Exploring Natural Health
You are an Experiment of One and the only one that mattersTM
 
     
   
     
 

Archive for May, 2006

Vaccine for Cervical Cancer–Fine, but Not Mandatory

Wednesday, May 31st, 2006

An FDA advisory panel gave unanimous endorsement in mid May to a new vaccine that blocks viruses that scientists believe cause most cervical cancer.

The drug, Gardasil, produced by Merck, protects against two types of human papillomavirus (HPV) that cause 70% of cervical cancer cases. It also blocks two viruses that cause genital warts.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted virus and is said to affect more than 50% of sexually active adults. Worldwide cervical cancer kills 290,000 women annually including 3,500 in the U.S. where preventative health screening (Pap tests) detects precancerous conditions.

The FDA is expected to make a decision by June 8, and it usually follows the advice of outside committees. The cost of the vaccine will be $300-500 for a series of three shots over six months.

The head of the advisory panel, Dr. Monica Farley of the Emory University School of Medicine, told The New York Times, “This is certainly a wonderful, good addition to our screening processes.”

And that’s what it should be—another tool in the medical kit, but every news report I’ve heard or read concluded with some rumbling about vaccinating every female—ages 9 to 26—preferably before they’ve become sexually active.

Do we hear “ka-ching” over at Merck if public health officials can be sold on the idea that yet another vaccine is required for our youth?

“Now, honey, you’re turning 10, and you must be vaccinated for sexually transmitted diseases,” moms will be saying to their daughters if the government-AMA-pharma triumvirate has its way.

The number of vaccines required for infants and young children quadrupled through the 1980s. Likewise, autism among our children since the early 1990s escalated from 1 in 10,000 to a shocking and tragic 1 in 150. (Nobody ever admitted to the vaccine preservative being the cause, but mercury preservative was removed from all but the influenza vaccines.)

Yet, Dr. Thomas Saari, spokesperson for the American academy of Pediatrics has threatened, “We project over the next 10 years that we’ll add one to two new vaccines a year.” As of 2005, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends vaccination against at least 11 diseases, and the AMA is looking at vaccinating for up to 16 different infectious diseases.

It makes no sense, and it is dangerous to vaccinate for every possible health problem. Instead let’s focus on strengthening our children’s immune system—not compromising it—and their very life–with multiple vaccinations.

Now hand out the condoms—simple protection against all STDs—and have that talk about responsible sexual behavior when she’s ready to listen—and that’s not age 9 or 10!!

For all the $$ Spent, Older Americans are Sicker than the English

Monday, May 15th, 2006

By the end of this year U.S. health care expenditures are expected to top $2 trillion, more than double the health care expenditures 10 years ago. Yet, the May 3rd issue of JAMA reports a new study comparing the health of older Americans and their English counterparts, and we’re not ahead for our bucks!

While the U.S. spends more than twice as much per person on health care as Britain, the data showed that older Americans are “much sicker” than their English counterparts.
The researchers found, using two national data sets on both sides of the Atlantic, that U.S. citizens in late middle age have higher incidents of diabetes (twice as high), hypertension (10% more common), heart disease, heart attack, stroke, lung disease and cancer. The analysis was limited to non-Hispanic whites in both countries.

As to our general condition and health behaviors, about one in five people between 55 and 64 are still smoking on both sides of the Atlantic. And the data confirmed mutual stereotypes: Americans are prone to obesity, and Brits drink too much.

Self-reported incidents of chronic diseases were checked against biological markers (exams, labs, etc). Americans reported higher levels of disease than most English, and in most cases, much higher levels. The reports of health (or rather, disease) were measured against education and household income. For example, rates of obesity decline in both countries as income and education rise. With the exception of cancer, the prevalence of diseases is higher among those with less education and income in both countries, though the differences are greater in the U.S. This is no surprise.

Differences Not Due to Health Insurance
What is shocking, however, is that Americans in the top education and income strata have comparable rates of diabetes and heart disease as those in the bottom of the income and education strata in England. And health insurance cannot be the central reason here because while England has universal health care access, the top socio-economic tier of the U.S. population is close to universal access with only 6.6% not having health insurance.

Sir Michael Marmot, a professor at University College London who is a co-author of the report, told the New York Times, that the differences in health could not be ascribed to the “usual suspects” such as smoking, obesity or alcohol abuse. Neither could the disparate health care systems in the U.S. and Britain be blamed for the differences in health outcomes, Sir Michael claimed.

“I’m arguing that it’s due to the differences in the circumstances in which people live,” he told the Times. His suspects, where we should look for explanations, is in how people live—work place environment, job security or lack thereof and consequent stress, residential communities and whether they’re supportive.

American per capita expenditure on medical care is about $5,274 a year compared to $2,164 in Britain where universal health care access is offered through the National Health Service, although it’s facing huge deficits. In a press release, JAMA editors commented, “Whether greater financial expenditures translate into better health for a country’s citizens is uncertain.”

Not really. It’s quite clear and was long before this study was published that the U.S. spends twice as much as the next group of developed nations (Canada, France, and England), and they provide their citizens universal care. The U.S. spends twice the amount and yet one in six Americans has no health care coverage.

Still, this study is interesting in documenting our level of health/disease compared to a nation spending half the amount. My usual “suspect” in understanding the disparities in health would be nutritional differences. However, the nutritional intake of Brits, heavy on fats and animal products, is not a healthy cuisine by any measure.

The difference in level of activity and exercise between Americans and Britons is probably significant. Walking to the tube in England amounts to more exercise than walking from the kitchen to the garage in America, but America’s city planners haven’t provided the public transportation systems to get us out of our cars.

Weigh the Self-Care Factor
Another significant difference is the Brits’ and the Americans’ ability to take responsibility for their own health. The British have been using homeopathic medicines and herbal treatments for centuries, and they spread homeopathy across the globe through the British Empire. Most, if not all, of the chronic diseases reported in this study, can be prevented or treated with herbal medicines—and getting out of our cars and exercising.

Americans, on the other hand, have been under the strong arm of the pharmaceutical industry since WWII, and since 1998 the nation is inundated with pharmaceutical propaganda in all the media. Older Americans, in particular, have hardly a clue of how to take care of themselves without prescription drugs. It’s little wonder we’re “much sicker” than the British.

One of the data bases used in the international comparison collected data on Americans’ use of supplements (NHANES 2002), but the survey failed to ask the subject’s reason or expected outcome for the supplement. If a person has independently elected to take a supplement (any nonprescription health treatment), then s/he has done some research on a health issue and made a decision with an expected outcome of improvements in some area. Let’s ask! Taking responsibility for one’s health is how we become healthier!

An examination of each nation’s efforts in health self-care would be an enlightening study and might go a long way in explaining the differences in health between the nations.

The China Study explains our confusion concerning Nutrition – the most Important Health Book you will ever need

Monday, May 1st, 2006

The section of Nutrition in the Articles of WomensMedicineBowl.com is the last major section to be written. It’s not that I was confused– I’ve always told my daughters, “Diet wasn’t a four-letter word 25 years ago. It meant eating sensible portions of a wide variety of foods.” But the literature is baffling.

In the 1970s it seemed that every food that was studied was carcinogenic, so what were we to eat? Even in my 20’s I figured all the research dollars were being put into finding causes of cancer, so vola!, of course every study would turn up carcinogens!

In the spring of 2002, I was introduced to Dr. T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University, a titan in nutrition research. Dr. Fiona Chew of Syracuse University, whose research is in health communication, brought us together for brunch in Ithaca at, appropriately, the Moosewood Restaurant, a renowned vegetarian café. We had all worked with Dr. Sushma Palmer, president of CECHE, in varied international health projects.

Over brunch we talked about common experiences in rural Virginia, and when the conversation turned to health matters and this website I was still writing, I humbly expressed my views (and the position of WomensMedicineBowl.com) regarding the FDA – that it does NOT protect the public’s health—and the tragic state of medical care in the USA. I was speaking, and writing, as an experienced consumer and professional journalist and communicator.

To my (pleasant) surprise, Dr. Campbell was in agreement with my views. Now I know why. He had the goods, so to speak, the inside story on who is directing the government’s nutritional recommendations and which food organizations are paying the scientists from the academy who sit on the government panels.

With a 40-year career in nutrition science, Colin Campbell has sat upon the government boards determining which research projects would be funded, and he has reviewed the research results for scientific journals. His own research has received funding for more than 70 grant-years of peer-reviewed work, and he has authored more than 300 research papers. By every measure he is a titan in nutritional science, and he has played an instrumental role in how our country views diet and health.

However, as Dr. Campbell’s knowledge expanded, his new insights into diet and health were sidelined by food industry organizations, particularly the dairy and meat industries. He crossed swords with scientists from the academy who serve on the government panels and who were also on-the-rolls of the agricultural industries.

We can surmise that Dr. Campbell’s insights on nutrition were sidelined because you have never heard-and never will hear-from government sources that for optimal health, to prevent most Western diseases and to cure those diseases, you should be eating a diet of plant-based, whole-foods.

Senator George McGovern and five other powerful senators from agricultural states were defeated in the 1980 elections after a committee McGovern chaired recommended eating less fatty animal products for better heart health. The organizations representing dairy and meat industries are interested in business profits regardless of health outcomes.

And after you’ve had n number of years of bacon, eggs, and milk for breakfast, a burger and fries for lunch, and steak for dinner, and you have developed heart disease, the pharmaceutical companies are waiting in the wings with drugs to maintain your chronic disease.

For many years a few physicians have successfully reversed heart disease through diet (yes, plant-based, whole foods only, not just “occasional” beef-for-dinner). Their colleagues are annoyed, to put it mildly, when their (former) patients who they’ve put through surgery and drug therapy come back and say, “Why didn’t you tell me I could cure my heart disease by eating oatmeal, broccoli and Brussels sprouts?”

A monumental epidemiological study
The China Study research was inspired by a comprehensive survey of the occurrences of cancer throughout China which had been ordered by Premier Chou EnLai when he was dying of cancer in the early1970s. It was the largest biomedical research survey ever undertaken with data of the death rates of 12 types of cancer from more than 2,400 Chinese counties and 880 million (96%) of the citizens; 650,000 data collectors were engaged to accomplish this survey. China is genetically a fairly homogenous population, and individuals tend to remain in the village of their birth for their entire lives, in other words eating the same local foods. Given these stable variables, the statistics in the map of cancer occurrences in China were startling. Some cancers were 100 times more common in counties with the highest rates than in counties with the lowest rates of those same cancers. By comparison, in the U.S. the difference in occurrences is 2 or 3x from one part of the country to another. A key question then addressed in this study undertaken by Cornell University, Oxford University, and China’s Ministry of Health was is cancer largely due to environmental and lifestyle factors and not genetics?

Written by Dr. Campbell and his youngest son, Thomas Campbell, The China Study is a comprehensive review of the scientific literature that indicates a plant-based, whole foods diet prevents and can cure Western diseases (diseases of the affluent): cancer (breast, prostate, colon and rectal), heart diseases, obesity, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, osteoporosis, kidney stones, macular degeneration, and Alzheimer’s, and more.

Government-sponsored Illnesses
“Got Milk? Get Osteoporosis!” This is an ad campaign you’ll never see though it’s true, and there’s been evidence for over 100 years that animal protein decreases bone health. Animal protein increases the body’s acidity, and to neutralize the acid load the body draws calcium from the bones, thus weakening them. (Not strengthening them as the ads tell us and the posters plastered across school walls drill into our kids’ minds.) A review of 87 surveys in 33 countries (published in 2000) compared the ratio of vegetable to animal protein consumption to the rate of bone fractures. The more vegetables consumed the lower rates of bone fractures, until bone fractures disappear when animal protein isn’t part of the diet. The rate of hip fractures in the U.S. is only surpassed by Europe, New Zealand, and Australia where the milk consumption is even higher than America’s!

Contradictory Government Advisories
Should you fully trust the government’s Dietary Guidelines, you should also know that the “Got Milk?” campaign, along with “Pork – The Other White Meat,” “Beef-It’s What’s for Dinner,” slogans we all know, are government advertising campaigns for the nation’s agricultural sector. The USDA organizes the ad campaigns, and they’re paid for by the commodity producers. The fruits and vegetable producers have no notable ad campaigns courtesy of the USDA.

The China Study tells of the academy’s scientists who serve on government panels and make one recommendation, then with a consultant’s fee in pocket, join another official-sounding panel supported by the food industries and pronounce contradictory nutrition advice according to the food industry. It’s no wonder we’re all confused.

Set Your Own Nutrition Course-Sans Mass Media
Don’t expect to see Dr. Campbell on the talk show circuit. About 40 percent of network advertising is paid by the pharmaceutical companies, and another large chunk of ad revenues is food advertising. You won’t be eating the processed foods, nor meat and dairy, and you won’t need the pharmaceuticals. The China Study may be the last book on nutrition and “diet” you need to read. It could also prevent your having to research diseases later.

 
 
  Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact  
  WomensMedicineBowl.com is an independently owned company incorporated in the State of Nevada.
Copyright, Womens Medicine Bowl, Inc., 2003-2009