Elixir Body Care - The Natural Body Care People

The UK government has come up with a novel way to improve efficiencies within the National Health Service.  It's planning to pay a bonus to surgeons whose patients survive and recover. 

The annoucement comes as a surprise to those of us who had naively assumed that that is what they're paid to do anyway, and it's just one of a raft of measures that incentivises hospitals to reduce rates of infections, readmissions and post-operative mobility.

This suggests that the UK taxpayer is currently paying for a sub-standard service, and this is exactly what he is getting.  The USA health system, which is funded by health insurers, is going through a similar exercise.  From next October, insurers are refusing to pay out on eight hospital errors that they consider are avoidable. These errors are costing insurance firms around $40 bn a year and, as a spokesperson for the industry pointed out, they are rewarding inefficiencies.

The UK government is taking a different line.  Instead of penalising hospitals for their errors and poor work, it is instead paying out even more to those that provide a reasonable service.

This is yet another ineffective response from a Gordon Brown administration that is looking ever more indecisive and out-of-touch by the day. 

It's administering a healthcare system that is failing badly.  In the UK alone, 40,000 Britons die every year in hospital from avoidable errors, and this is based on a very conservative 2.2 times error rate for all admissions.  A separate study put the rate at more like 4.75 per cent, which, if true, suggests a figure closer to 90,000 deaths a year.

Overall, 850,000 errors occur in UK hospitals every year, and it's a problem that is not going to go away by paying bonuses and incentives to hospitals that care to better that.

*  Medical Mistakes: Who's Paying? is the special report in August's 'What Doctors Don't Tell You'.  It will be with subscribers on Saturday, July 26.  If you would like to subscribe, please click here. 

First of all, let’s make sure we get our vitamin D this summer – by getting sun on our skin without sunscreen!  Just make sure you don’t burn.  Any  little bit of sunshine will help, and your body will store the vitamin D it makes in the summer for several months.  It also feels wonderful!

Then, make sure to eat lots of colorful plant foods, and especially berries, which are high in antioxidants, and which will help you resist sunburn!  A nice breakfast bowl of strawberries, raspberries and blueberries, or any other local berries easy to obtain, will help you feel really summery.  Put some almonds and cashews on it, or walnuts (for the Omega 3’s) and pumpkin seeds (for the zinc), and there is your daily brain food.

If you want to relax and take it easy this summer, avoid caffeine if at all possible, or at least cut down to minimum.  Caffeine makes your brain speed up;  it is great when you have lots of brain work to do – and it can also keep you from relaxing properly, so be cautious.   

To keep cool, iced herbal teas are great.  If you go to a shop, the best way to get iced tea is by asking for a cup of your favorite (peppermint, hibiscus, whatever), and a separate cup of ice.  Then you pour the hot tea onto the ice, and there you are – immediate iced tea!  The best part is that you know there is nothing in there you don’t want.  I find that pre-made iced teas usually have some sugar or other sweetener in them, or flavoring, or whatever.

And here is my favorite cold summer soup, always fabulous for summer lunch.

COLD CUCUMBER AVOCADO SOUP

1 clove garlic

2 cucumbers, peeled, seeded, and chopped

1 avocado, halved, pit removed

1 quart  unsalted chicken stock or water

½ teaspoon sea salt or to taste

1 teaspoon lemon juice (optional)

1.  Run the blender with the cover on but without the center cup.  Drop the clove of garlic in, put the cover on, and let it get chopped and plastered to the walls of the blender.

2.  Add the cucumber chunks, scoop the avocado into the blender, add half the chicken stock, the salt and lemon juice, and puree until smooth.  Add as much of the rest of the chicken stock as needed for the consistency you like.  Adjust taste.  Chill.  Makes about 6-8 servings.  Serve cold.

Annemarie Colbin, Ph.D.

ANNEMARIE COLBIN, Ph.D., CHES, is an award-winning leader in the field of natural health   She founded Natural Gourmet Institute for Health and Culinary Arts (TM) in New York City in 1977, and is adjunct professor of nutrition at the city’s Empire State College. She is the author of four books, including The Book of Whole Meals (Autumn Press, 1979; Ballantine Books, 1983), The Natural Gourmet (Ballantine Books, 1989, 1991), and Food and Healing (Ballantine Books, 1986, 1996).  Her website is: www.foodandhealing.com

One of my favourite philosophers used to be that arch pessimist Arthur Schopenhauer.  Put it down to a troubled adolescence.  Although he said many significant things, everyone today seems to quote this one saying of his:  “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

I was reminded of it when I was researching the work of the pioneering dentist Weston A. Price (1870-1948) for the latest special report for ‘What Doctors Don't Tell You’.  He certainly withstood a great deal of ridicule in his lifetime even though he held the prestigious position of research director of the American Dental Association.

After studying the diet and health of various indigenous peoples, he argued that our diet directly affects the health of our teeth and gums (periodontal health).  Worse, he even mooted that the health of our teeth and gums could also cause chronic disease in our body.

For many years, his own organisation, along with other dentist groups around the world, violently opposed his theories.

Then, only as recently as 2005, researchers from the University of Minnesota discovered a direct link between the bacteria associated with periodontal disease and atherosclerosis, or narrowing of the arteries (Circulation, 2005; 111: 576-82).

Opponents have argued that gum health is merely symptomatic of overall health, and is not a cause.  But this isn’t so.  A meta-analysis by Harvard researchers found that an association (between periodontal disease and chronic, systemic conditions) persists after all lifestyle and other factors are eliminated (Cancer Causes Control, 2008; e-pub May 14, 2008 ahead of print).

As Dr Robert Genco, professor of oral biology at the State University of New York in Buffalo, has said: “Patients think of gum disease in terms of their health, but they don’t think about the fact that gum disease is a serious infection that can release bacteria into the bloodstream. The end results could mean additional health risks for patients whose health is already affected by other diseases, or lead to serious complications such as heart disease.”

See, it’s self-evident really.

(If you’d like to read the full report as a subscriber to ‘What Doctors Don't Tell You’, please click here.)

Lorenzo died a month ago, just one day after his 30^th birthday.  Doctors had told his parents he would die at the age of 8 from a rare disease called ALD (adrenoleukodystrophy).  It was their refusal to accept this prognosis that led them on a ceaseless quest for a cure, which was championed in the award-winning movie Lorenzo’s Oil.

Throughout, they were discouraged by doctors and scientists, who told them their quest was pointless because no cure would ever be found.

In fact, Lorenzo’s parents – Augusto and Michaela – did find part of the solution, and one that will help other children afflicted by one of the several conditions that attack the myelin sheath that protects the nerves responsible for transmitting messages from the central nervous system to the rest of the body.

Their achievement was remarkable, all the more so because neither were scientists or had any medical training.  They just had the inexhaustible energy to do something for their son.

Sadly, there are many people like Lorenzo who are afflicted by a rare condition.  ALD, for example, affects just one in 42,000 boys.

Augusto and Michaela demonstrated that a cure is not impossible; it is just that it’s not in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry to spend years researching a disease that affects so few.  There really isn’t a sufficient profit in it for them.

Parents of these children don’t need convincing of where the true heart of the pharmaceutical industry lies.

• Protein. Eat small amounts of protein regularly - around 2–4 oz per serving per meal are ideal - which should comprise young red meat such as veal and lamb, or fish or fowl. If you are vegetarian, eat eggs. Do not heat meat above 110 degrees F as crucial enzymes will then be damaged. Avoid frying in oil or grease.
• Vegetables. Eat these as often as possible and, ideally, raw or lightly cooked. Vegetables should be crunchy and organic whenever possible.
• Fruits. Eat one fruit at a time and on an empty stomach. Avoid the sweetest types and tropical fruits—except papaya and pineapple, which are rich in digestive enzymes. Eat only fresh and organic fruit.
• Carbohydrates. Ideally, vegetables should be your carbohydrates. Limit all grains as much as possible and avoid, at all costs, white bread. The only bread that is acceptable is 100% rye. The only grains allowed in Price’s dietary protocols are brown rice, unprocessed rye and rolled oats.
• Fats. Only cold-pressed extra virgin olive oil, walnut oil, flaxseed and grapeseed oils should be used. These oils should never be heated or used in cooking. Avoid all hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated fats, including all margarines, and avoid peanut butter. Instead, eat avocados and raw nuts.
• Dairy. All dairy products from cows are to be avoided. Page maintained that milk is even more detrimental than sugar. An acceptable substitute is raw goat and sheep cheeses and milk.
• Liquids. Drink plenty of water every day. The ideal amount is a half-ounce of water for every pound of your weight. If you must drink wine, drink it only at mealtimes and only red wine. Avoid all Californian varieties.
  
• In general, it’s better to eat little and often than to eat one or two heavy meals each day. Ideally, have three to five small meals every day, and drink fluids one hour before meals and two hours afterwards.

One of the first rules of political power is to create a bogey-man (BM).  As we all fear the BM, we're relieved when our political leaders are prepared to stand up to said BM, even if it means removing our civil liberties.  After all, it's for our own good.

Drug companies do something similar, although they call this object of fear the bogey-man disease (BMD).  Fortunately, the drug companies are on hand to protect us against BMDs, even though it means removing our common-sense or critical thinking.  After all, it's for the drug comapnies' good.

There have been plenty of BMDs through the years.  In 2003 we had SARs, a most fearful virus that was going to decimate the world's population.  Only it didn't.  This may have been because something bigger and more evil came along - avian flu.

Surely you remember avian flu, or bird flu, or influenza A, or H5N1, if you want to get technical.  The World Health Organization confidently assured us that 7.4 million people around the world would die from it, and that truth-sayer President Bush assured the American populace that the virus would wipe out 2 million of them.  Even our own chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson got in on the act.  He told the credulous British people that at least 750,000 Britons would die from it.  Very soon.

Thank goodness, then, that the drug industry had an answer to this BMD.  They had Tamiflu, and governments around the world joined an ordely queue to buy, buy, buy while stocks lasted.  The US bought $2bn of the drug, and the UK government wasn't far behind.  Even the usually sensible Canadians joined the panic rush, ignoring the advice of their medical officer, who pointed out that Tamiflu wouldn't work against avian flu.  The Centers for Disease Control in the US told President Bush something similar, but BM and BMDs are his stock in trade, so he was never going to listen.

So, just to recap: billions of dollars of a drug were sold, although it was ineffective against a disease that didn't exist.  This wasn't even brilliant; we are in the presence of genius.

Trouble is, the drugs industry needs another BMD, and quickly, too.  Anybody out there who spots the next major health scare, please let me know.

As the June 2008 edition of WDDTY reports, sunscreens are not as safe as you might think.  Here are five ways of protecting yourself against the sun without exposing your body to contaminating chemicals.

• Avoid prolonged exposure, especially between 11 am and 3 pm, when UV rays are most prevalent.
• Cover up with clothing instead of creams during the hottest part of the day.
• Take supplements in the run-up to sun exposure, which can bolster the skin’s natural defences against sunlight:
• Antioxidants such as selenium, and vitamins C and E can help. In one study, 2 g of vitamin C and 1000 IU of vitamin E daily reduced sunburn, although neither on its own gave any protection against UV radiation, suggesting a synergistic relationship (J Am Acad Dermatol, 1998; 38: 45–8).
• Carotenoids such as beta-carotene and lycopene have consistently been shown to protect against sunburn. One study found that taking a supplement of natural carotenoids (mostly beta-carotene) in daily amounts of 30 mg, 60 mg and 90 mg gave progressively more protection against UV radiation (Proc Soc Exp Biol Med, 2000; 223: 170–4).
• Proanthocyanidins (OPCs), a group of flavonoids found in pine bark, grape seeds and other plant sources, have shown promise in warding off the damaging effects of UV light. Supplementing with the OPC-rich French maritime pine bark extract Pycnogenol (1.1–1.66 mg/2.2 lb of body weight/day) significantly increased the amount of UV radiation tolerated before sunburn occurred (Free Radic Biol Med, 2001; 30: 154–60).
• Eat lots of tomatoes, which contain lycopene and other antioxidants that can help protect the skin. A daily dose of tomato paste, equal to 16 mg/day of lycopene, significantly reduced sunburn symptoms after 10 weeks (Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol, 2002; 15: 291–6).
• Choose more natural suncreams. Few contain all-natural ingredients, but a number of formulations are available that are free of toxic chemicals. Visit WDDTY’s sister service, Proof!, for a recent review of some of the popular alternative products on the market.

One fundamental difference between alternative and conventional medicine is the way each treats the patient.  To the alternative practitioner, every patient is different, and presents a unique array of symptoms; to the conventional doctor, the patient’s case is one of many other similar ones.

To an extent, conventional medicine defines disease by its similarities, and so seeks to treat these, while alternative medicine looks more for the unique features of an illness, as this may provide the key to the problem.

These differences became stark at the beginning of the last century with the rise of the pharmaceutical industry, and its mass production of chemical agents.  An industrial production line needs a mass market, which, in turn, requires common features.

To facilitate this, medicine adopted the raiments of science, and the double-blind, placebo study.  To catch everyone within its net, the double-blind study succeeded merely in catching nobody in particular, and created a generalised hodge-podge of the typical – but non-existent - ‘patient’.

It’s little wonder that a senior GlaxoSmithKline executive has estimated that his company’s drugs work in just 30 per cent of cases (and, in reality, probably even less).

Similarly, the double-blind uses the measurement of ratios and percentages.  This is another trick in which the patient vanishes.  Just one per cent of people died while taking the drug, the study might conclude, but that one per cent is, in fact, perhaps hundreds of people who died fully and completely.  One hundred per cent, in fact.

These thoughts came to me this week after reading the latest Lancet journal, which quotes an extract from Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilych.  It reads: “To Ivan Ilych only one question was important: was his case serious or not?  But the doctor ignored that inappropriate question.  From his point of view, it was not a question of Ivan Ilych’s life or death, but one between a floating kidney and appendicitis.”

Ivan - and his unique and individual concerns - had vanished.

Last week I was in Chicago, where I’d started at university, and what impressed me most about the place was not the sheer size of Lake Michigan, the flatness of the Great Plains or even the deep-dish pizza.

What most hit me in the face was drugs. They were everywhere - in magazine ads, at airline checkout counters but especially on the air. I’d turn on the breakfast news, and hear ad after ad about Cialis or Allegra or
Claritin or Lunesta. Even drugs for dogs were being advertised on TV.

Eleven years ago, when the then Republican-controlled Congress agreed to allow the pharmaceutical industry to advertise, drug companies have taken their wares directly to the public. From 1997 through 2005,  pending on direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising increased twice as fast as spending on research and development of new products or promotion of existing drugs to doctors. In 2005, drug companies spent $4.2 billion on DTC advertising—a figure that is growing by 20 per cent every year.

This tactic has revolutionized the way patients are prescribed drugs. Consumers gain daily familiarity with the latest in pharmaceuticals and now ask for them by name. A survey in Consumer Reports magazine last year revealed that more than three-quarters of the doctors surveyed claimed that their patients asked for drugs advertised on TV. But even more alarmingly, more than two-thirds of doctors admitted to writing out the prescription their patients asked for. Instead of being selected by discerning physicians, medicine is now all but prescribed by the patient.

Aside from the fact that the tail is now wagging the dog, the biggest problem with on-air advertising is that a soundbite doesn’t present a balanced picture of a drug’s downside.

When a 2007 University of Georgia journalism and mass communication team analyzed a week’s worth of DTC ads, it found that the average one-minute commercial contained less than 8 seconds of side-effect  disclaimers, a 30-second ad had less than 4 seconds’ worth - and almost none of the side-effects appeared in text, but were mentioned in only a short voice-over.

The obvious result of all this is that ‘meds’ - their cute appellation in America - are increasingly sampled like Tic Tacs, and just as easily thrown down the toilet once a side-effect comes to light. Small wonder that this avalanche of easy-come, easy-go drugs makes its way into the water supply in both the US and Europe.

As reported in the June edition of What Doctors Don't Tell You, scientists from the US Geological Service tested the water from a large water-treatment plant fed by two small rivers. In these supposedly crystalline waters, the scientists discovered evidence of 40 prescription and nonprescription drugs.

After years of strictly hands-off, the US Congress is finally finding fault with the US Food and Drug Administration for its lax handling of DTC advertising.

Also, following a number of highly publicized drugs whose ineffectiveness and side-effects were allegedly concealed by their manufacturers, Congress is conducting hearings to crack down on the manner in which doctors are educated about drugs - which, at the moment, is almost exclusively through the greased-palm schmoozing of drug-company salesmen. If passed, two bills would provide unbiased materials for doctors on the safety of drugs, and force Big Pharma to disclose the amount of money given to doctors through payments, gifts, honoraria or travel.

While decidedly mild, these bills represent the first efforts of the American government to rein in Big Pharma’s stranglehold on the information leak about their products, and a rebuke to the FDA for being too chummy with the industry they are charged with regulating. Long may it continue.

For more details, please consult the June edition of What Doctors Don't Tell You.  Please click here for subscription information.

How much do industry groups and their hired ‘experts’ hide from us the carcinogenic effects of their products and services? 

We know the way the tobacco industry twisted and turned for years before finally having to admit that cigarettes cause cancer.  But there are plenty of other industries, too, that seem to be playing fast and loose with the truth – even though it means that many thousands of us die every year from a cancer caused by our environment or from industrial or electro-pollution.

We know this because Dr Devra Davis, formerly with the US National Institute of Health, has finally blown the whistle on industries that deliberately mislead, confuse or blatantly lie to us about cancer.  She wanted to tell all back in 1990 but her bosses warned her off, citing the example of Willhelm Hueper, who was forced out of the National Cancer Institute in the 1940s when he spoke out about the environmental causes of cancer.

As she says of her years at the NIH: “I watched the maturing of the science of doubt promotion – the concerted and well-funded effort to identify, magnify, and exaggerate doubts about what we could say that we know as a way of delaying actions to change the way the world operates.”

Their tactics are well known.  They employ ‘experts’ whose task it is to stop genuine research and debate, and she mentions Sir Richard Doll as one example.  Doll had concluded in the 1960s that medical x-rays were harmless, and yet they were stopped for pre-natal evaluation only 20 years later.  He also supported the pro-fluoridation movement, and he confirmed the view that there was no link to cancer.  However, he had miscalculated, and there was a correlation.

Similarly, poorly conducted trials are often touted as ‘proof’ that a service or product is safe.  Just such a tactic was carried out on behalf of the mobile phone industry, which surveyed the cancer risk on 421,000 cell-phone users.  The survey concluded there was no risk of brain tumour, and it made newspaper headlines around the world.  But the study was a short-term review – often, brain tumours do not appear for at least 10 years – it also featured infrequent as well as frequent users, thus muddying the results, and it didn’t include any business people at all, probably the most intensive users.

It all leaves a nasty taste.  While it’s every industry’s right to make a profit, should it be done when it risks the health of the general population?  And, when they know the truth, isn’t it their obligation to share it with us all?  Or is this yet another example of profits before people.

Source:  The Secret History of the War on Cancer (Basic Books, New York, 2007. ISBN 978 0 465 015665) by Devra Davis.    

There are allergies, and there are sensitivities.  Allergists insist that an allergy can only be diagnosed by specific tests, and that people who say they’re “allergic to” some food or other environmental element are often not technically allergic.  Basically, it doesn’t matter what you call it:  if the food or element specifically affects you in a negative way, we have a problem and it’s worth attending to.

Foods most commonly considered allergenic include milk and milk products, eggs, soy, nuts, corn, peanuts, tomatoes, and shellfish.  Different individuals may react to others as well.  In addition, pollen, cats, dander, and the like may also cause unpleasant symptoms.  Avoiding whatever it is you’re allergic to is, obviously, step number one. 

Step number two:  In my experience, eliminating milk products from one’s diet can help diminish the symptoms of other allergies.  It’s worth a try, as so many people respond positively.  And don’t worry about the calcium issue – just eat plenty of leafy greens, just like the cows, and you’ll have that covered! 

Enhancing the gut flora may be helpful as well.  Consuming naturally fermented vegetables (no vinegar), such as sauerkraut, brine pickles, and unpasteurized miso (in soups and salad dressings), will provide some pro-biotic elements.  I would suggest two tablespoons of sauerkraut per day – see recipe below.

For cat allergies, my friend Carol Ellis, who is an MD and herbalist, recommends tincture of mullein.  When I used to have cats, and an allergic person came to visit, I used to give them a glass of water with two droppersful of mullein, and their symptoms would abate as long as they sipped their water throughout the evening.  I refilled the glass whenever necessary.

Natural sauerkraut recipe:  Cut a small cabbage in quarters, top to bottom, and cut out the core.  Slice the quarters into thin strips, and spread out over your cutting board or table.  Sprinkle good seasalt all over it, trying to visualize a thin film of salt only one grain thick all over the cabbage.   You’re better off using a little too much rather than too little.  Gather it all and put in a crock or non-metal pot (porcelain or glass is fine).  Put a plate on top with some weights, to press down.  Place in a dark and cool spot.  Next day, take a look:  enough water should have been released to cover the cabbage.  If not, add some warmed water, with one teaspoon of seasalt per cup,  stir well, and pour in as much as needed to cover the cabbage by one inch.  Let sit about a week;  remove anything that is sitting on top of the water.  Pour into a clean glass jar with the water and  keep covered in the fridge.  Enjoy in lieu of salad!

Annemarie Colbin, Ph.D.

Those who cling to the belief that medicine is more a science than a commercial enterprise might consider the story of a group of drugs known as erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and their approval process.

ESAs are routinely given to cancer patients with anaemia.  As they are genetically-engineered forms of erythropoietin (EPO), a protein that stimulates production of blood cells, they are the only alternative therapy to blood transfusion.

They’ve been in active use since their approval in 1993 – but it’s only been in the last few months that researchers have started to realize that ESAs are killing the cancer patient, and are quickening tumour growth.

America’s drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), toughened warnings about the drugs last November after studying the results of six trials that demonstrated that cancer patients given ESAs died sooner and demonstrated more rapid tumour growth than patients not on the drugs.

Coincidentally, a week or so after the FDA ruling, Amgen, a drug company that manufactures the ESA Epogen, revealed the findings of its own trial, which painted a similarly disturbing picture.  Five days later, Amgen suddenly found some more data, which again confirmed the FDA’s findings.

Now it’s open season on ESAs.  A study published last February, led by Charles Bennett of Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, found the drugs increase the likelihood of death and venous thromboembolism.

Armed with this new data – partly provided by the manufacturer of one of the ESAs – the FDA is now considering a complete ban, or at least to dramatically reduce their usage.

None of this should come as a great surprise.  Scientists were warning that ESAs would likely increase tumour growth 15 years ago, when the drugs were approved.  As Bennett says: “We want to move to a more prospective approach on drug approval that is based on science and not on waiting 10 or 15 years to see bad outcomes emerge.

“In 1993, there was a science question suggesting that EPO would spur tumour growth.  That needed to be evaluated from the start.”

Instead, a drug was approved that scientists feared would be a killer.  The drug manufacturers then adopted their customary drip-drip approach to data release on a drug that they probably also knew was a killer.

This would suggest a model that is closer to commerce than science; worse, it is one that puts its profits before people.

(Sources: Journal of the American Medical Association, 2008; 299: 2016; Journal of the American Medical Association, 2008; 299: 914-24).

Somebody dies suddenly from a heart attack. “Ah, well,” says a close friend, “I’m not surprised, really. He was always stressed.” Stress, it seems, is the great killer of our times, and medical researchers are confirming our worst fears with studies that establish a link between stress and heart disease, hypothyroidism, breast and prostate cancers, and others besides.

And when we think about stress, we conjure up images from our day of rushing for the train, getting shouted at by the boss, missing the train home, eating a fast-food meal on our laps, and collapsing into bed for a restless sleep.

But stress is our reaction to events like these, it’s the effect and not the cause. Some people don’t get stressed by any of life’s little inconveniences, others get totally stressed because they put a little too much feed in the goldfish bowl. This is supported by one study that concluded that stress is the result of a multitude of minor daily events that are each irritating little stressors.

While that’s true, I also believe that stress is something metaphysical. It’s all about your view of the world. Is it a hostile, or friendly, place? Are people in the main helpful, or are they trying to cheat you at every turn? I’ve researched the subject for the latest issue of ‘What Doctors Don't Tell You’, and I’ve concluded that – fundamentally – our levels of stress equate to our level of ‘feeling at home’ in the world. Stress is a disease of our sense of isolation and distance, not the result of the daily hurly-burly.

• The full study on stress and isolation is contained in the May 2008 issue of ‘What Doctors Don't Tell You’. To start your subscription, and so receive the report, please click here.

My father was fond of the expression 'A fate worse than death'.  I think it was something to do with the way we Brits would have been treated had the Nazi hordes invaded in the Second World War.

I was wondering if similar thoughts have been going through the minds of devout parents in the UK who have refused to have their teenage daughters vaccinated against cervical cancer.  Like their counterparts in the States, these parents apparently see the new HPV vaccine as a licence for licentious behaviour, although it presumably doesn't also protect against an unwanted pregnancy.

A new study reveals that 20 per cent of Christian families have refused to have their daughers vaccinated against HPV, a sexually-transmitted infection that may lead to cervical cancer.  At the moment in the UK, the vaccine - marketed as Gardasil - is still in the trial phase, but it's planned to introduce it nationwide in September.

It is already part of the vaccination programme in the States - and early reports suggest that the religious families may have been wise to avoid the vaccine, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

As of March, more than 7000 incidents relating to the vaccine have been reported to the US's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, including 13 deaths, 204 hospitalizations, and, out of which, 124 young girls have been left disabled.  Commentators agree that this is merely the tip of the iceberg as it's reckoned just 10 per cent of adverse reactions ever get reported, especially if they are transitory.

Worse, there isn't even a shred of evidence to demonstrate the vaccine can prevent cancer. One study published last year concluded that the vaccine couldn't protect against the lesions that are more likely to lead to cancer.  The latest studies also suggest that protecting women against HPV strains 16 and 18 can increase the likelihood of other forms that are more closely related to cancer.

A fate worse than death.  That would be the Gardasil vaccine, then.

* A FULL REPORT on the Gardasil vaccine is contained in the May, 2008 issue of 'What Doctors Don't Tell You', which is being despatched to subscribers this week.  If you would like to subscribe, and so read the full report, please go to: http://www.wddtyhealthshop.com/products.asp?recnumber=246

You can prove the darnedest things with science.   You can demonstrate that dangerous drugs are safe; you can even establish that vitamins and nutritional supplements can shorten your life, a sleight of hand that was performed this week.  And the great thing is that, because it’s done in the name of science, everyone believes you!

As you may have read (and because every newspaper in the western spiral arm of the Milky Way had it on their front page, you probably did), the highly-regarded Cochrane Collaboration concluded that not only would the antioxidants A, C and E do next to nothing to improve your health, they might also shorten it.

This had everyone scratching their head.  It was a startling conclusion that went against everything we thought we knew, and was contrary to the conclusions reached by almost every other significant research paper written over the past 40 years.

So how did they do it?  The Cochrane paper was a meta-analysis, which means it re-analysed all existing papers that passed certain criteria for inclusion.  Usually the main criterion is ‘good science’ – the studies are well-controlled and reputable.

But things weren’t quite so straight-forward with the Cochrane meta-study.  The research team started out with 16,111 scientific papers, and they immediately discarded 14,910 of them.  Why?  Well, said the researchers, they included cancer studies, or they were duplicates, or because they were ‘not relevant’, although nobody defined what to the study was relevant.  However, the researchers did include studies of precancerous lesions and skin cancer which were. . .cancer studies.

So, the researchers were left with 1,201 papers that covered 815 separate clinical trials.  Of these, a further 747 were rejected because nobody died during the course of the study. After throwing out all the positive papers that demonstrated health-giving benefits of vitamins, the researchers were left with a small handful of just 68 that suggested vitamins didn’t extend life, but might even shorten it.

Of course, the discarded 16,043 papers discovered the very reverse.  

Some science is so bad that scientists have a disparaging phrase for it.  They say it's not even wrong.  Sadly, even 'not even wrong' papers get good coverage in the media, and at a time when the EU and others around the globe are deciding on safe upper limits of vitamins, and those we shouldn't be allowed to take at all. 

It would be a tragedy if this paper becomes a major influence in their decision-making.  

Is anybody noticing a pattern here?

In 1977, children started receiving a one-dose mumps vaccine.  Initially, rates of mumps fell dramatically, and health officials were congratulating themselves that they were on the road to eradicating another disease.

Then, in the late 1980s, there were unexpected outbreaks of mumps among adolescents and young adults who had been vaccinated.  And so, in 1990, our health officals introduced the two-dose vaccine.  Almost immediately, mumps cases fell so dramatically that everyone was predicting that mumps would be wiped out by 2010.

Then, in 2006, there was an unexpected outbreak of mumps among adolescents and young adults who had been vaccinated twice.  A total of 6,584 cases among college-age kids was reported, which suggests there were many more that were never reported.

And so officials from America's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are suggesting the introduction of a triple vaccine "to avert outbreaks and achieve the elimination of mumps".

 I think you can guess the rest.

It’s spring. This is traditionally a time for cleaning out the stagnation from the winter – cleaning the closets, shaking out the bedding, sweeping out the corners, discarding old junk. The same can be done with our bodies. Traditionally in Chinese medicine, spring is the time of liver/gallbladder; therefore a cleansing and detox program at this time of year is a good idea.

This is also a time for eating freshly growing greens. You may have noticed that at the market, the leafy greens are becoming more aromatic and brighter. These vegetables in general are good liver tonics, as are lemon, garlic, and olive oil. Here are some ideas to incorporate fresh greens into your daily diet, and a green drink if you want to do a few days of cleansing.

1.  Eat a daily salad with leafy greens, including some parsley, and a dressing of 1 tablespoon lemon juice, 2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil, and 1 small clove garlic (crushed through a garlic press).

2.  Make or purchase some good basil pesto. Recipe: 2 cloves garlic, 4 cups loosely packed fresh basil leaves, ¼ cup olive oil, 2 tablespoons Parmesan cheese (use same amount of barley miso for a dairy-free version), ½ cup walnuts. Run the blender or food processor, drop in the garlic until minced and splattered against the wall of the container. Add the basil, olive oil, and miso or Parmesan, scrape the garlic down the wall to mix, and process for 2-3 minutes or until pureed. Add the walnuts and puree a minute longer. Put on pasta, rice, or even in soups.

3.  Green drink:

1 garlic clove

2 cups lettuce (leftover salad works fine)

2 cups parsley leaves

1 celery rib, cut up

2 tablespoons ground flaxseed

4 cups spring water

1 cup fresh orange juice

1 tablespoon olive oil.

Process in blender or food processor until smooth. Keeps in the fridge 3-5 days. Makes about 6 cups.

This is a great liver cleanser. Try having two cups for breakfast every morning. For a really good general spring cleaning, follow with vegetable soup and salad for both lunch and dinner. Do this for 3-5 days. It will make a nice difference, I promise.

Let us know your experience.

Annemarie Colbin, Ph.D.

ANNEMARIE COLBIN, Ph.D., CHES, is an award-winning leader in the field of natural health   She founded Natural Gourmet Institute for Health and Culinary Arts (TM) in New York City in 1977, and is adjunct professor of nutrition at the city’s Empire State College. She is the author of four books, including The Book of Whole Meals (Autumn Press, 1979; Ballantine Books, 1983), The Natural Gourmet (Ballantine Books, 1989, 1991), and Food and Healing (Ballantine Books, 1986, 1996).  Her website is: www.foodandhealing.com

Do you think that the science that determines the safety of the drugs we take is the same as the science that determines the safety of aircraft technology?

It's a question that lies at the heart of a fascinating paper from Herman Jeggels, a medically-qualified doctor who now practises in his native South Africa.  In it, he compares the science employed by NASA, the American Department of Defense and the UK's Ministry of Defence, with that of medicine.

Since the 1980s, NASA has used technology readiness levels (TRLs) to eliminate risk and determine the maturity and safety of their technologies, and which has been taken up by the two ministries of defence.  NASA seeks a zero risk on all its technologies, and would consider as unacceptable even a 3% risk of an aircraft or satellite crashing in a residential area.

To achieve this level of safety, the technology must pass through nine stages, which embrace the science (TRL 1-2),  experimentation (TRL 2-3), verification (TRL 4-7), and demonstration (TRL 8-9).

By comparison, medicine never gets beyond TRL 3 - the level of high-risk experimental technology - in asessing the safety of its drugs.  At level 3, the technology - or pharmaceutical - would still have an immature, uncertain and high-risk status.  A randomised controlled trial on a drug is an experiment, producing experimental evidence only.

"Therefore," writes Jeggels, "therapies marketed on the basis of randomised, controlled trials represent unverified, untested, immature, high-risk therapies, resulting either in the suffering or death of patients, and certainly do not reverse most disorders."

So now you have an intelligent answer ready the next time somebody tells you that medicine is 'scientific'.

The latest views about children with autism is that it is a multifactorial problem, due to a combination of vaccination, heavy-metal exposure and even to microwaves, as generated by mobile phones. Typically, a child exhibits gut conditions, problems with detoxification and heavy-metal
poisoning. Here are a few basic ways to regularize these symptoms.

• Make sure your child receives good supplements of vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids, including trace minerals such as zinc and selenium.
• Remember, gut health can be enhanced with probiotics and digestive enzymes.
• Fix any Candida problems (see The Candida and ME Handbook. London: WDDTY, 2001).
• Supplement with glutathione and products that boost its uptake, which helps with mercury detox. Children exposed to thimerosal have lower cellular levels of glutathione (NeuroToxicology, 2005; 26: 1–8). A number of companies offering such support suggests that the products should be sodium benzoate-free to support clearing of metals and other toxins.
• Support the rebuilding of gut cellular barriers with the use of glycosaminoglycans. These gut-protective barriers are often impaired when a child is exposed to the MMR shot or heavy metals.
• Chelate heavy metals naturally or with homeopathic methods. One such agent is zeolite, a natural volcanic mineral that claims to chelate heavy metals more gently than do chemicals such as DMSA.
• Keep your home free of wireless and mobile-phone radiation, and consider using equipment that minimizes such radiation.

The full story, 'Hiding behind junk science', is in the April issue of WDDTY.

Are we poisoning our children to the extent that they can't function in the classroom?

A new study into the abilities of children in the UK who are failing basic exams known as SATS has discovered that 55 per cent have an undetected learning problem such as dyslexia.

If this were extrapolated across the nation, the numbers of British children with learning difficulties would be around 2 million, 20 times the 76,000 who are currently officially recognised as having dyslexia and the like.

Whenever studies like this are published - and always they seem to suggest a problem that's more more prevalent than government figures ever admit - experts explain that dyslexia is related to genetic factors.  If this were always the case, we shouldn't be seeing an explosion in the numbers of children who are struggling at school.

A more interesting possibility comes from developmental psychologist Maryanne Wolf who, in her excellent book 'Proust and the Squid', explains that reading is a facility we learn and, as we do, so we 'educate' our neural networks that create new pathways that enable us to read and write.  In a fascinating aside, she says the Chinese have completely different neural pathways in their brain that have been created by their own language and character set.

If this is so, something other than genetics may also be playing a part in slowing - or stopping - the creation of the neural pathways required for reading. 

In a separate study published this week, researchers have discovered that diesel fumes affect the way our brain functions, although they don't yet know if our abilities are also impaired by these pollutants (see our News section).  This suggests that our brains may be affected by a range of environmental and chemical assaults - not just diesel fumes, but also pesticides, electro-pollution, and pharmaceuticals - and the affect may be far worse in young and developing brains.

Over the past 50 years or so, we've been cavalier in our use of petro-chemicals and electro-magnetic technology.  We've sprayed our crops with pesticides, we've given our children mobile phones, and we've vaccinated them with more than 20 different chemicals - all in the name of progress, and a safer and healthier world.

The legacy may be a generation that has more children with cognitive difficulties than ever before.  Perhaps it's time to reconsider the level of poisons to which we expose our children.  The alternative would be catastrophic.