects caused by smoking, treatment of leukemia, control of blood pressure and blood sugar among diabetics, prevention of premature birth, and as an agent that is required for the survival and maturation of regenerative stem cells.

If it won’t raise the price of stocks on Wall Street, it seems it isn’t news these days.  Here are some notable developments involving vitamin C derived from recent published studies.

Sudden hearing loss

Remember when radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh suddenly lost his hearing?   It is a problem that strikes about 4000 Americans every year.  Researchers in Asia report the use of intravenous vitamin C, added to steroid, doubled the number of patients who completely recovered from their sudden unexpected event.

Reversal of tobacco’s effects in the lung

Researchers in India report that supplemental vitamin C counters the adverse effects of smoking tobacco in lung cells and could serve to prevent inflammatory lung diseases stemming from tobacco use.  Given that an estimated 1 billion people worldwide continue to smoke cigarettes which results in more than 6 million deaths annually, the discovery that vitamin C prevents lung inflammation is of no small significance.

Reduction of blood pressure and blood sugar

With the diabesity epidemic sweeping the world as processed food diets are adopted over traditional ones, any remedy that can significantly stave off the adverse effects of this disease would be welcomed.  But nearly eight decades after vitamin C was first synthetically produced so it could be used as a medicine, it comes as a late finding that the consumption of less than 300 milligrams of vitamin C combined with a near-equal amount of vitamin E elevates key internal antioxidant enzymes (superoxide dismutase and glutathione) which resulted in a significant drop in blood pressure as well as blood sugar (both fasting blood sugar and long-term blood sugar indicator hemoglobin A1c).  The study group size was small (170) but its impact stands large if this can be shown in larger groups.

Premature birth and loss of pregnancy

Another global health initiative is to reduce the number of preterm premature ruptures of membranes that normally hold babies until they reach full-term development.  The use of vitamin C alone (100 mg) or vitamin C (1000 mg) plus vitamin E (400 IU) generally doubled the numbers of babies being delivered at full-term.  This problem is still large in the US despite efforts to curb it.

Cancer antidote

Two striking studies report on the successful use of vitamin C among patients with cancer.  In the first study researchers added vitamin C to lab dishes with human leukemia (blood cancer) cells and observed markedly increased cell death via the generation of hydrogen peroxide while normal cells remained intact.  Vitamin C also strongly inhibits new blood vessel formation (angiogenesis) that feeds tumor cells.

In the second report, vitamin C was found to inhibit growth of tumor cells by inhibition of a growth factor for new blood vessels that form to feed solid tumors.  The report notes that intravenous vitamin C has been shown to improve the quality of life of breast cancer survivors during chemotherapy.

Stem cell survival

In a remarkable report, researchers report that vitamin C favors the generation of internally-produced stem cells as well as their survival.  Stem cells grown in vitamin C-rich bath increase 10-fold.  The survival of either transplanted or internally-produced stem cells is a promising new application for vitamin C, especially since modern stem cell therapy has been disappointing.

Heart and blood vessel disease

While long-term controlled studies involving supplemental vitamin C for heart and blood vessel disease have failed to reduce morbidity and mortality, investigators in Europe note that most published studies have been flawed because they failed to remove patients who were already taking vitamin C in their multivitamins.  Patients who already have optimal vitamin C blood levels are unlikely to benefit any further from dietary supplementation.  So in the eight-plus decades since synthetic vitamin C has been available, not one randomized clinical trial has been launched that fairly evaluates the effect of vitamin C deficiency on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality!  This is one way modern medicine stacks the deck against natural therapies like vitamin C then smugly asserts it is a failure.

It is a fact that 80% of mortal heart attacks stem from release of unstable plaque that then blocks arteries that supply the heart with oxygenated blood.  Vitamin C stabilizes unstable plaque, something no existing FDA-approved drug has been shown to do.

The news media picks and chooses what it reports.  What it chooses to overlook results in needless suffering and loss of life.  © 2013 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

Why does life in the United States — despite its sophisticated health care system and high per capita wages — lead to worse health?

Smoking, drinking, high-calorie diets are blamed.  But that doesn’t precisely identify what items in the food chain promote obesity and chronic disease.

One immigrant who subsequently developed diabetes said:  ”In Mexico, we ate healthily and didn’t even know it. Here, we know the food we eat is bad for us. We feel guilty. But we eat it anyway.”

First generation immigrants fare better than their children who grow up in the US.  Foreign-born immigrants have already imprinted their genes with tradition foods like cactus, beans and other often home-grown foods instead of the plethora of processed foods abundant in America.

What comes across in the NY Times article is that immigrants want American success and they often work hard to achieve it, sometimes working two jobs, and they have little time to cook and frequently eat out at cheap fast food joints.

The café outside Costco stores are jammed for dinner every night in my area with immigrant families who eat pizza, nachos, hot dogs, hamburgers, soft ice cream– largely belly-fillers.  There isn’t a vegetable in sight.  White bread, lots of carbohydrates, lots of iron-rich protein (meat).

In my book, DOWNSIZING YOUR BODY, I identify the key factors that converged to produce the diabesity epidemic – white bread (no bran to control iron), hydrogenated fats and high-fructose corn syrup (that increase iron absorption), and the provision of highly-absorbable iron in flour for bread and breakfast cereals, along with a number of obese-ogens (bisphenol A, MSG) that alter hormones, that combined to create the American version of the diabesity epidemic.

The problem is — few Americans catch on that the food industry is designing foods to disengage appetite control so they can make more profit as Americans overeat.  Bottom line, food producers intentionally design potato chips and cookies so it can be said: “Bet you can’t eat just one.”  They want you to eat cookies or chips to the bottom of the bag.

The kicker in the NY Times article was at the bottom.  A 73-year old immigrant woman who lives in Brownsville, Texas and immigrated to the United States in her 40s says her secret is raw garlic, cooked cactus and daily exercise, health habits she acquired from her father who died at age 98.  © 2013 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

It was coordinated with simultaneous press releases from Ms. Jolie’s female breast surgeon at the Pink Lotus Breast Center and an appeal before the Supreme Court by a biotechnology company to uphold its patent application involving the BRCA gene.

Was this serendipity or a well-orchestrated public relations campaign to persuade fearful women to undergo needless care?  Is the Supreme Court ready to rule against the applied-for BRCA-gene patent by a biotech company in the face of hordes of women who may feel the highest court in the land is insensitive to their fears?

Inexplicable recovery

Inexplicably, Angelina Jolie was back at work within four days after her surgery in February, while women who write online about their experience after double-mastectomy surgery warn of unbearable fatigue and onerous side effects and medication schedules.

Maybe breast surgeon Kristi Funk waves some magic wand to avert these prolonged side effects with the homeopathic and vitamin supplements she prescribes after surgery.  But when other women choose to undergo double-mastectomy and don’t bounce back like Mr. Jolie did, they may feel like they have been misled.

This makes one wonder if Ms. Jolie’s surgery even occurred at all and this whole extravaganza is a Hollywood production where fiction is morphed into imagined reality.

High drama: just another act?

Ms. Jolie’s private life is like a Hollywood movie, with a history of suicidal depression, self-harm, and bedroom boyfriends since the age of 14.  Today she is lauded as a heroin that is helping women seek out all their options when they face breast cancer.

Well, not quite all of their options.  What they won’t hear is that low-dose x-ray radiation emitted during mammograms induces instability in chromosomes that can lead to the very same mutated BRCA gene that caused Ms. Jolie to fulfill her quest for self-mutilation.

This sounds like the breast cancer care industry is drumming up its own business by inducing the gene mutations with repeated mammograms and then being undeservedly lauded for saving women’s lives.

Her surgeon, Dr. Kristi Funk runs a slick medical practice in partnership with her entrepreneur husband.  Who knows how much playing footsy goes on between the Funk’s and the biotech company that is touting its $3300 BRCA gene mutation test?  Hollywood is not above such arrangements.

Just the beginning

What is the bottom line advice being passed along to American women here?  Are healthy women who have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer now going to be urged by fearful family members to undergo repeated mammograms and BRCA gene testing, nine of ten which will initially be negative?  Then over time, the x-ray radiation emitted from the mammography machine induces the BRCA gene mutation in what becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy!

By the way, this may be just the first of many campaigns launched to test for gene-mutations that can lead to future cases of cancer.  Who knows, tests may follow that cause healthy men to have their prostate glands removed.  Men are even more vulnerable to such a sales pitch with 30% exhibiting precancerous cells in the prostate by the age of 30.  The new mantra may be — why wait till cancer starts, just have it removed!  Imagine your auto mechanic suggesting you replace your carburetor because of the future chance it might fail.

As I write this report, sure enough, it has just been announced that the first man in the world to undergo prostate removal surgery solely based upon the future threat of cancer has just been announced.  The man carries a mutated from of the BRCA-2 gene.  The news report says: “Doctors were eventually persuaded to operate when a tissue sample showed up microscopic malignant changes.”  He had precancerous cells in his prostate which may never threaten his life.  There are various ways to convert precancerous cells back to normal, one being pumpkin seed oil, which patients never hear about.

An estimated 1 million BRCA gene tests have been conducted since they became available in 1996.  Maybe millions of women are now expected sign up for this expensive test.  Just so women reading this report know, there are maybe 20 other genes involved in breast cancer aside from the BRCA gene.

Lessons in medical decision making

A read of the online postings at the Pink Lotus Breast Center website is an instructive exercise in human psychology.

One woman’s posting characterizes the thinking of many.  Here is an excerpt of what she said, with critical commentary.

“Anyone who thinks Angelina – or any woman – should have to wait for a cancer diagnosis before deciding to remove her breasts is either a fool or a sadist.  At this point, mastectomies are the least of my worries.  I’m just praying the medicines, radiation and surgery will save my life.  No women should have to go through what I am going through.  Believe me, if I could go back to my 37^th year and remove my breasts, I would do it in a heartbeat……… I can’t wait for these breasts to be gone.  They were trying to kill me.”

This woman explains she began undergoing be-annual mammograms at age 40 and obviously had no idea that radiation from mammography may have hastened her diagnosis.  She calls Angelina Jolie her “soul sister.”

Another woman opined that had Angelina Jolie not decided to undergo surgical removal of her healthy breasts it would have been like “putting a gun that is 87% full of bullets to her head and then proceed to pull the trigger.”  Fortunately, another more reasoned woman said this analogy was flawed, that “simply being diagnosed with breast cancer is not a death sentence………. And if 87% can get breast cancer it would be helpful to know how many of those die from it?”

Another woman told of her ordeal in getting her HMO to pay for prophylactic breast surgery.  She says “then one day a miracle happened.  The doctor listened to my request and granted it.”  She said she had to come up with a co-payment that she was willing to pay “because I wanted peace of mind.”  She said surgery would cause her mother to “stop harping in my ear to get tested for the BRCA gene mutation.”  Women with a family history of breast cancer are 8 times more likely to opt for treatment.

Just how will healthcare costs ever be controlled when we are treating imagined future diseases?

A re-run

All of this brings to mind the time when women with advanced-stage breast cancer clamored for ineffective bone marrow transplants in a desperate but misdirected attempt to save their lives.  Doctors and hospitals urged their patients to run to local newspapers and TV stations and assail their insurance plan for withholding care in order to increase profits off a dying woman.  Surgeons knew well that bone marrow transplants weren’t saving women.  They were just lining their pockets.  Is this BRCA escapade just a modern re-run of that sad episode that gripped American healthcare a decade ago?

Stay tuned.  This saga is not going to end.  The sequels will offer even more high drama as insurance companies circle their wagons in preparation for an onslaught of women who will now demand their breasts be removed based solely on fear.

Sadly, surveys show 7 of 10 women would follow Angelina Jolie’s lead.  No woman shall be left behind.  Why even conduct screening mammography or gene tests? Just have them removed.  Why should a woman live in constant fear?  It is her private decision and right to have her breasts lopped off, right?  But is modern medicine relieving or preying upon women’s fears?

When the insurance gates open, double-mastectomy will become the fastest growing surgical procedure in America.  Want a stock tip? Should that occur, invest in breast implant companies.  © 2013 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

The expert is Brian Peskin, an MIT graduate in electronic engineering, who mixes a lot of pseudoscience and straw-man arguments to falsely brand fish oil supplements as ineffective, even potentially dangerous.

Like many of us, Mr. Peskin has his own product to peddle – a plant-based multi-ingredient formulation of sunflower, safflower, pumpkin, evening primrose seed oil along with coconut oil.  (Not wanting to lead naïve consumers to his website that disseminates factitious information, his website will not be divulged.)

Mr. Peskin offers some self-published evidence that his formulation of what he calls “parent essential oils,” that is, oils that have not been heated or chemically processed and are organically raised, are superior to fish oil, generally because they have less (almost no) contaminants like PCBs.

The attention-grabber: PCBs

The way Mr. Peskin gains attention is to proclaim the merits of his 2009 Proposition 65 California lawsuit against manufacturers of fish oils for knowingly having PCBs in their products.

PCBs are polychlorinated biphenyls that are man-made industrial chemicals that were banned many years ago.   Out of seven commercially available brands of fish oil tested, Peskin reports three low-priced brands exhibited far more PCBs than the others.

But the fact Peskin promotes his own product as an alternative suggests he is grand-standing a bit, picking and choosing the science he wants to cite, to condemn fish oils and present his product as the only safe alternative left standing.

His plant-based omega-6 oils may have little or no PCBs, and they may be beneficial oils in themselves, but his product cannot be said to be a substitute for essential omega-3 (EPA & DHA) and omega-6 oils, though Mr. Peskin vaguely says his plant-based oils convert into the essential omega-3 EPA and DHA via liver metabolism.

Flaxseed oil converts to EPA but not DHA, and while I have no data to prove this, Mr. Peskin’s “parent essential oils” are not reported to metabolize into DHA in the liver.  DHA is an essential brain fat.  The oils in his formula are all omega-6 oils or saturated fat (coconut oil).

Vegetable oils also do not reduce triglycerides, a known risk factor for heart disease, as fish oil does.

Mr. Peskin says the liver produces just the right amount of EPA and DHA and supplements simply over-dose the body.  Of course, this is pure nonsense in a society that has a 20-to-1 intake ratio of omega-6 oils (corn, safflower, sunflower) versus omega-3s (flax, fish).

The start of the omega-3 oil story

The whole omega-3 story started in the 1930s when researchers found the Greenland Eskimos were largely free of western disease (heart disease, diabetes) and consumed large amounts of omega-3 fish.

But modern medicine did nothing about this discovery and researchers again visited Greenland to conduct population (epidemiological) studies forty years later.

These observational dietary studies conducted in the 1970s re-confirmed that both omega-3 and omega-6 oils are essential for human health.  Investigators compared fish eating Eskimos who consumed four times more omega-3 oil to a group of Danish people, who largely consumed omega-6 (corn) oil and who had a much higher death rate from heart disease than the Eskimos (Inuit).  Heart disease was a rarity among these natives.

The anti-blood clotting properties of fish oil were exclaimed at the time and believed to be the primary agent responsible for its heart-health benefits.

Later aspirin was adopted by western medicine because of its anti-clotting properties, only later to be found ineffective in required low-doses (81 mg) in order to avoid sometimes deadly side effects (bleeding gastric ulcers with standard 325 mg aspirin tablets).

Three decades later modern medicine woke up to the fact omega-3s were strongly associated with a healthy lifestyle and began to reinvestigate.

The turn of the century

More than 4500 studies were published over that time.  At the turn of the century the conclusion was that omega-3 fish oil, at a dose of about 1000 mg (1 gram) per day, appears to stabilize heart muscle electrically and result in fewer sudden mortal heart attacks.

The Gruppo Italiano study of 11,324 patients showed a 45% relative reduction in the risk for sudden cardiac death and a 20% reduction in all-cause mortality.  The last number is of importance because certain anti-inflammatory drugs (example: Vioxx) used in recent years reduced some markers of inflammation but resulted in higher death rates overall because of the side effects they produced.  High-dose omega-3 oils (3000-5000 mg) were also shown to lower triglyceride levels by 30-50%, triglycerides being a marker of arterial disease, something vegetable oils don’t do.

It should be mentioned that the mortality rate for coronary artery disease in North America was 240 per 100,000 at the time of this analysis in the early 1990s.  Today it is ~200 per 100,000.  It may be tougher to produce dramatic reductions in heart disease today than it was years ago.

However, even as early as the 1990s while fish oil was being extolled,  researchers conceded there were some negative studies as well as a wide range of responses to supplementation.  Fish oil is not a cure-all for everything, a fact which is borne out in recent studies.

For example, recent studies indicate fish oil is not a therapy for autism, nor does it appear to be effective in reducing risk for colon cancer or diabetes.  Fish oil only modestly reduces risk for heart failure.  But these are null studies.  There was no benefit, but also no harm.

These studies appear to be designed to fail because they cannot possibly be explained by shortages of omega-3 oils, though diabetes was largely absent among Eskimos who consumed more fish oil than any human population on the planet.  However, the fish oil pill trials haven’t employed that much omega-3.

Mortality rates are the gold standard

Omega-3 oils ARE considered to be effective overall against cancer, and they DO reduce mortality from coronary artery disease, and the evidence is lengthy.  Here are selected positive studies that aren’t erased by any negative studies:

• In a review of 21 studies, fish oil reduced overall risk of suffering a cardiovascular event of any kind by 10% and a 9% decrease in risk of cardiac death and a trend to lower total mortality.  – British Journal of Nutrition 2012
• In a review of 20 studies involving 68,680 patients, there was no statistically significant association for all-cause mortality (meaning the PCB-laden fish oils did not increase risk for cancer or cardiac death), nor was there a significant reduction in cardiac death or sudden death.  – Journal American Medical Association 2012
• A daily 250 milligram dose of EPA/DHA substantially reduces the risk of coronary heart disease death and sudden cardiac death with a pooled risk reduction of 36% for coronary heart disease death.  – American Journal Clinical Nutrition 2008
• A review of 20 studies did not show a significant reduction in any cardiac risk or total mortality  taking omega-3 fish oil.  (But again, no anticipated increased risk from PCB exposure either.)  – Circulation Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes 2012
• The Diet and Reinfarction Trial (DART) conducted among 2033 men recovering from heart attacks who opted to take fish oil capsules in preference over eating fish had a 29% reduction in all-cause mortality (even with PCBs) whereas consumption of fatty fish did not reduce mortality.  – Journal Membrane Biology 2005
• A review of 11 studies involving 39,044 patients taking 1800 mg EPA and 1200 DHA daily over a period of 2.2 years resulted in a relative 13% reduction in cardiovascular death and 13% reduction in sudden cardiac death and 8% drop in all-cause mortality.  –Clinical Cardiology 2009
• A 3-year stud of 563 Norwegian males age 64-76 years, most without overt cardiovascular disease, taking 2400 mg omega-3 fish oil resulted in a 43% relative reduction in all-cause mortality and 14% reduction in cardiovascular events.  – European Journal Cardiovascular Rehabilitation 2010
• A review of 14 trials involving 20,485 patients with a history of heart disease employing omega-3 fish oil supplements did not reduce the risk of overall cardiovascular events (heart attacks, strokes) nor all-cause mortality.  – Archives Internal Medicine 2012
• Twelve studies involving 32,779 patients were reviewed and fish oil reduced all-cause mortality by a relative 8% and a reduction in cardiac deaths of 20%.  – British Medical Journal 2008
• Omega-3 fish oil in 8 trials involving 20,997 patients with a prior heart attack resulted in a 57% relative risk reduction for sudden cardiac death (however, among angina patients fish oil increased risk for sudden cardiac death by 39%.  –Annals Medicine 2009

Even with the cherry picking of recent studies, the vast majority of studies show omega-3 fish oils are safe and effective even with assumed PCB contamination.

Slow adoption

However, agonizingly it took modern medicine decades to adopt fish oils.  One published report in 2001 was entitled: “Omega-3 Fatty Acids: From Eskimos To Clinical Cardiology – What Took Us So Long?”   In 2009 another published report in the journal Heart was entitled: “Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Are Still Underappreciated And Underused Post Myocardial Infarction” (after a heart attack).

Only when one pricy brand of fish oil concentrate was approved by the FDA as a drug for lower triglycerides, and it was covered by insurance plans, did doctors fully warm up to the idea of fish oil.  But fish oil isn’t necessarily intended to be a drug that targets individual diseases as drugs do.  It is a broad acting nutrient that promotes health rather than treats, prevents or cures disease.  Sadly, insurance plans don’t pay for non-prescription fish oil pills.

Where fish oil science appears to fizzle is when a study among fish-eating Eskimos themselves shows that they in fact DO develop coronary artery disease (6% among young Eskimos and 26% among senior Eskimos).  Eskimo adults with coronary artery disease consume as much omega-3 oil (3000-4000 mg per day) as those without coronary heart disease.

The problem here is that arterial plaque does not necessarily equate with mortality.  And mortality is the gold standard by which all fish oil products should be evaluated, including Mr. Peskin’s vegetable oil combination.

The distraction

With modern medicine now adopting fish oil into both preventive and therapeutic regimens, Mr. Peskin takes everyone on a self-appointed detour as a set up to promote his own product.  Shame, shame.

We must be vigilant not to take our eye off the ball and start swatting flies.  Modern medicine misdirected the world to reduce cholesterol when it is not the primary component of arterial plaque and cholesterol reduction has not been shown to reduce the coronary artery disease death rate.  Using markers like inflammation or cholesterol does not correlate directly with reduction of cardiac death rates.

Peskin’s pesky postulation

The side argument that Mr. Peskin poses is that fish oil products have undue amounts of toxins and carcinogens (cancer-promoting molecules), particularly PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).  Reduction of PCBs rather than sudden cardiac becomes Mr. Peskin’s misdirected goal.

PCBs are an industrial contaminant that is linked to low-grade inflammation and arterial stiffness.  Pay attention here, because Mr. Peskin uses an arterial stiffness test to validate his own product.

One study found that every fish oil supplement intended for children’s use contains at least small amounts of PCBs with intake levels ranging from 2.5 to 50.3 nanograms of PCBs per day.

PCBs were banned over 30 years ago but there are considered Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) because they simply don’t break down and degrade easily.  The highest rates of exposure however were in the 1970s.  In recent years exposure to PCBs has been reduced by over 35%.

Food is the primary source of PCBs in humans, particularly fish.  There is no question that makers of some cheaply-made fish oil products could do a better job of reducing PCB content, particularly by using deep cold-water sources of fish.  One study shows a wide range of PCBs in fish oil supplements (0.8 to 793.0 nanograms).  Mr. Peskin filed a lawsuit against fish oil companies in California for this very reason.

What Mr. Peskin doesn’t reveal is studies show that omega-3 products actually prevent the arterial problems caused by PCBs.   He also doesn’t cite studies showing fish oil pills reduce exposure to PCBs compared to eating fresh fish.

First do no harm

How much harm could come from consumption of fish oil pills?  A study set out to determine that very thing among older adults.  Ten studies involving nearly 1000 senior adults were analyzed and concluded that no severe adverse events occurred and the adverse event rate for non-serious side effects was not greater than an inactive placebo pill.

Mr. Peskin has built a straw man argument against fish oil pills.  A toxicology review concludes that fish oil dietary supplements do not appreciably increase the total dietary intake of PCBs since they are ubiquitous in the environment.

The Harvard Health Letter says “the benefits of omega-3 fats…… far outweigh the risks.  Mr. Peskin would unfairly characterize fish oil supplements as potentially carcinogenic and risk bringing the whole fish oil supplement industry to its knees in order to promote his own product.

While Mr. Peskin points to two studies showing his “parent essential oil” (PEO) product does reduce arterial stiffness, he compares his product to statin cholesterol-lowering drugs which are known to be ineffective at reducing coronary artery disease mortality.  Water would likely reduce cardiac mortality better than liver-toxic statin drugs.

What Mr. Peskin won’t do is compare his PEO product against fish oil.  Until PEO has some survival data behind it, it remains unproven.  It reduces a marker of arterial disease, admittedly an important one, but we have to keep our eyes on the gold standard — cardiac mortality.

Fish oil is proven to reduce cardiac mortality, albeit modestly.  Copyright 2013 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

One of Hollywood’s goddesses, and undeniably one of the most beautiful women in the world, Angelina Jolie has announced she underwent double mastectomy surgery in February of this year.  Knowing that what Hollywood stars do the public copies — expect a parade of double mastectomies to follow.

Similarly in 2005 when Australian pop singer Kylie Minogue announced she was undergoing cancer treatment, hundreds of thousands of women scheduled screenings, an unexpected outcome that was dubbed “the Kylie effect.”

CNN News anchor Zoraida Sambolin has also jumped on the bandwagon and announced she is undergoing a double mastectomy.

Of course, this is a bonanza for physicians and breast cancer clinics, but are women any healthier and will they survive longer?  That is not likely.  Nor are precious health care dollars being spent wisely.

The news story

In a news story, Angelina Jolie, age 37, is said to have a mutation in her BRCA1 gene that gave her an 87% of developing breast cancer and a 50% chance of developing ovarian cancer in her lifetime.   Surgical removal of both of her breasts is said to reduce her risk for breast cancer to 5%.

The news report says “the brave star hopes that she can encourage other women to be informed and consider their options.”   Bottom line, Jolie is going to become the poster girl for what is likely to become an epidemic of unnecessary screening and treatment.

Apparently actress Jolie appears to have elected to undergo surgery based solely on the results of genetic screening that showed she carries a mutated form of the BRCA-1 gene.  News reports did not say she had any solid tumor in either breast.

Only an estimated 5-10% of American women have a faulty (mutated) BRCA-1 gene.

The unthinkable: breast removal without cancer

What we have here is a previously unthinkable situation.  In private consultation with a surgeon (who certainly is not an unbiased party), a frightened woman can elect to undergo removal of her breasts even though she has no detectable cancer at all, just a BRCA gene mutation.  Surgeons are all too happy to calm a woman’s fears and lop off her breasts before there is any sign of disease whatsoever.

Women whose close family members have succumbed to breast or ovarian cancer are the easiest to talk into lopping off their breasts.  One study shows women whose mothers succumbed to ovarian cancer, like Angelina Jolie, are 7.9 times more likely to opt for surgical removal of their breasts and ovaries than women without a family history.

Risk for gene mutation increases with mammography

What is not disclosed now is that frightened women who have a family history of breast cancer, thanks to the misdirected encouragement of these celebrities, may unwittingly increase their risk to develop BRCA gene mutations in their zeal to get screened.  Here’s how.

Ironically, radiation emitted from x-ray mammography is documented to induce the very mutations in BRCA-1 and 2 genes that are associated with progression of the disease.   Researchers suggest mammography x-rays may not be the method of choice to detect breast cancer among women carrying the BRCA gene mutation.  Now a sinister trick would be to subject women to x-ray mammography just prior to genetic testing, and fresh mutations in their BRCA-a DNA would be detected.  Don’t think some enterprising breast clinic hasn’t thought of this.

Should women with a tumor in one breast undergo double mastectomy?

Most women with a detected lump in a single breast are not likely to face the same situation as Angelina Jolie.  That is because most will not carry a mutated form of the BRCA-1 gene.

Among women who have one breast removed and retain the other breast, there is a 0.4% risk of dying within 5 years and a 6.8% risk of dying within 20 years from first diagnosis.  So women should not necessarily follow Angelina Jolie’s footsteps.

A bulletin just issued by The American Society of Breast Surgeons says women with diagnosed breast cancer in one cancerous breast that choose to undergo surgical removal of their healthy breast face unnecessary complications.  This physician group says there is no strong evidence that suggests the removal of the second breast has a survival benefit.  That advice applies to women without the BRCA-1 gene mutation.

Just when breast screening was going out of vogue

The groundswell of women who are now likely to race to breast clinics for screening, science is pointing to fewer, not more, screening.  A report published in the journal Breast Cancer Research asks: “Is the tide turning against breast screening?”  The report says screening for detected cancers are unlikely to be cases that were “caught early” and more likely represent women who will receive harmful, unnecessary treatment.

Consumer Reports says: “The medical and public-health community has systematically exaggerated the benefits of screening for years and downplayed the harms.  Their report quotes a leading physician to say in 2008 there were an estimated 70,000 women 40 and older who were found to have small, non-aggressive tumors that were treated even though “they probably wouldn’t be life-threatening.”

Lifetime risk for a woman developing breast cancer is ~10%.  This in itself says 9 of 10 women screened for the disease will not benefit from screening and may be mistakenly diagnosed with cancer they don’t have.

About BRCA genes

What is known is that BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 are cancer suppressor genes. A mutation in these genes can spell trouble for women over their lifetime.  Yet, death from breast cancer is not inevitable as it is admitted lifestyle choices reduce the risk considerably.  This suggests these genes are repairable.

It is well known that certain small molecules can aid in DNA repair.  One of the most promising molecules is resveratrol, known as a red wine molecule.

For example, resveratrol has been shown to target BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes and activate them to control breast cancer cell growth in a lab dish.  Reduced activity of the BRCA-1 gene accompanies breast cancer.  In a lab dish, resveratrol activated (increased gene expression) of the BRCA-1 gene human breast cancer cells.

Resveratrol facilitates BRCA gene DNA repair

Resveratrol contributes to the stability of the genome (library of genes) via repair of double-strand DNA breaks.  DNA double-strand DNA breaks, the most severe type of mutation, if unrepaired cause ovarian tissues to age prematurely.

Living cells go through renewal cycles as old cells die and new ones replace them.  Slowing the cell renewal cycle enhances DNA repair and, for example, slow or prevent the susceptibility of healthy ovarian tissues to progress into cancerous tissue.   Low-dose resveratrol slows the cell renewal cycle (S-phase), thus facilitating DNA repair.

Breast cancers emanating from mutated BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes over-activate the hypoxia inducing-1 (HIF-1) gene.  Hypoxia is a state where cancer cells no longer rely upon oxygen for cell energy and produce sugar.  Resveratrol down-regulates the HIF-1 gene.

Resveratrol curbs estrogen

It is also well known that elevated estrogen levels are associated with BRCA gene mutations. Resveratrol has been identified as a natural molecule that serves as a safe replacement for estrogen and is a candidate for prevention of breast cancer.

Furthermore, resveratrol has also been shown to inhibit the movement and spread of cancer (metastasis) in advanced stages of breast cancer.

Resveratrol is considered a superior molecule in preventing the initiating step that turns healthy cells into cancer cells.

Asking physicians about resveratrol

Physicians are not likely to know much about resveratrol in regard breast cancer and any advice to take resveratrol pills would fall outside the existing standard of care for this disease.  However, most women would not be taking resveratrol as treatment but rather prevention.

Asking doctors about resveratrol pills is likely to be met with disfavor.  However, given there is no proven or available breast cancer preventive agent available today, women may want to ask this question: “what harm could come from it?”

Because resveratrol is a natural molecule that is widely available dietary supplement it is not likely to undergo the drug approval process.  If any brand of resveratrol pill would undergo successful testing that it prevents breast cancer it would be forced, by definition, into being a high-priced drug by the Food & Drug Administration.  Even if clinical trials were started soon it would take years to prove resveratrol prevents BRCA-1 mutations that promote breast cancer.  There is no financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies or physicians to submit resveratrol for clinical testing as a breast cancer preventive.

All what you have read here about resveratrol has been published for some time now but not one human clinical trial has been launched for breast cancer prevention.  Modern medicine may be intentionally overlooking the most promising anti-cancer weapon ever conceived.

Women can elect to take resveratrol pills on their own

No brand of resveratrol pill can make any claim it cures, treats or prevents any disease.  But consumers can read and learn about resveratrol and elect to take resveratrol on their own, despite the lack of studies that validate a specific brand.

It is important to recognize most brands of resveratrol pills have been found to be biologically inactive and it would be important to choose a brand that stabilizes resveratrol, as it is a molecule that is vulnerable to degradation once exposed to light, heat or oxygen, as well as a brand that has undergone safe and successful use in animals and humans.  Low dose resveratrol is considered superior to high dose resveratrol.

Based upon the best available evidence today, resveratrol pills are unproven, but certainly not disproven, and are probably the most promising preventive measure against breast cancer that exists, BRCA-1 gene mutations included.  ©2013 Bill Sardi, ResveratrolNews.com and KnowledgeOfHealth.com

A university-based center has now been established to help physicians identify the problem and substitute other less problematic drugs.

A list of the suspect drugs that induce dementia can be found at the Aging Brain Care website.

Magnitude of the problem

Even the university-based center that is tackling this horrific problem failed to underscore the magnitude of the problem.  That may be an admission modern medicine is too embarrassed to put in print.  That figure had to be derived from a compilation of published studies.

One study shows 11-30% of seniors hospitalized for delirium due to drug toxicity; another study shows 28% of patients with memory disorders were taking drugs that inhibit acetycholine; and another study stating approximately half of Alzheimer’s disease patients are using inappropriate medications.  The problem is worldwide, not just confined to the US.

The Aging Brain Care center does reveal the fact that “approximately half of all dementia patients routinely receive contraindicated drugs” (drugs that interfere with nerve transmission called anti-cholinergics), but that estimation is buried in an online report to physicians.

These published studies point to an unrecognized pharmacologically-induced mental health care disaster that is estimated to affect more than 2 million Americans.  The magnitude of this misdiagnosis is balanced by the fact the adverse memory effects of these drugs are reversible with cessation of use.  How modern medicine has hidden this fact for so long goes unexplained.  Now, will modern medicine mount a corrective campaign to correct its ways?  Over 2 million older Americans are mired in a state of drug-induced delirium and can be rescued from their plight.  The American Medical Association (AMA) ought to manpower a task force to address this tragedy in a timely manner.  The Aging Brain Center has the clinical assessment tools to launch this rescue effort.  Whether this happens or not is a question that remains.

Even the very drugs that are prescribed for Alzheimer’s patients appear to hasten mental decline.  Many of the drugs used to treat age-related memory loss are in the class of drugs that interfere with acetycholine, a fact that escapes recognition by many physicians.  The case of an 80-year old man diagnosed as an Alzheimer’s patient is cited whose symptoms did not resolve until he was taken off many problematic drugs that interfere with acetycholine.

Antidotes

There are three antidotes to side effects produced by acetycholine-interfering drugs (called anti-cholinergics).   These agents inhibit the enzyme (Acetycholinesterase) that degrades acetycholine and are known as Acetycholinesterase inhibitors.  The three drugs are physostigmine, galantamine (both drug and dietary supplement) and huperzine, a safe and well-tested herbal supplement.

Huperzine has been shown to reverse the memory deficits produced by a acetycholine-interfering drug (scopolamine).  Huperzine is said to be a more effective drug than Tacrine, a commonly-prescribed drug for Alzheimer’s.

Huperzine, usually prescribed in doses of 200 micrograms twice a day (more is not better), has been shown to improve dementia caused by strokes.  Preliminary data indicates huperzine may be helpful for Alzheimer’s disease itself, though another study says it is largely ineffective.  Yet, researchers continue to point to huperzine in positive terms.

Resveratrol (rez-vair-a-trol), known as a red wine molecule, is also documented as a potent antidote to drugs that block acetycholine.

Quercetin, found naturally in red onions, red apple peel and red wine, is also documented as a strong inhibitor of the enzyme that breaks down acetycholine (acetycholinesterase).  Quercetin was found to be the most potent natural molecule in this regard.

The problems posed by drugs that interfere with acetycholine are reversible by substitution of other drugs, but they too produce unwanted side effects.

The university-based center only offers more drugs as alternatives.  Yet there are safer and less problematic alternatives in the form of nutriceuticals.  A chart of natural alternatives to drugs that interfere with acetycholine is provided below.  © 2013 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

An estimated 3 million Americans are infected with hepatitis C and 3 of 4 don’t know it, says the CDC.  Hep C is a contagious disease that causes 15,000 deaths a year in the US and is a leading cause of liver transplantation.  An estimated 170 million people worldwide are infected with hepatitis C.

Baby Boomers, those Americans who were born between 1945-65, represent 75% of the hepatitis C cases.  Infection is linked to use of injected drugs or blood transfusions during that era.

In effect, the CDC announcement is a free advertisement for the drug companies that produce anti-viral drugs (interferon, ribavirin), drugs that only clear the virus in 50-80% of cases.  Therapy is very arduous and fraught with side effects.  Most infected patients say they will never endure another round of drug therapy.  Drug resistance is another problem.

Progression of the disease is highly variable among infected individuals with health habits and nutrition being paramount factors.  Many Hep C patients smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, are involved with illicit drugs (cocaine, amphetamines) or have poor diets that confound any efforts to help them.  Marijuana smoking increases scarring (fibrosis) of the liver.

The CDC and others health authorities keep beating a drum for an effective vaccine.  Some virologists claim a cure for Hep C “is on the near horizon” in the form of expensive drug cocktails.  Only 1 of 16 Hep C-infected individuals exhibited a positive response to a recently tested experimental vaccine however.   Drug cocktails have produced disappointing results.  The genetic variability of the Hep C virus hampers the development of a vaccine.

What some experts propose is a therapeutic vaccine that stimulates the immune system.   But other investigators note that, at best, “vaccine-induced immunity may not completely prevent Hep C infection but rather prevent persistence of the virus.”

The fact that 20% of infected individuals are able to clear the virus suggests there is a pathway towards a cure.

Persistent drug use, smoking, alcohol consumption stand in the way of any cure as habitual use of these agents impairs the immune system and limits the activation of antibodies produced by vaccines.

It is clear, however, that illicit drugs, tobacco and alcohol all induce deficiencies of certain nutrients that are necessary for a proper functioning immune system.  For example, smoking depletes vitamin C, alcohol depletes zinc, vitamin A, magnesium and vitamin B1.

For example, just the use of vitamin B12 supplements improves the rates of response to medicines used to treat this disease.

Zinc deficiency has been repeatedly identified as a factor that hastens disease progression.  Zinc is required to produce T lymphocytes, a white blood cell produced in the thymus gland.

Zinc supplementation has been documented to reduce gastrointestinal problems, weight loss and hair loss associated among patients with chronic Hep C.  Zinc deficiency is linked with insulin resistance that secondarily develops among chronically infected Hep C individuals.  The lack of zinc apparently results in iron overload which when induces the insulin resistance problem.  A shortage of selenium, another trace mineral, is also associated with Hep C-induced insulin resistance.

Vitamin A deficiency is also very common among Hep C patients.  Low vitamin A levels are associated with a poor response to anti-viral drug therapy.

Low vitamin D levels are also associated with Hep C infection.

Supplementation of the diet with zinc, vitamins A & D (alternate days of supplementation as these two fat-soluble vitamins compete for storage in the liver), and selenium appears to be in order.

Why do public health authorities keep pushing drugs while overlooking nutrients?  © 2013 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

This development is quite surprising given that the FDA said it is going to pay more attention to what are called “primary end points” in drug approvals, such as mortality, rather than just factors that correlate with but may not cause disease.  Or in some circumstances there may be drugs that address relevant measures of disease, but over-inhibition of inflammation or blood sugar or blood pressure, for example, obviously can be problematic.

In recent years the FDA has come under criticism for approval of drugs based upon measurable correlations of disease, such as blood pressure, blood sugar or cholesterol, while not factoring in the ultimate end point — survival.  In fact, all statin cholesterol-lowering drugs from their inception in the late 1970s with Mevacor, were approved on the basis of lowering blood cholesterol concentrations, not cardiac death.

Therefore some anti-inflammatory drugs and anti-diabetic drugs were approved by the FDA only to be removed from the market due to elevated mortality rates.   The liver-toxic statin drugs remain on the market, despite their inability to demonstrate they avert mortal heart attacks.  This may be surprising to patients with heart disease who have been sternly lectured they will incur a heart attack if they don’t take a statin drug.  But John Abramson MD, author of OVERDOSED AMERICA, slammed the door on statin drugs when he analyzed the top ten statin drug trials and found these drugs did not reduce mortality among healthy adults for coronary artery disease.

A recent analysis found that cholesterol, statin drug use and aspirin did not reduce mortality for cardiovascular disease.  Elevated blood sugar (diabetes), not cholesterol, was found to be the primary factor involved in cardiovascular death among middle-aged adults.  A more recent study shows cholesterol accurately indicates risk for cardiac death slightly better than pure chance while elevated blood sugar is highly predictive of mortality from heart disease.

One wonders why and how statins were so rapidly and widely adopted when data did not back their safety or efficacy.  But this writer as alerted readers to the fact that statin drugs reduce testosterone levels and may part of a covert population control agenda.

If not cholesterol, what?

As a side topic, if cholesterol is not a valid marker of coronary artery disease, then what is?

There has been a growing body of evidence in recent years that uric acid is an independent predictor of mortality among high-risk patients with cardiovascular disease.  One of the largest studies of its kind, known as NHANES I, conducted among thousands of patients, and found that individuals with the highest uric acid levels were at the greatest risk for cardiac death.  This landmark study was published 13 years ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association and has not been heeded by modern medicine.

In a study conducted in Israel, the rate of cardiovascular disease was 11.6% for women with the highest uric acid levels compared to 5.0-6.5% among men with lower uric acid levels.  For men, the highest rate of cardiovascular disease occurrence was 14.0% for the highest uric acid levels compared with 10.8% among men in the lowest uric acid group.

A striking study shows that among 78,707 healthy people, free of cardiovascular disease, increasing uric acid levels are significantly associated risk for cardiovascular disease events (heart attacks, strokes) double that of changes in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) “good” cholesterol.  Elevated uric acid is considered causal, not just associated with, heart and blood vessel disease.

While statin drugs don’t significantly reduce cardiac death rates, they do slightly reduce risk for non-mortal heart attacks, which may in fact be due to their demonstrated ability to mildly reduce uric acid levels.

Convincing data shows that drugs (allopurinol) used to treat elevated uric acid levels significantly reduce risk for cardiovascular disease.

Despite this evidence, uric acid is still being debated as a marker for mortality in heart disease.

This health writer has pointed to arterial calcium deposits being the primary culprit in coronary artery disease, and upon further investigation, it is found that blood serum uric acid levels serve as a marker for coronary artery calcification.  High uric acid levels correlate with arterial stiffness, which is usually induced by calcifications, not cholesterol.

More concerning, uric acid levels in the normal range as associated with increased risk for heart and blood vessel disease.  This can be explained by the fact blood analysis presents what is called the reference range or commonly-found range for various measures in blood samples, it often does not represent disease range.

Researchers note that uric acid levels are routinely obtained but clinicians may not be alerted to their significance. acid.

What causes elevated uric acid?

In turn, uric acid may be a result of excessive iron stores in the body.  In one study 20.7% of individuals with high uric acid had high iron storage (ferritin) levels versus 8.8% of individuals with low uric acid levels.  The relationship between high uric acid levels and high iron stores is confirmed by other studies as well.

Nature has answers to high uric acid levels

The enzyme xanthine oxidase is the precursor for uric acid.  There are many natural xanthine oxidase inhibitors which can be used to control uric acid, virtually all of them being iron-binding molecules called polyphenols.

One study found molecules from the Asian raisin tree (myricetin), from red onions or red apple peel (quercetin), parsley (apigenin) inhibit xanthine oxidase at very low concentrations.  Extracts from cranberries, purple grape juice and black tea similarly inhibit this enzyme.  In another study of twelve natural molecules, an extract from blue skullcap (esculetin) or Chinese skullcap (baicalin) displayed the strongest ability to inhibit xanthine oxidase.  Cherries are also known to lower uric acid levels, tart cherries in particular.

High doses of vitamin C, averaging 500 milligrams or more, also significantly reduce uric acid levels.  IP6 rice bran extract, which serves as an iron-binder and is available as a dietary supplement, has also been found to reduce uric acid levels.  © 2013 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.

The anticipation builds for anti-cancer drugs that target a broad array of genes that combat various types of cancer in different organs rather than a different drug for each cancer by their anatomical origin.  Instead of anti-cancer drugs for each organ, such as lung, prostate, breast and colon, geneticists now say new drugs in development may address many forms of cancer.

The first examples of this new thinking are studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine showing uterine cancer and leukemia have similar genetic fingerprints and could be treated by the same drug.  A large effort to this end is being commandeered at the Cancer Genome Atlas website.

However, the thinking is far too narrow now that geneticists know diseases are integrated via gene networks.  An online map can be viewed showing genes in many diseases overlap one another (note: it takes time to load).

Gone is the idea of using single-gene targeted drugs like Herceptin and Erbitux even though these drugs are still in common use today.  Given knowledge that cancer involves many genes, these gene-targeted drugs, which only prolong life by a few months, should be abandoned.

I responded to The New York Times report of this so-called breakthrough by submitting an online comment that asks: why not activate genes that promote health and prevent disease altogether rather than allowing cancer to get started? In other words, why not promote health rather than treat disease?

Genes are not static in nature.  Yes, if there is an abnormality in the DNA ladder that is called a gene mutation.  Researchers have identified 291 human genes that are mutated in human cancer, though not all of these are involved in a particular type of cancer.  Cancer actually causes gene mutations.

But researchers reveal cancer doesn’t just involve inherited or developed structural gene mutations (breaks in the DNA ladder) but also involves the dynamic protein-making capacity many genes, a process called epigenetics. When genes are making proteins this is called gene expression and when they are not this is called gene silencing.

Based on currently available knowledge, what gene-switching pattern is known to promote health and inhibit cancer?  That would be a gene pattern produced by calorie restriction, know to approximately double the lifespan and healthspan of animals and inhibit or delay cancer by cutting caloric intake in half.

In laboratory mice it is known that a calorie restricted diet practiced over the animal’s lifetime will significantly alter 831 genes.

The epigenetic effect of a limited calorie diet can be molecularly mimicked by consumption of small molecules that influence a broad array of genes.

A short-term study was conducted in 2008 where biologists compared a limited-calorie, a standard calorie diet plus resveratrol, a small molecule commonly found in red wine that is known for its anti-aging and anti-cancer properties and as a molecular mimic of calorie restriction, and a matrix of small molecules commonly found in red wine that included resveratrol as provided in a commercially available nutriceutical (Longevinex®).

In 12-weeks the calorie restriction diet significantly altered 198 genes and resveratrol 225 genes with overlap of many of these genes, partially confirming resveratrol molecularly mimics a limited calorie diet.  However, it would presumably require life-long consumption of resveratrol to molecularly achieve the same effect produced by life-long calorie restriction.

However, the resveratrol-based matrix (Longevinex®) activated 1711 genes and switched 81% of the 831 genes in the same direction as calorie restriction.  To date, this is the closest any array of small molecules has come to mirroring the effects of a limited calorie diet, at least in animals.

Why not go to the doctor to get your health pill rather than your disease treatment pill?  Why wait for disease to occur and then treat it when it could be prevented altogether?  Of course, such a paradigm shift in modern medicine would make cab drivers out of most oncologists.  Don’t anticipate any revolutionary change like this to occur in your lifetime.  — © 2013 Bill Sardi, Knowledge of Health, Inc.