Tue 18 Jan 2011

Selenium and Pseudoexfoliation Syndrome

Posted by mdnutrition under eye, Multivitamin, Selenium
No Comments

Most of you have never heard of Pseudoexfoliation (PEX) syndrome, and may wonder why I am writing an article about it. This condition causes flakes of material to form in the front of the eye with the potential to plug up the trabecular meshwork and thus cause  a type of glaucoma. It also increases the complication rate of cataract and implant surgery. It is therefore important for ophthalmologists to identify this condition

A brand new research paper looked at selenium levels of eye fluids obtained at cataract surgery of both PEX patients and normal controls. They found a highly significant difference in the selenium concentration between these two  groups. They also found a difference in blood levels that was less significant. The obvious conclusion is that patients with low levels of selenium are more likely to develop PEX.

While I do not recommend that patients take a selenium capsule, I do recommend that people take a daily multivitamin that contains selenium. However, 150 mcg of selenium should be in a good quality multivitamin. Most OTC vitamins do not supply this necessary micronutrient. The Perfect Multi line of multivitamins that I recommend as the best vitamins to take does contain that amount. This is  yet another reason why taking a complete and well formulated multivitamin is important for our health.

Here is the complete reprint.

Am J Ophthalmol. 2010 Dec 17. [Epub ahead of print]

Selenium and Pseudoexfoliation Syndrome.

Yilmaz A, Ayaz L, Tamer L.

Department of Ophthalmology, Mersin University Faculty of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the levels of selenium (Se), an essential trace element, in aqueous humor, conjunctival specimens, and serum of patients with pseudoexfoliation (PEX) syndrome and control subjects; and to determine the role of Se in the development and pathogenesis of PEX syndrome.

DESIGN: A prospective case-control study.

METHODS: Twenty-seven cataract patients with PEX syndrome and 20 age-matched cataract patients without PEX syndrome were enrolled in this institutional study. Patients with ophthalmic conditions other than PEX and conditions that may influence Se levels were excluded. During cataract surgeries, aqueous humor, conjunctival specimens, and serum were collected in both groups. Selenium levels of all samples were measured by using atomic absorption spectrophotometer.

RESULTS: The mean Se levels in aqueous humor of patients with PEX syndrome (50.96 ± 23.79 μg/L) were significantly lower than the control group (77.85 ± 19.21 μg/L) (P < .001). The mean Se levels in conjunctival specimens of patients with PEX syndrome (4.04 ± 1.44 μg/mg) were significantly lower than the control group (7.19 ± 2.00 μg/mg) (P < .001), as well. The mean Se levels in serum of patients with PEX syndrome (115.25 ± 25.20 μg/L) were lower than the control group (124.25 ± 14.40 μg/L), but this was not statistically significant (P = .325).

CONCLUSION: Reduced levels of Se in aqueous humor, conjunctival specimens, and serum of patients with PEX may support the role of impairment in antioxidant defense system in the pathogenesis of PEX syndrome.

 

 

 

Fri 14 Jan 2011

Shopping for Meat–Caveat Emptor

Posted by mdnutrition under Uncategorized
No Comments

What do most people look for  when they shop for meat in the meat market?  How do shoppers know that the meat is fresh? They look for the color. If it is nice and red, it’s assumed to be fresh. If if has a grayish cast, it is usually passed over. Thus the color of the meat has always been used to determine freshness. That is until now. It seems that meat processors are using carbon monoxide to gas the meat prior to packaging. When carbon monoxide combines with hemoglobin it produces carboxyhemoglobin, a compound with a bright red color. That is why carbon monoxide poisoning victims, even after death, have that cherry red appearance. The meat nicely wrapped  in the plastic wrap may be spoiled rotten, but it will still maintain that nice red coloration.

This practice, however widespread, must  be  stopped at once. Color is the only way shoppers can judge freshness. If this practice is  allowed, that will no longer be possible. Carbon monoxide does nothing to preserve the meat, only to alter its appearance. It does not matter that there is no longer any carbon monoxide in the package, its usage alters the way customers judge their meat purchases, and it is  for this reason that its usage should be stopped.

 

Tue 7 Dec 2010

Protecting against Age-Related Hearing Loss

Posted by mdnutrition under Uncategorized
No Comments

An early study that examined the blood levels of folate in subjects has found that patients with hearing loss also have low levels of circulating folate  compared with age-matched persons with normal hearing.

This study needs to be followed up with a clinical trial giving a group folic acid and following them over time. This  study will be long term and expensive. In the meantime, make sure you are taking folate daily. It should be in your multivitamin.

Here is the report:

Age-related hearing loss, vitamin B12, and folate in the elderly

Reference: “Age-related hearing loss, vitamin B12, and folate in the elderly,” Lasisi AO, Yusuf OB, et al, Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2010; 143(6): 826-30. (Address: Department of Otorhinolaryngology, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria).
Summary: In a study involving subjects aged 60 years or more, results suggest that folate supplementation may have a beneficial role to play in persons with age-related hearing loss (ARHL). Subjects with hearing loss had significantly lower serum folate levels than subjects with normal pure tone average (PTA) in the speech and high frequencies. Additionally, after adjusting for potential confounders, an inverse association was observed between serum folate concentration and increasing hearing threshold in the high frequencies. Thus, the authors of this study conclude, “Serum folate was significantly lower among elderly with ARHL. Trials on nutritional supplementation may substantiate the role of serum folate in ARHL.”
 

Sat 4 Dec 2010

CoQ10 May Protect against Cataracts

Posted by mdnutrition under Uncategorized
No Comments

A new in-vitro study on human lens epithelial cells shows that by pre-incubitation of these cells by CoQ10 was able to help the cells protect themselves from light exposure. While this is not a human trial, it is more good evidence that good nutrition helps us stay healthy. This might be especially important for Statin takers who have diminished CoQ10 due to the effect of their drug.

Here is the text of the abstract.

Topic: Coenzyme Q10 May Protect Against Cataract Formation – In Vitro Results are Promising
Keywords: CATARACT, VISION, EYE DISEASE, BLINDNESS - Coenzyme Q10, CoQ10, Ubiquinone, Ubiquinol, Antioxidants
Reference: “Coenzyme Q10 prevents human lens epithelial cells from light-induced apoptotic cell death by reducing oxidative stress and stabilizing BAX / Bcl-2 ratio,” Kernt M, Hirneiss C, et al, Acta Ophthalmol, 2010 April 1; [Epub ahead of print]. (Address: Department of Ophthalmology, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany).
Summary: In an in vitro study involving human lens epithelial cells (LEC), pre-incubation with coenzyme Q10 prior to exposure to white light (known to induce stress and apoptotic cell death) was found to significantly reduce phototoxic cell death and apoptosis, and reduce the light exposure-induced decrease in Bcl-2 expression and increase in BAX expression, as compared to cells that were not pre-incubated with coenzyme Q10. In other words, “CoQ10 significantly reduced light-induced LEC-damage and attenuated phototoxic effects on BAX and Bcl-2 expression.” These results suggest that supplementation with coenzyme Q10 may help to prevent the death of human lens epithelial cells and the formation of cataracts. Considering that cataract is “one of the most prevalent eye disease and a major cause for legal blindness in the world,” these results are promising and warrant additional research.

 

 

Fri 22 Oct 2010

Does Fluoridated water reduce need for Dentists?

Posted by mdnutrition under fluoride, Uncategorized
No Comments

The strongest (and only) argument for putting fluoride in our water is that it makes teeth stronger and reduces cavities. If this is so, then it logically follows that the numbers of dentists practicing in areas of fluoridated water should be less if that were true. In fact, the opposite is true. The following is a quotation from Winston Kao’s subsite that substantiates the point.

“The 1976 edition of the C.B.S. News Almanac published figures showing the number of dentists per 100,000 population in 30 “Representative American Cities.” Of these 30 cities, 16 were artificially fluoridated. A simple comparison of the fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated cities shows that there were an average of 76.7 dentists per 100,000 population in the fluoridated cities, vs. 59.2 dentists per 100,000 in the non-fluoridated cities. Furthermore, data from the 1971 American Dental Directory, the 1971 U.S. Statistical Abstracts and the 1973 World Almanac reveals that the three American cities which have been fluoridated the longest (Grand Rapids, Newburgh, and Evanston) averaged 121 dentists per 100,000 population, or over twice the national average, after approximately 25 years on fluoridated water. (Data compiled by Phillip R.N. Sutton, D.D.Sc., Melbourne, Australia, 1979.)”

This may be the best evidence we have that “fluoride is good for the teeth” is untrue and self-serving. We need a better informed public discourse about this most important subject.
 

Wed 13 Oct 2010

About “Objections” to Vitamin C Therapy

Posted by mdnutrition under Uncategorized
No Comments

s/index.shtml are included.
This is a news release from the Orthomolecular Medicine Society that was so good, I thought I would reprint it in its entirety. I am a huge advocate of vitamin C because the eye has more  vitamin C than any other organ in the body. It has been shown in reputable studies to prevent macular degeneration,   cataract and glaucoma. How much more could we ask of one substance.


Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, October 12, 2010

About “Objections” to Vitamin C Therapy

(OMNS October 12, 2010) In massive doses, vitamin C (ascorbic acid) stops a cold within hours, stops influenza in a day or two, and stops viral pneumonia (pain, fever, cough) in two or three days. (1) It is a highly effective antihistamine, antiviral and antitoxin. It reduces inflammation and lowers fever. Administered intravenously, ascorbate kills cancer cells without harming healthy tissue. Many people therefore wonder, in the face of statements like these, why the medical professions have not embraced vitamin C therapy with open and grateful arms.

Probably the main roadblock to widespread examination and utilization of this all-too-simple technology is the equally widespread belief that there must be unknown dangers to tens of thousands of milligrams of ascorbic acid. Yet, since the time megascorbate therapy was introduced in the late 1940′s by Fred R. Klenner, M.D. (2), there has been an especially safe, and extremely effective track record to follow.

Still, for some, questions remain. Here is a sample of what readers have asked OMNS about vitamin C:

Is 2,000 mg/day of vitamin C a megadose?
No. Decades ago, Linus Pauling and Irwin Stone showed that most animals make at least that much (or more) per human body weight per day. (3,4)

Then why has the government set the “Safe Upper Limit for vitamin C at 2,000 mg/day?
Perhaps the reason is ignorance. According to nationwide data compiled by the American Association of Poison Control Centers, vitamin C (and the use of any other dietary supplement) does not kill anyone. (5)

Does vitamin C damage DNA?
No. If vitamin C harmed DNA, why do most animals make (not eat, but make) between 2,000 and 10,000 milligrams of vitamin C per human equivalent body weight per day? Evolution would never so favor anything that harms vital genetic material. White blood cells and male reproductive fluids contain unusually high quantities of ascorbate. Living, reproducing systems love vitamin C.

Does vitamin C cause low blood sugar, B-12 deficiency, birth defects, or infertility?
Vitamin C does not cause birth defects, nor infertility, nor miscarriage. “Harmful effects have been mistakenly attributed to vitamin C, including hypoglycemia, rebound scurvy, infertility, mutagenesis, and destruction of vitamin B-12. Health professionals should recognize that vitamin C does not produce these effects.” (6)

Does vitamin C . . .
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 14 day trial of 3,000 mg per day of vitamin C reported greater frequency of sexual intercourse. The vitamin C group (but not the placebo group) also experienced a quantifiable decrease in depression. This is probably due to the fact that vitamin C “modulates catecholaminergic activity, decreases stress reactivity, approach anxiety and prolactin release, improves vascular function, and increases oxytocin release. These processes are relevant to sexual behavior and mood.” (7)

Does vitamin C cause kidney stones?
No. The myth of the vitamin C-caused kidney stone is rivaled in popularity only by the Loch Ness Monster. A factoid-crazy medical media often overlooks the fact that William J. McCormick, M.D., demonstrated that vitamin C actually prevents the formation of kidney stones. He did so in 1946, when he published a paper on the subject. (8) His work was confirmed by University of Alabama professor of medicine Emanuel Cheraskin, M.D.. Dr. Cheraskin showed that vitamin C inhibits the formation of oxalate stones. (9)

Other research reports that: “Even though a certain part of oxalate in the urine derives from metabolized ascorbic acid, the intake of high doses of vitamin C does not increase the risk of calcium oxalate kidney stones. . . (I)n the large- scale Harvard Prospective Health Professional Follow-Up Study, those groups in the highest quintile of vitamin C intake (greater than 1,500 mg/day) had a lower risk of kidney stones than the groups in the lowest quintiles.” (10)

Dr. Robert F. Cathcart said, “I started using vitamin C in massive doses in patients in 1969. By the time I read that ascorbate should cause kidney stones, I had clinical evidence that it did not cause kidney stones, so I continued prescribing massive doses to patients. Up to 2006, I estimate that I have put 25,000 patients on massive doses of vitamin C and none have developed kidney stones. Two patients who had dropped their doses to 500 mg a day developed calcium oxalate kidney stones. I raised their doses back up to the more massive doses and added magnesium and B-6 to their program and no more kidney stones. I think they developed the kidney stones because they were not taking enough vitamin C.”

Why did Linus Pauling die from cancer if he took all that vitamin C?
Linus Pauling, PhD, megadose vitamin C advocate, died in 1994 from prostate cancer. Mayo Clinic cancer researcher Charles G. Moertel, M.D., critic of Pauling and vitamin C, also died in 1994, and also from cancer (lymphoma). Dr. Moertel was 66 years old. Dr. Pauling was 93 years old. One needs to make up ones own mind as to whether this does or does not indicate benefit from vitamin C.

A review of the subject indicates that “Vitamin C deficiency is common in patients with advanced cancer . . . Patients with low plasma concentrations of vitamin C have a shorter survival.” (11)

Does vitamin C narrow arteries or cause atherosclerosis?
Abram Hoffer, M.D., has said: “I have used vitamin C in megadoses with my patients since 1952 and have not seen any cases of heart disease develop even after decades of use. Dr. Robert Cathcart with experience on over 25,000 patients since 1969 has seen no cases of heart disease developing in patients who did not have any when first seen. He added that the thickening of the vessel walls, if true, indicates that the thinning that occurs with age is reversed. . . The fact is that vitamin C decreases plaque formation according to many clinical studies. Some critics ignore the knowledge that thickened arterial walls in the absence of plaque formation indicate that the walls are becoming stronger and therefore less apt to rupture. . . Gokce, Keaney, Frei et al gave patients supplemental vitamin C daily for thirty days and measured blood flow through the arteries. Blood flow increased nearly fifty percent after the single dose and this was sustained after the monthly treatment. (12).”

What about blood pressure?
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study showed that hypertensive patients taking supplemental vitamin C had lower blood pressure. (13)

So why the flurry of anti-vitamin-C reporting in the mass media? Negative news gets attention. Negative news sells newspapers, and magazines, and pulls in lots of television viewers. Positive drug studies do get headlines, of course. Positive vitamin studies do not. Is this a conspiracy? You mean with unscrupulous people all sitting around a shaded table in a darkened back room? Of course not. It is nevertheless an enormous public health problem with enormous consequences.

150 million Americans take supplemental vitamin C every day. This is as much a political issue as a scientific issue. What would happen if everybody took vitamins? Perhaps doctors, hospital administrators and pharmaceutical salespeople would all be lining up for their unemployment checks.

A skeptic might conclude that there is at least some evidence that the politicians are on the wrong side of this. After all, the US RDA for vitamin C for humans is only 10% of the government’s USDA vitamin C standards for Guinea pigs. (14) But conspiracy against nutritional medicine? Certainly not. Couldn’t be.
References and Additional Reading:

(1) Cathcart RF. Vitamin C, titration to bowel tolerance, anascorbemia, and acute induced scurvy.” Medical Hypothesis 7:1359-1376, 1981. http://www.doctoryourself.com/titration.html

See also: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v05n09.shtml andhttp://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v05n11.shtml

(2) Saul AW. Hidden in plain sight: the pioneering work of Frederick Robert Klenner, M.D. J Orthomolecular Med, 2007. Vol 22, No 1, p 31-38. http://www.doctoryourself.com/klennerbio.html and http://orthomolecular.org/hof/2005/fklenner.html

Dr. F.R. Klenner’s Clinical Guide to the Use of Vitamin C is posted in its entirety athttp://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/198x/smith-lh-clinical_guide_1988.htm

(3) Pauling L. How to Live Longer and Feel Better. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 2006. Reviewed athttp://www.doctoryourself.com/livelonger.html . Linus Pauling’s complete vitamin and nutrition bibliography is posted athttp://www.doctoryourself.com/biblio_pauling_ortho.html

(4) The complete text of Irwin Stone’s book The Healing Factor is posted for free reading athttp://vitamincfoundation.org/stone/

(5) http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n04.shtml

(6) Levine M et al. JAMA, April 21, 1999. Vol 281, No 15, p 1419.

(7) High-dose ascorbic acid increases intercourse frequency and improves mood: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Brody S. Biol Psychiatry 2002 Aug 15; 52(4):371-4.

(8) McCormick WJ. Lithogenesis and hypovitaminosis. Medical Record, 1946. 159:7, July, p 410-413.

(9) Cheraskin E, Ringsdorf, Jr. M and Sisley E. The Vitamin C Connection: Getting Well and Staying Well with Vitamin C. New York: Harper and Row, 1983. Also paperback, 1984: New York, Bantam Books. “Vitamin C in the urine tends to bind calcium and decrease its free form. This means less chance of calcium’s separating out as calcium oxalate (stones).” [page 213] See also: Ringsdorf WM Jr, Cheraskin E. Nutritional aspects of urolithiasis. South Med J. 1981 Jan;74(1):41-3, 46.

(10) Gerster H. No contribution of ascorbic acid to renal calcium oxalate stones. Ann Nutr Metab. 1997;41(5):269-82. See also: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v01n07.shtml

(11) Mayland CR, Bennett MI, Allan K. Vitamin C deficiency in cancer patients. Palliat Med. 2005 Jan;19(1):17-20. See also:http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v01n09.shtml and http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n19.shtml

(12) Free full text paper at http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/99/25/3234
See also: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n20.shtml andhttp://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v01n02.shtml

(13) Duffy SJ, Gokce N, Holbrook M, Huang A, Frei B, Keaney JF Jr, Vita JA. Treatment of hypertension with ascorbic acid. Lancet. 1999 Dec 11;354(9195):2048-9.

(14) http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n08.shtml
Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information:http://www.orthomolecular.org

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.
Editorial Review Board:

Ian Brighthope, M.D. (Australia)
Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (Canada)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Michael Ellis, M.D. (Australia)
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (United Kingdom)
James A. Jackson, Ph.D. (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D. (Sweden)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Canada)
Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)

Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person. Email: omns@orthomolecular.org

To Subscribe at no charge: http://www.orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html

 

 

Wed 13 Oct 2010

An Homage to Robert Crayhon

Posted by mdnutrition under Uncategorized
No Comments

It has now been several weeks  since Robert Crayhon died, and few days have passed without my thinking of him. Robert was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer in the Spring, and, in spite of massive chemotherapy, he did not last 6 months.

My first exposure to Robert was in the year 1991. I was beginning to get interested in nutrition at that time. In the previous few years I had begun to notice that macular degeneration patients that I had placed on vitamins seemed to experience a slower rate of decline in their vision. Then I had a right carotid endarterectomy for a blocked artery. I was told by my physician to reduce cholesterol in my diet, avoiding eggs and  red meat. I became a vegetarian for the next year. After a year, I found that my blood studies were not only not improved, but worse. At that moment, I decided that I was going to learn how to prevent my  other carotid from following the same course. I learned that Robert was giving a 1 day course in nutrition in Houston. I went and discovered a complete world of medicine that I knew virtually nothing about. I was hooked. Robert had the ability to make a subject that was totally new to me and make it fascinating. He was funny, and very knowledgeable. Everything he talked about was  well documented with research in well-respected medical journals. This did not appear to me to be alternative or complimentary medicine, but real medicine, based on the biochemistry that I learned in medical school. I could not understand why this entire subject had been so neglected by the medical establishment and our medical schools.

At the time, Robert was offering an upcoming seminar in Stamford, CT. which I immediately signed up for. In the interim 9/11 happened. I called Robert and said I didn’t think I wanted to go. He said that he had been flying and said I would be safe. The plane was almost empty, La Guardia was empty, and Hertz was empty. Stanfordfest, as it was called, was the real beginning of my life in nutrition, thanks to Robert.

Since then I have been to almost every conference that Robert offered. His conferences were always priced so that everyone interested in nutrition could attend. I suspect that he never made much money from all his efforts in teaching and offering seminars. People came year after year, so that many of us became close friends. It was like a homecoming. And at the core of it, you could sense the admiration and respect that everyone had for Robert.

One can only speculate why someone with an intense interest in health would ignore his own symptoms. All of us to some extent think things that we do are amulets in some way, keeping the evil spirits of trouble and ill health at bay. Good nutrition, for all its benefits is not an amulet. Is is quite easy for any of us to fall into the same mindset. I have done it myself.

I am richer for having known Robert and studied under him. There are many of us who owe  him a huge debt of gratitude for what he has taught us. We will miss Robert. I will miss Robert. The world of nutrition will be impoverished with his passing.

 

Sun 26 Sep 2010

The Case against Fluoridation.

Posted by mdnutrition under fluoride, toxicity
1 Comment

Readers of this blog will remember that I am not in favor of adding fluoride to our water supply. The argument for adding fluoride to our water supply rests strongly on the possibility of it reducing cavities. I am not a dentist and not an expert on this issue. Let’s assume for the moment that fluoride indeed does reduce cavities (not a universal opinion by the way). Does that alone justify treating the entire body of every single person in the community in order to reduce cavities?

When we add chlorine to our water supply, we are treating the water in order to reduce  water-borne diseases like dysentery. When we add fluoride to the water supply, we are not treating water (because  water does not need fluoride  to be safe), but the population at large. Thus we are medicating the entire population, whether everyone likes it or not. For those of us who do not like fluoride, removing it is very problematic,  in that fluoride is very difficult to remove from water once it has been added. Is it ethical to be treating everyone in order to benefit some?

What are the effects of fluoride on the rest of our body? Has fluoride been proven to benefit us in other ways than preventing cavities? If one looks at properties of fluoride, it is considered not as a micronutrient, something we need in small quantities, but rather as a toxin, much like mercury, lead or cadmium. Toxins are something that are harmful to us in any quantity. Fluoride, like lead, is concentrated in our bones and teeth, resulting in a disease called skeletal fluorosis. It takes a considerable amount of time for skeletal fluorosis to develop. Depending on  the amount of fluoride intake, it can take from 10 to 20 years for this condition to become manifest. Most of the effects are upon the vertebral column where bony overgrowth are noted. Spinal stenosis (shrinkage of the vertebral canal containing the spinal cord), foraminal stenosis (shrinkage of the openings for the spinal nerves), calcification of the  anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments (reducing forward and backward flexibility), and  bony overgrowth of the vertebral  bodies, limiting twisting.

When an effect occurs  closely after a cause, it is usually fairly easy to identify. When cause and effect are separated by 1 to 2 decades, the link be comes  difficult at best. This is why it is difficult to prove that it is the fluoride in the water that is causing such problems. I will  wager that every single one of us knows someone who is suffering from some kind of spinal disease. Pinched nerve, siatica, herniated disc are all terms that  we use to discuss these issues. Many of them can be explained on the basis of skeletal fluorosis.

The fluoride we add to our water is not pharmaceutical grade fluoride, but the industrial waste produce of the aluminum  and fertilizer industry. Fluorine is the most reactive element in the periodic table. So reactive it etches glass. The fluoride they use in our water can’t be transported in stainless steel tanker trucks, as the fluoride literally corrodes the stainless steel. Thus they have to use a think rubber liner that protects the tanker truck. However, these liners themselves are attacked by the fluoride to the point that they only last a year or so. It doesn’t take much imagination to know where the dissolved  rubber ends up. Yes, in the water. Has anyone done any studies on the toxicity of these rubber products? I think not.

At the very least we ought to re-examine this whole issue of adding fluoride to our water systems. This issue ought to have a public discussion and a vote. It seems to be to be the very least we should expect on this very important public health issue.

 

Sat 11 Sep 2010

New Liquid Multivitamin, the Perfect Multi Liquid

Posted by mdnutrition under Uncategorized
No Comments

I hear many patients complain about  swallowing large capsules. Invariably they ask me for a recommendation for a  liquid multivitamin. Until now I have not had a good response for them. Just recently, Purity Products, a company that makes all of the multivitamin products I highly recommend, has come out with a liquid version of its best selling multi called the Perfect Multi Liquid. Like its capsular counterpart, it has a very complete formula and it tastes good. So, for those of you who dread the thought of getting down large capsules, here is the solution.

 

Thu 19 Aug 2010

High Fructose Corn Syrup vs Sugar

Posted by mdnutrition under Uncategorized
No Comments

The following is  letter I wrote in response to an article in a trade magazine extolling the virtues of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that now sweetens almost every product in the supermarket.

Dear Madam:

I feel I must make a comment or two about your piece about artificial sweeteners. The promise of artificial sweeteners when they were first introduced was that people who used them would have less tendency towards obesity by reducing their caloric intake by using such artificial sweeteners. It made sense then and it still does today. However, a study that proves this hypothesis has never been done. Thus, we have been in this country on a vast experiment of using literally tons of artificial sweeteners as a nation without having the scientific basis for doing so.

Artificial sweeteners have been used heavily in this country for the past 25 years or so. It would seem then that if this hypothesis is correct that lower caloric intake from these substances would indeed result in less obesity, we should be seeing some sign of this in our national obesity rates. Instead, the opposite is true, as anyone going to an amusement park in the summer can testify.

Now that artificial sweeteners are well accepted by the public, there is little reason for the sweetener manufactures to  fund such a study. In fact, there is much to indicate that instead of losing weight, weight gain would be the result. Such a study would have to be funded by the government for these reasons and they are not likely to do so.

I also find your comment that HFCS and sucrose are metabolically the same to  be less than accurate. IV glucose can be used to sustain life in emergency room situations, as glucose is metabolized to CO2 and energy. IV HFCS cannot be used to sustain life in the same circumstances, as  fructose is metabolized to acetate fragments, which are ultimately metabolized to sterol rings (think cholesterol). Could today’s epidemic of elevated cholesterol levels be a consequence of too much HFCS in our diets?

Lastly, while fructose has been forever consumed by humans in the form of fruit, the sheer volume of fructose in American diets as a result of soft drink intake has resulted in a great imbalance in our intake of sugars, vastly overloading our ability to metabolize fructose. HFCS is now known to be a stimulus for metabolic syndrome, the precondition of diabetes.

Sugar is a  better sweetener from both a taste and nutritional standpoint.

Sincerely,

Jim McNabb MD, CNS

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »