Q&A _ Important Heart Health Procedure Under Used

We personally endorse this procedure as well as Dr. Evenhuis. 

We trust him and we personally like him.

Sam and Bunny

No surgery and results the same as bypass. 

No wonder doctors are keeping this secret!!

The only facility for EECP in Collier County is:

Walther R Evenhuis, MD
(239) 262-5770
1351 Pine St
Naples, FL
Specialty
Cardiology, Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Disease

Q&A
Q: What is angina? A: Angina is the global term for all symptoms associated with coronary artery disease, which occurs when the heart is not receiving enough blood. It occurs when vessels that carry blood to the heart muscle become dysfunctional, and are often narrowed or blocked. Angina may feel like chest pain or pressure, shortness of breath, pain in the jaw, neck, arms, back, nausea, or generalized fatigue. Each patient experiences angina differently.
Q: What does EECP stand for? A: The acronym EECP stands for Enhanced External Counterpulsation.
Q: What is EECP? A: EECP is a non-invasive, outpatient treatment for heart disease that is used to relieve or eliminate angina. During the treatment, blood pressure cuffs are wrapped around your legs, and squeeze and release in sync with your heartbeat, promoting blood flow throughout your body and particularly to your heart. In the process, EECP develops new pathways around blocked arteries in the heart by expanding networks of tiny blood vessels (“collaterals”) that help increase and normalize blood flow to the heart muscle. For this reason, it is often called the natural bypass.
Q: What are the advantages of EECP? A: Unlike bypass surgery, balloon angioplasty, and stenting procedures, EECP is non-invasive, carries no risk, is comfortable, and is administered in outpatient sessions.
Q: Are there any risks or side effects of EECP? A: EECP is safe. Occasionally, some patients experience mild skin irritation under the areas of the blood pressure cuffs. Experienced EECP therapists address this irritation by using extra padding where needed to make the patient comfortable. Some patients experience a bit more fatigue at the beginning of their course of treatment, but it usually subsides after the first few sessions. In fact, patients typically feel energized by EECP.
Q: How long does EECP take? A: The standard course of treatment is one hour per day, five days per week, for seven weeks (a total of 35 one-hour sessions). Some patients have two treatments in one day in order to complete the program more quickly. Some patients extend the program beyond 35 treatments, depending on their particular medical situation and goals.
Q: When can I expect to start feeling better from EECP?A: Most patients begin to experience beneficial results from EECP between their 15th and 25th treatments. These benefits include increased stamina, improved sleeping patterns, decreased angina, and less reliance on nitroglycerin and other medications. There is variation, certainly, and some patients start to feel better as soon as their first week of treatment!
Q: What happens if I miss a treatment?A: You are encouraged to come for your EECP treatment everyday. However, missing a day will not have a negative effect on your overall results. When you come back, you will simply pick up where you left off, and the missed treatment will be added to the end of your program until you have a total of 35 sessions. Just like exercise, the more consistent you are with your EECP schedule, the better your results will be.
Q: What does EECP feel like?A: EECP feels like a deep muscle massage to your legs. During the treatment, you do not feel anything in the chest or heart. You only feel the cuffs that are wrapped around your legs squeezing in time to your own heartbeat. Our patients have affectionately described this sensation as “gentle hugs.” Most of our patients relax, listen to music, or read during their treatments. Some even sleep!
Q: Do the benefits of EECP last?A: Yes. In patients followed for three to five years after treatment, the benefits of EECP, including less angina, less nitroglycerin usage, and improved blood flow patterns documented on stress tests, had lasted.
Q: How does EECP compare to angioplasty or bypass surgery? A: The five-year outcomes for EECP patients are virtually the same as for angioplasty and bypass surgery patients.
Q: Is EECP FDA-approved? What kind of research has been done on it? A: EECP was approved by the FDA in 1995 as a treatment for coronary artery disease and angina, cardiogenic shock, and for use during a heart attack. In 2002, the FDA approved EECP as a treatment for congestive heart failure. It has undergone rigorous clinical trials at leading universities around the country and EECP has been the subject of more than 100 scientific studies published in leading medical journals throughout the world. (Please see our Clinical Studies page for more information.)
Q: Does insurance pay for EECP? A: Yes. EECP is covered by Medicare and paid for by private insurance carriers.
Q: I have a pacemaker. Is that a problem with EECP? A: No. Pacemakers and internal defibrillators do not interfere in any way with EECP.
Q: I am on Coumadin. Is that a problem with EECP? A: No. Patients on Coumadin are able to undergo EECP treatments safely.
Q: I have congestive heart failure (CHF). Is that a problem with EECP?A: No. In fact, in July 2002 the FDA approved EECP as a treatment for congestive heart failure (CHF). After completing a course of EECP treatment, patients with CHF typically have less swelling in their legs, less shortness of breath, less fatigue, and often require less diuretic medication.
Q: Is there an age limit for EECP?A: No. We have successfully treated patients as young as 36 and as old as 97 without any difficulties. Many of our patients are in their 80s and 90s and complete the entire EECP program with excellent results.
Q: I have already had bypass surgery/angioplasty/stents. Can I still have EECP?A: Yes! Most of our patients have already had one (or many) of these procedures. They come for EECP treatment because they still have angina.
Q: Can EECP dislodge plaque and cause a stroke or heart attack?A: No. Our bodies obey the laws of physics, and one principle law is that fluid will follow the path of least resistance. Atherosclerotic plaques are calcified and hard, and they create an obstruction that detours the blood through alternate routes. During EECP, when your blood is flowing to your heart, it will naturally bypass arteries with plaque and enter healthy, non-diseased blood vessels to go around the blockages. Going around the blockages is a longer trip, but it is a much easier one. In time, these new pathways are reinforced and become lasting routes for blood to reach your heart beyond the blockages. Every EECP patient has had multiple, serious blockages. No one has ever had a heart attack or a stroke as a result of the treatment.
Q: Are there any patients who are not able to have EECP?A: There are very few patients who are unable to have EECP. Those who should not be treated include pregnant women, individuals with a severe leakage in their aortic valve requiring surgical repair, and patients with an active blood clot in their leg.
Q: I had a blood clot in my leg three years ago. Can I have EECP?034958
A: Yes. Having a history of a blood clot (deep venous thrombosis or DVT) in your leg does not preclude you from having EECP. It is recommended that you have a Doppler ultrasound of your leg to confirm the blood clot has resolved before beginning the EECP program.
Q: Does EECP aggravate high blood pressure (hypertension)?A: No. If you have hypertension that is properly managed, you may undergo EECP without difficulty. Oftentimes, patients with hypertension find that their blood pressure improves as they proceed with EECP. If your hypertension is uncontrolled, you must seek medical care to get your blood pressure under control with proper medications before proceeding with EECP.
Q: I have bad circulation in my legs (peripheral vascular disease or PVD). May I still have EECP?A: Yes, and you should! EECP improves blood flow throughout the entire body, including your legs. If you have poor leg circulation, you might need more than 35 treatments. My patients typically require at least 50 treatments to get the full benefit of the program. In addition to improved stamina, less angina, and less nitroglycerin use, patients with PVD have a marked improvement in their leg circulation in response to EECP.
Q: I have atrial fibrillation and an irregular heartbeat. May I still have EECP?A: Yes. An irregular heartbeat, including one caused by atrial fibrillation, will not interfere with EECP if the heart rate is controlled and no faster than 100 beats per minute.
Q: I have varicose veins. May I still have EECP? A: Yes. Varicose veins are typically a cosmetic issue, not a medical one. As such, they do not preclude individuals from receiving EECP. We often use extra padding in patients with varicose veins to ensure maximum comfort.
Q: What happens if my angina returns months or years after I finish my EECP treatment course? Can I come back for more?A: Yes. EECP is not a once-in-a-lifetime treatment. Heart disease is a chronic illness and symptoms may return at some point in the future. The door is always open for you to return for additional courses of EECP as needed.
Q: Is EECP similar to chelation therapy?A: No. There is no relationship between EECP and chelation therapy. Chelation is an invasive procedure whereby a substance called EDTA is given intravenously in an attempt to bind to calcium and remove it from atherosclerotic plaques. The fundamental problem with the concept of chelation is that atherosclerotic plaques are not only made of calcium; they include fat, cholesterol and cellular deposits as well. Chelation is a technique which has never been shown by scientific research to have any therapeutic value for heart disease. Since it has never been proven to work, chelation is not paid for by Medicare or any insurance carrier, and therefore is not accessible to most heart disease patients. Patients who choose to try it must pay out of pocket. Each treatment costs approximately $80-$100, and patients often go for numerous treatments over a period of several months, and then continue indefinitely on a maintenance regimen. Chelation can actually be harmful – even fatal – when administered to the wrong person or under the wrong circumstances. It poses particular danger to individuals with congestive heart failure. The amount of fluid administered with each treatment may overtax their weakened heart, leading to severe fluid overload and problems including pulmonary edema (a life-threatening condition in which there is an excess of fluid in the lungs).

In contrast, EECP is entirely non-invasive, proven by hundreds of published scientific studies, and safe. It is an accepted, mainstream medical treatment and, as such, is approved by Medicare and covered by insurance. Chelation does not interfere with EECP, so you may undergo both simultaneously if you choose.
Q: Is there a difference between EECP and ECP?A: Yes. EECP and ECP are very different things. EECP is a registered trademark of Vasomedical, Inc., the leading manufacturer of EECP equipment in the U.S. Vasomedical has a patent on the timing mechanism of the machine (when the cuffs squeeze and release in time to the patient’s EKG, the most critical part of the treatment). This timing mechanism distinguishes them from their competitors who make other external counterpulsation (ECP) equipment, and makes the EECP machine by far the most clinically effective device on the market. Every published U.S. study (more than 100 of them) and most studies originating in countries around the world and published in the leading English-language medical journals have used the Vasomedical EECP equipment exclusively. Accordingly, EECP – not ECP – machines are the ones found in every university hospital, major community hospital, and well-known practice that offers the treatment.

I think it is a pyramid scheme

Junk food diet linked to lower IQ - study

Junk food diet linked to lower IQ - study

A woman eating a hot dog at a fast food restaurant. Toddlers who have a diet high in processed foods may have a slightly lower IQ in later life, according to a British study described as the biggest research of its kind. AFP - Toddlers who have a diet high in processed foods may have a slightly lower IQ in later life, according to a British study described as the biggest research of its kind.

The conclusion, published on Monday, comes from a long-term investigation into 14,000 people born in western England in 1991 and 1992 whose health and well-being were monitored at the ages of three, four, seven and eight and a half.

Parents of the children were asked to fill out questionnaires that, among other things, detailed the kind of food and drink their children consumed.

Three dietary patterns emerged: one was high in processed fats and sugar; then there was a "traditional" diet high in meat and vegetables; and finally a "health-conscious" diet with lots of salad, fruit and vegetables, pasta and rice.

When the children were eight and a half, their IQ was measured using a standard tool called the Wechsler Intelligence Scale.

Of the 4,000 children for which there were complete data, there was a significant difference in IQ among those who had had the "processed" as opposed to the "health-conscious" diets in early childhood.

The 20 percent of children who ate the most processed food had an average IQ of 101 points, compared with 106 for the 20 percent of children who ate the most "health-conscious" food.

"It's a very small difference, it's not a vast difference," said one of the authors, Pauline Emmett of the School of Social and Community Medicine at the University of Bristol.

"But it does make them less able to cope with education, less able to cope with some of the things in life."

The association between IQ and nutrition is a strongly debated issue because it can be skewed by many factors, including economic and social background.

A middle-class family, for instance, may arguably be more keen (or more financially able) to put a healthier meal on the table, or be pushier about stimulating their child, compared to a poorer household.

Emmett said the team took special care to filter out such confounders.

"We have controlled for maternal education, for maternal social class, age, whether they live in council housing, life events, anything going wrong, the home environment, with books and use of television and things like that," she said.

The size of the study, too, was unprecedented.

"It's a huge sample, it's much much bigger than anything anyone else has done," she said in an interview with AFP.

Emmett said further work was needed to see whether this apparent impact on IQ persisted as the children got older.

Asked why junk food had such an effect, she suggested a diet that was preponderantly processed could lack vital vitamins and elements for cerebral development at a key stage in early childhood.

"A junk food diet is not conducive to good brain development," she said.

The paper appears in the peer-reviewed Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, published by the British Medical Association (BMA).

Natural approach to lowering LDL cholesterol - Dear Doctor, -

If you are interested in non surgical, non drug solutions to heart health problems be sure to see this fascinating article:

Vitally Important! -Why your Cardiologist Doesn’t Want You to Know About Fighter Pilot's “G-Suits.

Sam and Bunny Sewell

Independent Shaklee Distributors

Senior Coordinators

http://bestself.myshaklee.com/us/en/welcome.html

bunnysam@bestselfusa.com

Dear Doctor,

Please allow me to introduce a new dietary supplement from Shaklee Corporation that provides a natural approach to lowering LDL cholesterol. Shaklee Cholesterol Reduction Complex delivers 2,000 mg of a combination of sterols and stanols, an efficacious intake level recommended by the National Institutes of
Health Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes (TLC), Your Guide to Lowering Your Cholesterol with TLC
(http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/chol/chol_tlc.pdf) .

The TLC recommendations are a comprehensive approach to reducing elevated LDL cholesterol levels for the purpose of reducing the risk of heart disease. The essential components include:
• Reducing the dietary intake of LDL-raising dietary factors (saturated fats, trans fats, and dietary cholesterol)
• Increasing the intake of LDL-lowering dietary factors (consuming 10–25 g of soluble fiber andadding 2,000 mg per day of sterols/stanols)
• Losing weight and increasing exercise

Plant sterols and stanols are found in the cell walls of plants and occur in very small amounts in plants, fruits, vegetables, seeds, and grains. Supplementing the diet with sterols and stanols was shown to significantly lower LDL cholesterol in a recent meta-analysis of 84 studies (http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/ This effect has been shown in as little as three to four weeks. Furthermore, another meta-analysis of eight studies shows that intake of sterols and stanols can further reduce cholesterol levels even in those already using statins (http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/5/517).

When used as directed, Cholesterol Reduction Complex provides 2,000 mg of sterols and stanols daily, which qualifies for the FDA-approved health claim for lowering cholesterol levels for the purpose of helping to reduce the risk of heart disease.*

Shaklee has a long history in the nutritional supplement industry, beginning when our founder, Dr. Shaklee,
first sold a multivitamin in 1915. Shaklee Corporation was founded in 1956 and today is the number one natural nutrition company in the U.S. We are committed to creating products that are relevant to people’s health needs—and there continue to be major issues in our country due to people’s diets, obesity, and elevated lipid levels leading to the spiraling health costs associated with cardiovascular disease.
Thank you for your time and please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,
Jamie McManus, M.D., FAAFP
Chair, Medical Affairs & Health Sciences
Shaklee Corporation
E-mail: drjmcmanus@shaklee.com
Phone: 925.924.3093

*Products containing at least 400 mg per serving of plant sterols and stanols, when eaten twice a day with meals for a daily intake of 800 mg as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease. A serving of Cholesterol Reduction Complex supplies 1,000 mg of plant sterols and stanols for a daily intake of 2,000 mg when used as directed

Dangerous new recommendations on D

Daily Dose with William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.


Excerpt


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dangerous new recommendations on D

Anyone who thinks Americans get enough vitamin D is really in the dark -- and yes, I'm talking to you, Institute of Medicine.

The Institute -- part of the National Academy of Sciences -- claims we don't really need much vitamin D, and that Americans already get the amount they need.

That's it -- toss your supplements, put the sunscreen back on, end of story... right?

Not on your life!

These screwy new recommendations aren't just wrong -- they're potentially deadly. And that's not just my opinion, that's scientific fact.

The recommendations are so baffling that even many in the mainstream were caught off guard by them.

But not me -- I expected this.

After all, this is the same cast of characters behind the laughably low recommendations for every other key nutrient, from folate to vitamin C -- so of course they were bound to get it wrong on D.

The simple fact is, this is an organization that HATES alternative medicine, and especially HATES supplements. They've even urged the feds to regulate vitamins like meds, a position that even the FDA considers too radical -- and you know they're not exactly pals with the supplement industry.

But let's get back to this D report. It's so badly flawed I could write a book on it -- and in fact, I'm working on one -- but for now, I'll just break it down to what I call the Four Great Lies:
They raised the recommended levels of D to 600 IU per person, then claimed most people won't need a supplement to reach it -- despite the fact that few people spend enough time outdoors and fewer still can get that amount of D from food.


They claim nearly everyone between the ages of 1 and 70 should get the exact same amount of D -- despite strong evidence that the amount of D you need varies based on everything from age to size to skin color.


They claim that 10,000 IU of vitamin D is deadly -- despite the fact that anyone who's ever spent 30 minutes at the beach with no sunscreen has generated that much vitamin D on his own. Last I checked, no normal person has keeled over from 30 minutes of sun exposure.


They claim vitamin D is for bone health only, and there's no evidence it can reduce the risk of anything else -- despite repeated studies that show it can fight depression, flu, heart disease, cancer and more.
If there's any good news here, it's that now even most mainstream docs realize that the Institute of Medicine is completely bonkers -- and many are telling their patients to keep taking their D supplements anyway.

Rebellion. I love it!

And maybe -- just maybe -- this will cause those docs to take a closer look at the rest of the Institute's inadequate recommendations, too.

15 Most Dangerous Drugs Big Pharma Don't Want You to Know About

15 Most Dangerous Drugs Big Pharma Don't Want You to Know About

November 19, 2010 (Altnet.org)

In the pharmaceutical industry’s rush to get drugs to market, safety usually comes last. Long studies to truly assess a drug's risks just delay profits after all -- and if problems do emerge after medication hits the market, settlements are usually less than profits. Remember, Vioxx still made money.

The following drugs are so plagued with safety problems, it is a wonder they’re on the market at all. It's a testament to Big Pharma's greed and our poor regulatory processes that they are.


Lipitor and Crestor
Why is Lipitor the bestselling drug in the world? Because every adult with high LDL or fear of high LDL is on it. (And also 2.8 million children, says Consumer Reports.) No one is going to say statins don't prevent heart attack in high-risk patients (though diet and exercise have worked in high-risk groups too). But doctors will say statins are so over-prescribed that more patients get their side effects -- weakness, dizziness, pain and arthritis -- than heart attack prevention. Worse, they think it's old age!

"My older patients literally do without food so that they can buy these medicines that make them sicker, feel bad, and do nothing to improve life," says an ophthalmologist web poster from Tennessee. "There is no scientific basis for treating older folks with $300+/month meds that have serious side-effects and largely unknown multiple drug interactions." What kinds of side effects? All statins can cause muscle breakdown (called rhabdomyolysis) but combining them with antibiotics, protease inhibitors drugs and anti-fungals increases your risks. In fact, Crestor is so highly linked to rhabdomyolysis it is doubly criticised: Public Citizen calls it a Do Not Use and the FDA's David Graham named it one of the five most dangerous drugs before Congress.


Yaz and Yasmin
It sounded too good to be true and it was. Birth control pills that also cleared up acne, treated severe PMS (Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder or PMDD) and avoided the water retention of traditional birth control pills.

But soon after Bayer launched Yaz in 2006 as going "beyond birth control," 18-year-olds were coming down with blood clots, gall bladder disease, heart attacks and even strokes. Fifteen-year-old Katie Ketner had her gallbladder removed. Susan Gallenos had a stroke and part of her skull removed. College student Michelle Pfleger, 18, collapsed and died of a pulmonary thromboemboli from taking Yaz, says her mother Joan Cummins.

While TV ads for Yaz in 2008 were so misleading that FDA ordered Bayer to run correction ads, Yaz sales are still brisk. In fact, financial analysts attribute the third quarter slump in the Yaz "franchise" of 28.1 percent to the appearance of a Yaz generic, not to the thousands of women who have been harmed.

Why is Yaz sometimes deadly? It includes a drug that was never before marketed in the U.S. -- drospirenone -- and apparently causes elevated potassium, heart problems, and a change in acid balance of the blood. Who knew? But not only is Bayer still marketing it, women do not receive "test subject" compensation for using it either.


Lyrica, Topomax and Lamictal
Why would you take an epilepsy seizure drug for pain? The same reason you'll take an antipsychotic for the blues and an antidepressant for knee pain: good consumer marketing. In August FDA ordered a warning for aseptic meningitis, or brain inflammation, on Lamictal -- but it is still the darling of military and civilian doctors for unapproved pain and migraine. Lamictal also has the distinction of looting $51 million from Medicaid last year despite a generic existing.

All seizure drugs increase the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors according to their mandated labels. An April article in JAMA found seizure drugs linked to 26 suicides, 801 attempted suicides, and 41 violent deaths in just five years.

All three drugs can make you lose your memory and your hair, say posters on the drug rating site askapatient.com. Topamax is referred to as "Stupamax" in the military -- though evidently not enough to ask, "Why am I taking this drug again?"


Humira, Prolia and TNF Blockers
If you think pharma is producing a lot of expensive, dangerous injectables lately, you're right. Yesterday's blockbuster pills have been supplanted with vaccines and biologics that are more lucrative and safer...from generic competition, that is. The problem is, not only are biologics like Humira and Prolia creepy and dangerous -- they're made from genetically engineered hamster cells and suppress the actual immune system -- the diseases they treat are "sold" to healthy people.

Recently, thousands of college students in Chicago found inserts in their campus newspapers hawking Humira for Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. ("Hate psoriasis? Love clearer skin," says an ad on the Humira Web site featuring a pretty woman.) And earlier this year Prolia was approved by the FDA for postmenopausal osteoporosis with a high risk of fracture. Do healthy people really want to suppress their body's tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and invite tuberculosis, serious, possibly lethal infections, melanoma, lymphoma and "unusual cancers in children and teenagers" as the Humira label warns? Nor is it clear these drugs work. The Humira label warns against developing "new or worsening" psoriasis -- a condition it is supposed to treat.


Chantix
How unsafe is the anti-smoking drug Chantix? After 397 FDA cases of possible psychosis, 227 domestic reports of suicidal acts, thoughts or behaviors and 28 suicides, the government banned pilots and air traffic controllers and interstate truck and bus drivers from taking Chantix in 2008. Four months later, some military pharmacies banned the drug, which reduces both cravings and smoking pleasure. In addition to Chantix' neuropsychiatric effects (immortalized by New Bohemians musician Carter Albrecht, who was shot to death in 2007 in Texas by a neighbor after acting aggressively), Chantix is linked to angioedema, serious skin reactions, visual impairment, accidental injury, dizziness, muscle spasms, seizures and loss of consciousness.

In defending an increasingly indefensible drug, Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation said last year, "Smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease, disability, and death in the United States and we know these products are effective aids in helping people quit." True enough -- but if you smoke cigarettes you can still drive an interstate truck.


Ambien
Sleeping pills like Ambien, Lunesta, Sonata and Rozerem only decrease get-to-sleep time by 18 minutes according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

But Ambien has additional cachet compared to its soporific brethren: it is the drug Tiger Woods reportedly used when cavorting with his consorts; and former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy was taking it when he crashed his Ford Mustang while driving to Capitol Hill in the middle of the night to "vote" in 2006.

In fact Ambien's legendary somnambulism side effects -- people walk, drive, make phone calls and even have sex while sleeping -- has increased traffic accidents say law enforcement officials, with some drivers not even recognizing arresting police. Thanks to bad Ambien press, Sanofi-Aventis has had to run ads telling the public to get in bed and stay there if you are going to take Ambien. (Or you'll break out in handcuffs, as the joke goes.) Ambien has also increased the national weight problem as dieters wake up amid mountains of pizza, Krispy Kreme and Häagen-Dazs cartons consumed by their evil twins.


Tamoxifen
Is it a coincidence that Tamoxifen maker AstraZenaca founded Breast Cancer Awareness Month and makes carcinogenic agrochemicals that cause breast cancer? Both the original safety studies of Tamoxifen, which causes cancer, birth defects and is a chemical cousin of organochlorine pesticides, and its original marketing were riddled with scientific error. In fact, FDA objected to AstraZeneca's marketing claim of breast cancer prevention and the casting of endometrial cancer as an "uncommon" event 10 years ago.

Yet today pharma-linked doctors still tell women to take Tamoxifen to prevent breast cancer even though an American Journal of Medicine study found the average life expectancy increase is nine days (and Public Citizen says for every case of breast cancer Tamoxifen prevents there is a life-threatening case of blood clots, stroke or endometrial cancer). A Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation study shows an example of Tamoxifen's downside: 57.2 percent of women on continuous Tamoxifen developed atrophy of the lining of the uterus, 35.7 coexisting hyperphasia and 8.1 percent uterine polyps. We won't even talk about eye and memory problems -- or the Tamoxifen cousin, Evista, that pharma is also pushing which has a "death from stroke" warning on its label.


Boniva
Why is the bisphosphonate bone drug Boniva available in a convenient, once-monthly formulation? Could patients balk at the fact that after you take it you have to avoid lying down for at least 60 minutes to "help decrease the risk of problems in the esophagus and stomach," wait at least 60 minutes before eating or drinking anything except water, never take it with mineral water, sparkling water, coffee, tea, milk, juice or other oral medicine, including calcium, antacids, or vitamins, and of course, "do not chew or suck"? Nor should you take Boniva, say the warnings, "if you have difficult or painful swallowing, chest pain or continuing or severe heartburn, have low blood calcium or severe kidney disease or if severe bone, joint and/or muscle pain."

Bone drugs like Boniva, Fosamax and Actonel are a good example of FDA approving once-unapprovable drugs by transferring risk onto the public's shoulders with "we warned you" labels. The warnings are supposed to make people make their own safety decisions. Except that people just think FDA wouldn't have approved it if it weren't safe.


Prempro and Premarin
You'd think Pfizer's hormone drugs Prempro and the related Premarin and Provera would be history in light of their perks: 26 percent increase in breast cancer, 41 percent increase in strokes, 29 percent increase in heart attacks, 22 percent increase in cardiovascular disease, double the rates of blood clots and links to deafness, urinary incontinence, cataracts, gout, joint degeneration, asthma, lupus, scleroderma, dementia, Alzheimer's disease and lung, ovarian, breast, endometrial, gall bladder and melanoma cancers -- pant pant. But you'd be wrong. Even as we speak, Pfizer-linked researchers are testing the cognitive and cardiovascular "benefits" of hormone therapy, in some cases with our tax dollars, at major universities. Even though the cancer rate in the U.S. and Canada fell when women quit hormone therapy in 2002 (as did the U.S. heart attack rate in women), pharma is rolling out HT "Light" for women who suffer from the "ism" of incredibly short memory.

Source: www.alternet.org/story/148907...

Thought for Food: Imagining Food Consumption Reduces Actual Consumption

Thought for Food: New CMU Research Shows
Imagining Food Consumption Reduces Actual Consumption
Landmark Discovery Reverses Decades-Old Assumption
That Thinking About Food Causes You To Eat More

PITTSBURGH—If you're looking to lose weight, it's okay to think about eating your favorite candy bar. In fact, go ahead and imagine devouring every last bite — all in the name of your diet.

A new study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, published in Science, shows that when you imagine eating a certain food, it reduces your actual consumption of that food. This landmark discovery changes the decades-old assumption that thinking about something desirable increases cravings for it and its consumption.

Drawing on research that shows that perception and mental imagery engages neural machinery in a similar fashion and similarly affect emotions, response tendencies and skilled motor behavior, the CMU research team tested the effects of repeatedly imagining the consumption of a food on its actual consumption. They found that simply imagining the consumption of a food decreases ones appetite for it.

"These findings suggest that trying to suppress one's thoughts of desired foods in order to curb cravings for those foods is a fundamentally flawed strategy," said Carey Morewedge, an assistant professor of social and decision sciences and lead author of this study. "Our studies found that instead, people who repeatedly imagined the consumption of a morsel of food — such as an M&M or cube of cheese — subsequently consumed less of that food than did people who imagined consuming the food a few times or performed a different but similarly engaging task. We think these findings will help develop future interventions to reduce cravings for things such as unhealthy food, drugs and cigarettes, and hope they will help us learn how to help people make healthier food choices."

For the study, the research team, which included Young Eun Huh, Tepper School of Business Ph.D. candidate, and Joachim Vosgerau, assistant professor of marketing, ran a series of five experiments that tested whether mentally stimulating the consumption of a food reduces its subsequent actual consumption. In the first experiment, participants imagined performing 33 repetitive actions, one at a time. A control group imagined inserting 33 quarters into a laundry machine (an action similar to eating M&M's). Another group imagined inserting 30 quarters into a laundry machine and then imagined eating 3 M&M'S, while a third group imagined inserting three quarters into a laundry machine and then imagined eating 30 M&M'S. Next, all participants ate freely from a bowl filled with M&M'S. Participants who imagined eating 30 M&M'S actually ate significantly fewer M&M'S than did participants in the other two groups.

To ensure that the results were due to imagined consumption of M&M'S rather than the control task, the next experiment manipulated the experience imagined (inserting quarters or eating M&M'S) and the number of times it was imagined. Again, the participants who imagined eating 30 M&M'S subsequently consumed fewer M&M'S than did the participants in the other groups.

The last three experiments showed that the reduction in actual consumption following imagined consumption was due to habituation — a gradual reduction in motivation to eat more of the food — rather than alternative psychological processes such as priming or a change in the perception of the food's taste. Specifically, the experiments demonstrated that only imagining the consumption of the food reduced actual consumption of the food. Merely thinking about the food repeatedly or imaging the consumption of a different food did not significantly influence the actual consumption of the food that participants were given.

"Habituation is one of the fundamental processes that determine how much we consume of a food or a product, when to stop consuming it, and when to switch to consuming another food or product," Vosgerau said. "Our findings show that habituation is not only governed by the sensory inputs of sight, smell, sound and touch, but also by how the consumption experience is mentally represented. To some extent, merely imagining an experience is a substitute for actual experience. The difference between imagining and experiencing may be smaller than previously assumed."

Other implications of this research include the discovery that mental imagery can enact habituation in the absence of pre-ingestive sensory stimulation and that repeatedly stimulating an action can trigger its behavioral consequences.

This research was funded by a grant awarded to Morewedge from the Berkman Faculty Development Fund at Carnegie Mellon.