Cholesterol Lowering Drugs are Worthless in Most Cases – Part Two
By Mark Schauss | February 18, 2008
In one of my blogs last week, I talked about the issues with Lipitor® and the lack of the association between high cholesterol and coronary heart disease. Now let’s talk about real problems that come up by taking this drug.
Say the side-effect rate is 3-5% (which is the pharmaceutical industry line) which means that given one-percent of people get a benefit, five-percent get side-effects that can be rather serious. Guess what? That estimate is way under what practitioners in the field are seeing. Reports indicate that in the real world the side-effect rate is closer to 15%.
Obviously, this would mean that we need to move away from pharmaceutical intervention to lower cholesterol to alternative, “natural” ones right? Wrong. Turns out cholesterol levels in people with heart disease are not really much higher than people without heart disease. Also, low cholesterol (under 160mg/dl) may increase the risk of a number of health disorders like stroke, cancer, depression, and suicide. Lowering cholesterol is not the issue, in spite of what the nutraceutical industry would like you to believe. They are being no different in their claims than the pharmaceutical industry.
The real culprit in heart disease is inflammation. Lower inflammation and not only do you lower the real risk for heart disease , you lower the risks for a myriad of other diseases from diabetes to arthritis, from cancer to migraines, seizures and irritable bowel syndrome to name a few.
Topics: Drugs, Health, Opinion, Research | No Comments »
Mercury and CFLs – What is the Truth About This Issue?
By Mark Schauss | February 15, 2008
I have seen arguements on both sides of the issue when it comes to mercury and compact fluorescent light bulbs. CFLs contain about 5 milligrams of mercury, a highly toxic heavy metal whereas a incandescent bulb contains none. If you look at it that way, on face value, there is no way you should use a CFL. But that isn’t the whole story.
Yes, the bulbs when used up or broken, need to be disposed of differently than incandescents. You can go to Lamp Recycle which is a resource for any light bulb (“lamp”) user seeking details on recycling spent mercury-containing lamps. Still, there is a very good reason why using a CFL actually cuts down on the amount of mercury being dumped into the environment.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, here is the reason why CFLs lower mercury dumping into the environment:
“CFLs do contain a small amount of mercury, so they cannot be thrown out in the trash (see the related links for disposal information). However, the mercury in CFLs represents a much less significant environmental hazard than incandescent bulbs because CFLs require much less electricity, and more than half of our nation’s electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants-the largest U.S. source of mercury emissions.
In other words, the average coal-fired power plant emits only 3.2 milligrams of mercury for each CFL running six hours per day for five years, but emits nearly 15 milligrams of mercury for an incandescent bulb running the same amount of time, according to UCS research. The difference far exceeds the approximately five milligrams present inside a CFL. Properly disposing of CFLs ensures the mercury in them remains contained.”
Another reason to use CFLs is that by using less energy, if everyone in America were to swap one bulb, it would be the equivalent of removing 800,000 cars from the roads. Less, benzene, toluene, and other greenhouse gases would be lowered significantly. At the Schauss House, we have already replaced about a dozen incandescents with CFLs. Also, my Rotary club has committed $1,000 to helping charter schools, non-profits and other deserving community based organizations switch as well.
Topics: Environment, heavy metals, Mercury, Toxicity | 1 Comment »
Cholesterol Lowering Drugs are Worthless in Most Cases – Part One
By Mark Schauss | February 15, 2008
While walking through the SeaTac Airport a few weeks ago, I saw an article in Business Week magazine that made me smile as it was saying what I have been saying for years, which is, statin drugs really don’t prevent heart disease.
Aside from the Vytorin®/Zetia® debacle, the whole idea of lowering cholesterol (LDL especially) to prevent heart disease is nothing less than a scam. In my book, Achieving Victory Over a Toxic World, I devote a few pages on the medical communities fascination with LDL and heart disease and how bogus the idea is. Well, the evidence is coming in that I was indeed right, as were a number of researchers I mentioned like Dr. Ufe Ravnskov and Dr. John Abramson.
When I make my comments at lectures around the world about the lack of a real link between LDL cholesterol and heart disease I get mixed reactions. Knowledgeable health care practitioners nod in agreement with big smiles; others grimace with a backdrop of anger and disbelief. Individuals look mystified, bewildered and highly skeptical. How can a guy with a doctorate in business be right when so many physicians who have studied heart disease be wrong? If you stay on the side that thinks statin drugs and lowering cholesterol are proven preventive treatments for coronary heart disease after reading this three-part blog, either you are in a major state of denial or you are on the payroll of a pharmaceutical company that is benefiting from the sale of these ill-conceived toxins.
An important concept to understand is a number called the NNT (Number Needed to Treat). This number tells us the number of people that must take a drug for one person to benefit. If a drug is perfect, than that number should be one, which means for every one person who takes the drug, one person will benefit from it and prevent or successfully treat the disease or syndrome.
For people taking an antibiotic cocktail to kill off the bacterium (H pylorii) that causes ulcers, the NNT is 1.1, which is pretty darn good. For Lipitor®, whose sales last year for Pfizer was about 13 billion dollars, the NNT is between 16-23 for people who have had a heart attack or have definitive signs of heart disease. Not horrible, but an ok number.
So what does that number mean? To prevent one person having a heart event 16-23 people need to be taking the drug. To prevent a death, 48 people would have to take the drug for 5 years to save one life. But we are saving lives would (and is) the industry answer. Guess what? Change your lifestyle just a little bit (eat better, exercise more, stop smoking, etc) and you’ll do much better than that and you won’t have any nasty side effects.
For those of you with a risk factor like high blood pressure and no existing heart disease or heart attack history, the NNT goes to 75-200. If you have no risk factor except what the medical community would deem “high” cholesterol (over 220 mg/dl) the NNT is a ridiculous 500+ as there is no measurable reduction in deaths or serious events. Very little potential benefit, lots of profits for the pharmaceutical industry.
What about Zetia®? The NNT is an astounding 1000+. It is basically worthless. No benefits seen at all. The same can be said for the diabetes drug Avandia® which does lower blood glucose, but does not prevent any disease caused by diabetes.
“Lipitor® reduces the risk of heart attack by 36%… in patients with multiple risk factors for heart disease.” This is what Dr. Jarvik claims (as does Pfizer) in that insipid ad he appears on TV. Now let’s talk about the real numbers. In the clinical trial he mentions, three percent (3%) of the people taking placebo had a heart attack while two percent (2%) of the people taking Lipitor® had a heart attack. So, 99 people had to take Lipitor® for five years with no benefit for one person to gain a benefit over placebo to prevent a heart attack. I don’t know about you, but that isn’t a 36% improvement. Statistics lie when put into the hands of people with an agenda, especially a multi-billion dollar one.
Topics: Drugs, Health, Opinion, Research | 2 Comments »
The Deceit Just Keeps Getting Deeper
By Mark Schauss | February 15, 2008
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any lower, it does. A report published on the Nature magazine website claims that Dr. Steven M. Haffner of the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, forwarded a report to drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline warning them about a paper that was about to be published by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) critical of their blockbuster (blockbuster meaning big money maker) drug Avandia. He was supposed to be reviewing the paper and it is highly unethical and against NEJM rules to let anyone else see a paper being reviewed.
To see the full extent of the problem, go to this link at the New York Times. My question is, when do we put a stop to this unbridled greed and deceit?
Topics: Drugs, Health, Opinion | No Comments »
Another Source of Lead – Lipstick
By Mark Schauss | February 14, 2008
Just when you thought the lead news couldn’t get any worse, it does. Women need to be aware that their lipstick may contain unacceptable levels of the neurotoxin, lead. In a report from The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, over 61% of all the lipstick brands out there contained lead. The industry and their spokespeople use the age old excuse that “lead is naturally occuring” instead of recalling their products and vowing to never allow their products to contain lead.
What is disturbing is that children who innocently play with lipstick can ingest levels of lead that can lead to brain damage that may not be able to be reversed. There needs to be tighter restrictions on lead in products as well as other heavy metals like arsenic, cadmium, and mercury. Also, industry has to step up and take some damn responsibility instead of acting like a kid who accidentally broke the cookie jar and blames it on the dog.
Topics: Environment, Health, Toxicity | No Comments »
Perchlorates and Iodine – Another Reason to Ban this Substance
By Mark Schauss | February 14, 2008
Turns out that the molecular pump that drives iodine also does the same to the toxic chemical perchlorate. Researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, led by Dr. Nancy Carrasco, found that perchlorate does double damage to lactating mothers and their babies because the chemical depletes the child of much needed iodine.
This finding is proof that perchlorates (found in jet engine fuel) is more dangerous than the industry admits. Isn’t that how it always works?
Since perchlorate is unavoidable, it is yet another reason to make sure you get adequate amounts of iodine in your diet or at least take a supplement (75 mcg should do for healthy people). Better yet, get tested. Doctor’s Data has a great iodine challenge test that everyone should get at least once every five years.
Topics: Environment, Health, Laboratory Tests, Toxicity | No Comments »
A Win For The Good Guys – Phthalates Being Banned in California
By Mark Schauss | February 13, 2008
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a ban on the use of the common toxin and plasticizer phthalates from being used in any product that would come in contact with children under the age of 3. This hormone disruptor is showing up in urine samples of way too many people and has already been shown to damage DNA in male sperm, cause shortening of pregnancies, depression of testosterone in men, possibly causing insulin resistance and obesity. While this is a good first step, more needs to be done.
While banning a toxin like this is important, educating the public is more important. We are constantly being bombarded by thousands of chemicals each day with the only reassurance being given coming from the poison makers themselves.
Phthalate users and manufacturers would have you believe that their products are safe and there are no health problems associated with their use but independent researchers would beg to differ. If you want more information about this issue go to either the Environmental Working Group’s website or to the journal Environmental Health Perspectives and search for phthalates. You may never use plastics the same way ever again but you will be protecting your health.
Topics: Environment, Health, Toxicity, Websites | No Comments »
Toxic Toys – Find Out Which Are Safe, Which Are Not
By Mark Schauss | February 13, 2008
Toxic toys have been in the news and most parents are rightfully paranoid about the safety of their child’s play things. The non-profit Ecology Center launched a website called the Consumer Action Guide to Toxic Chemicals in Toys. You can nominate toys for testing as well.
Currently, each toy gets an overall rating as well as a separate rating for 5 chemicals – lead, chromium, chlorine/PVC, arsenic, and mercury. Also, if toxic chemicals like tin, antimony, chromium, and bromine are found in higher than normal levels (over 100 part per million) they are reported as well.
This website serves as another great resource for consumers and parents.
Topics: Environment, Health, Toxicity, Websites | No Comments »
Update on Tasya – Seizures, Health, Behavior and Mood
By Mark Schauss | February 12, 2008
It’s about time I updated everyone on my soon to be 12-year old daughter, Tasya. As anyone who has read my book knows, she has a rare and as of yet, uncatergorized form of epilepsy that was so severe at one time, we thought that either she would die of it or become severely retarded by the age of 11 or 12. I am very happy to report that despite the doom and gloom that seemed to follow her 3 years ago, she is now doing better now than she has at anytime since her seizures began back in 1999.
So what have we been doing to help her so much? Well, aside for the diet and avoiding crappy foods, aspartame, MSG and the foods on her LEAP test that cause inflammatory responses, we added two key nutrients from our previous regimen. The first was Glycerophosphocholine also known as GPC and PS Omega Synergy, both from the company I now work for, Crayhon Research. GPC is a great phospholipid that has been shown in numerous clinical trials to be beneficial to people who have suffered strokes as well as restoring memory and concentration in both young and older individuals. Concentration issues were a major problem for Tasya so we asked Dr. Kidd what the dosage should be and his suggestion was 300 mg per day, always in the morning. I can honestly report that her concentration has markedly since starting on a regular regimen of GPC.
The second nutrient PS Omega Synergy which is a combination of Phosphatidylserine and two Omega 3 fatty acids, EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), has made a truly profound change in her mood, social skills and helped to lower the number of seizures she has to almost nothing. This is the best seizure control that she has had ever since they started in October of 1999. Her classmates have noticed a difference, her teachers have and we have. She is less likely to lose her temper, she has exhibited a wider range of emotions than ever before and has started to get excited about things that normally wouldn’t have moved her off the couch. PS Omega Synergy was the right nutrient at the right time for Tasya.
Is this the answer for others? I can’t say that honestly. Did it make that much of a difference with Tasya? That and more. We have a predominantly seizure free child for the first time in years. Even her neurologist had a smile on his face yesterday when Tasya and my wife Hillary visited him. He decided that instead of the every four month visit, we could extend it to every six months.
Topics: Epilepsy, Laboratory Tests, Supplements | No Comments »