New research from University of California-Davis and Washington State University suggests exposure to PCBs may increase the likelihood of autism in some children.

Dr. Pamela Lein, a developmental neurobiologist and professor of molecular biosciences in the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, said PCBs can cause a disruption of nerve connections in the brain among children. “Impaired neuronal connectivity is a common feature of a number of conditions, including autism spectrum disorders.”

However, the PCBs alone are not believed to cause autism, but serve as an environmental trigger among genetically susceptible children.

Two related studies published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, present findings that underscore the developing brain’s vulnerability to environmental exposures and demonstrate how PCBs could add to autism risk.

“We don’t think PCB exposure causes autism,” Lein said, “but it may increase the likelihood of autism in children whose genetic makeup already compromises the processes by which neurons form connections.”

Gary Wayman, Ph.D., of Washington State University’s Program in Neuroscience, first described the molecular pathway that controls the calcium signaling in the brain that guides normal dendrite growth. Wayman found that key cellular players are activated by increased calcium levels. “The wiring of billions of neurons is dependent on the health of this cellular process and is crucial to proper development of virtually all complex behaviors, learning, memories and language.”

For the current studies, the team set out to determine if that pathway was altered by exposure to PCBs, focusing on neurons of the hippocampus — the brain region linked with learning and memory and known to suffer impaired connectivity in many neurodevelopmental disorders.

The scientists also focused on the effects of an understudied PCB subset known as non-dioxin-like PCBs, which have been shown to increase calcium levels in neurons.

Both non-dioxin-like PCBs and the more familiar dioxin-like subset were widely used in electrical equipment in the 1950s and 1960s. Banned in the 1970s because of the potential for dioxin-like PCBs to cause cancer, all PCBs are stable compounds that persist throughout the environment today.

“The new findings provide good evidence that PCBs could add to autism risk in genetically predisposed children,” said researchers.

“Understanding the fundamental mechanisms by which PCBs alter neural networks sets the stage for research on environmental contaminants that are structurally related to PCBs, including flame retardants, and their risks to susceptible populations.”

Source:
UC Davis

Yours In Great Health,

The key messages from the study include:

* Patients receiving prescriptions for zolpidem, temazepam and other hypnotics suffered over four times the mortality as the matched hypnotic-free control patients.

* Even patients prescribed fewer than 18 hypnotic doses per year experienced increased mortality, with greater mortality associated with greater dosage prescribed.

* Among patients prescribed hypnotics, cancer incidence was increased for several specific types of cancer, with an overall cancer increase of 35% among those prescribed high doses.

The study also highlighted the evidence from controlled trials, which show that hypnotics, “Impair motor and cognitive skills, such as driving”. Therefore there is an increased risk of automobile crashes and an increase in falls, due to hangover sedation. In some patients, hypnotics increase sleep apnoea, prolong apnoeas or suppress respiratory drive, though among other patients, there may be mild improvement. Sleep apnoeas, in turn, may lead to motor vehicle crashes, hypertension, heart failure, arrhythmias, cardiovascular diseases and death. Hypnotics may cause somnambulistic night-eating syndromes resulting in poor diet and obesity as well as other automaton-like behaviours, which can be dangerous.”

The research team conducting the study concluded by saying that, “Receiving hypnotic prescriptions was associated with greater than threefold increased hazards of death even when prescribed less  than 18 pills per year”. They added “The meagre benefits of hypnotics, as critically reviewed by groups without financial interest, would not justify substantial risks.”

Sar Rooney’s Comment:  When I am treating a patient for insomnia, I will often prescribe medical-strength hypericum (St. John’s Wort) and/or high-strength Valerian, Skullcap, or other herbal medicines (I usually make up an individual herbal complex to suit the patient’s unique requirements) and, although these herbs are not without potential side-effects (e.g. Hypericum can interact with certain medications including the contraceptive pill), the side effects from herbal medicines are generally far less severe than those of pharmaceutical drugs, especially when prescribed correctly. More importantly, though when a patient is suffering from insomnia, I will try to determine the underlying cause of their sleeplessness, while providing them with symptomatic relief. I’ve found the causes of insomnia can vary quite a lot from stress and an overactive mind (which herbs are great for!) through to parasitic infestations, elevated blood sugar levels, hormone imbalances and the list goes on. If you or a loved one suffers from insomnia, consult your trusted naturopathic physician for advice. Don’t suffer in silence as sleep deprivation can have a huge affect on your short-term and long-term health and wellness.

Reference: BMJ Open2012;2:e000850 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000850

ARE YOU WONDERING WHY SO MANY PEOPLE ARE OBESE THESE DAYS?

DO YOU THINK IT’S A BIT STRANGE THAT CANCER IS NOW EPIDEMIC AND NEVER USED TO BE? … AND THAT EVEN YOUNG PEOPLE ARE NOW SUFFERING FROM HEART DISEASE, CANCER OR DIABETES?

ARE YOU CONFUSED BY ALL THE MIXED MESSAGES YOU KEEP GETTING ABOUT ‘HEALTHY FOODS AND HEALTHY DIETS’ FROM THE TV, MAGAZINES, AND SO-CALLED NUTRITION EXPERTS

Then read on because the following information may save your life…………

After studying mainstream nutritional science at university, naturopathic nutrition at college and reading the research on nutrition and on disease causation and disease prevention for over 21 years in conjunction with over 18 years of clinical experience, I have clear ideas about what a healthy diet really means and I would like to share my ideas with you here for free…….. no expensive consultations with so-called experts that have probably only studied ‘one way’ of eating – the information I am providing here is a result of studying ‘many’ different ways of eating and thousands of research trials that identify the association between diet and disease.

If this information helps prevent cancer, heart disease or diabetes in only one of you – then it’s been worthwhile writing it.

However, I am hoping it will create change in everyone that reads this, including all of your family members, as my goal is to prevent disease development in as many people as possible.

If you are fed up with the misinformation provided by so-called professionals that really know very little about nutritional science, or you are sick of the misleading information from the TV; the ‘experts’ at the local gym; practitioners or non-professionals on the internet trying to cash in on your dollars; incorrect information in magazines and other media that is slowly killing you and your family, read on to find out what you need to do to avoid an early grave and have a higher quality of life.

 Let’s get started…………

I never encourage my clients to consume dairy or grains as part of their regular healthy eating plan because these foods are totally unnatural to the human digestive system and they increase blood glucose thus promoting diabetes, heart disease and cancer – and there is much scientific evidence to support this (when its independent and not funded by the dairy corporation or the cereal manufacturers!). The research proves that dairy increases the risk of cancer, especially reproductive cancers (breast, ovarian, prostate, etc) and that grains increase your risk of all cancers including bowel cancer, despite what you may have been told!

In addition, a high-carbohydrate diet can increase your risk of heart disease and has been show to harden your arteries – even though you may have been led to believe the opposite. I also don’t recommend a diet that contains red meat and the reasons why are too extensive to list here.

FOR THOSE THAT ARE SERIOUS ABOUT PREVENTING DISEASE THROUGH EATING A HEALTHY DIET …….

The diet I recommend is essentially plant-based with a small amount of fish, eggs and fermented soy products and a large amount of vegetables and legumes with moderate amounts of fruit, amaranth, quinoa, nuts and seeds. There it is. It’s that simple!

As I said I don’t recommend red meat and dairy in the daily diet, but there is insufficient room in this article to explain why (For more information click here: http://www.earthmedicine.com/are-you-a-fan-of-cheese-or-red-meat ). However, I would like to share with you some of the reasons I encourage you to avoid grains. Keep in mind, unlike practitioners (or celebrities) that are sponsored by the dairy corporation, cereal manufacturers or the meat industry, I do not have any hidden agendas when providing you with advice about healthy eating. I am not receiving any financial incentives from any food manufacturers, industries or corporations, so I don’t need to bamboozle you with stories about why you should eat these foods. But I can certainly tell you why you shouldn’t!

The article below provides reasons why you should avoid a high-grain diet. However, unfortunately what the article fails to say is that amaranth and quinoa are great alternatives to  cereal grains as they are plant-based ‘grains’ which also have the added benefit of being high in protein and packed full of nutrients including calcium (much more than milk!), magnesium, and a range of other nutrients. They can be used in all sorts of recipes and you can even make porridge using quinoa or amaranth! With winter coming up – why don’t you give them a try. Ask your local health food store to stock these wonderful food products, if they don’t already, and start experimenting with some great recipes for your family’s health.

Here’s why you should avoid grains in your diet………

Against the Grain – How grains cause and feed cancers.

“Don’t you need cereals for your bowels? Oats are healthy because they lower your cholesterol, don’t they?” These are very common questions which I hear all the time as a practitioner. Grains are actually not healthy for humans because we never evolved to eat them (we actually never hunted down and killed a bowl of wheat or ate from a pasta plant!). this article explains that the humble grain (oats, wheat, rye, rice, etc) actually drives cancer.

The topic of nutrition and what we should eat is an emotional issue. Let’s take the emotion out of it and look at the latest scientific evidence on this highly controversial topic.

Firstly, here are some background facts about grains that need to be considered in relation to cancer:

 * Grains are high in absorbable (non-fibre) carbohydrates which, once digested, turn into sugar in the body. Pasta, for example, is about 75% carbohydrate and thus eating 200g of past means your body will end up with 150g of sugar (30 teaspoons of sugar) with little nutritional benefit. In comparison, vegetables are vastly higher in nutrients and on average 90% lower in absorbable carbohydrates.

* Grains must be processed to some degree before humans eat it. ‘Whole grain’ bread is made up of milled and cooked grains and not ‘whole’ grains. Eating a whole grain of wheat will result in a chipped tooth!

* Humans have only consumed grains for a few thousand years, which is less than one percent of the entire time humans have been evolving. Thus grains represent a fad aspect of our current diet.

* Grains, especially cereals, are often combined with cow’s milk, which has been found to be carcinogenic in its own right. ¹

* Grains are typically low in nutrients and highly allergenic.

THE SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES THE LINK BETWEEN CANCER AND GRAINS

It was once believed that cereals are good your colon. In fact, grains actually drive colon cancer via two separate mechanisms:

* Plasma CRP (a marker of inflammation) concentrations are elevated among persons who subsequently develop colon cancer².
The data support the hypothesis that inflammation is a risk factor for the development of colon cancer. Dietary glycemic (i.e. grain) load is significantly and positively associated with CRP³.

*A scientific study published a few years ago found that, despite popular belief, foods such as grains that increase blood sugar and insulin levels also increase colon cancer. ⁴

CEREAL FIBRE INCREASES CANCER

It was once thought that the fibre in cereals reduced cancer. However, recent evidence has found that cereal fibre actually increases cancers such as endometrial cancer. ⁵

RESTRICTING CARBOHYDRATES/GRAINS BENEFITS CANCER PATIENTS

Tumour patients exhibit and increased peripheral demand of fatty acids and protein. Tumours utilize glucose as their main source of energy supply. Thus, a diet supplying cancer patients with enough fat and protein to meet their demands while restricting the carbohydrates (CHO) tumours thrive on could be a helpful strategy in improving the patient’s situation.⁶

BREAST CANCER SUFFERERS BENEFIT FROM CARBOHYDRATE RESTRICTIONS

A recent study on breast cancer found an inverse association between risk of breast cancer and a vegetable-based, low-carbohydrate diet⁷. In another study on breast cancer, researchers found that “a sustained reduction in dietary fat intake did not reduce risk of breast cancer in women with extensive mammographic density.
Weight and carbohydrate intakes were associated with risk of breast cancer” ⁸

We basically need to eat what we are designed to eat to improve our health and prevent diseases such as cancer.

Another recent study found that “(these) findings offer a compelling preclinical illustration of the ability of a low carbohydrate diet in not only restricting weight gain but also cancer development and progression.” ⁹

CONCLUSION

Including grains at the expense of highly nutritious unrefined fruits, vegetables, salads, nuts, seeds, legumes and beans is fraught with danger. Substituting anti-carcinogenic fresh foods with refined, processed high carbohydrate foods such as grains that promote and feed cancers is a dangerous thing to do, and such foods need to be highly restricted or even eliminated. We basically need to eat what we are designed to eat to improve our health and prevent diseases such as cancer.

References available upon request.

Let me know what you think! Did you already know that a high-grain diet was unhealthy or has this totally rocked your world?

]]> http://www.earthmedicine.com/a-healthy-diet-who-do-you-believe/feed 0 http://www.earthmedicine.com/childrens-health-put-at-risk-due-to-proposed-government-changes http://www.earthmedicine.com/childrens-health-put-at-risk-due-to-proposed-government-changes#comments Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:24:41 +0000 http://www.earthmedicine.com/?p=982 Do You Think a 14yo Is Mature Enough To Take Complete Responsibility For Their Own Health?

I’ve been helping teens improve their health and wellbeing for many years and its always a pleasure to do so but I havent come across too many 14 year olds that have been capable of:

* Knowing how to purchase the healthiest foods possible when doing the grocery shopping.

* Understanding the best ways to prepare those foods so they provide the most nutrients.

* Being capable of paying for all their own health, dental and medical expenses as well as their clothing, school fees and all other costs needed for everyday life.

* Understanding their hormonal health, bodily changes and all of the other changes they experience at that time of their life.

* Realizing the dangers of teenage sex or drugs (including certain prescribed drugs).

* Knowing the causes and best treatments for their acne, so-called ‘growing pains’ in their legs and other common health issues that may occur during this phase of their lives.

* Having a handle on their rollercoaster emotions ……….

And that’s WHY teenagers need PARENTS to be responsible for their health & welfare.

SO I WAS CONCERNED WHEN I READ THIS REPORT:

Parents want to see health files

A family group has attacked plans to allow children as young as 14 to stop their parents from accessing their personal electronic health records.

Patients will be given the option of signing up for the electronic records from July in one of the Gillard Government’s key health reforms.

The records are designed to keep details of a patient’s medical history together, making it easier for GPs, specialists and other health workers to share information, see past treatments and drug prescriptions and potentially reduce medical errors.

Patients will control how much information is shared and who it is shared with.

Under the plan, when a child turns 14, they will be given control of their records and can deny their parent or guardian access to the file.

When they turn 18, the parent will automatically lose access.

But Australian Family Association spokeswoman Terri Kelleher said parents had a right to know about the health of their child.

“It is just another blow to parental authority,” she said. “It’s clear that teenagers need their family and guidance from their parents. When something goes wrong, who is always blamed? The parents.”

Consumer Health Forum chief Carol Bennett said the issue of parental oversight had sparked intense debate among members. She said 14 was a logical age to give children control of their records because that was the age they could get their own Medicare card.

Children could already get treated by doctors, such as being prescribed the pill, without parental knowledge. As proposed, some information the patient may not want to share – such as an abortion – could be permanently deleted. But Ms Bennett said all information should be kept on file but easily able to be hidden because it could one day be relevant when a patient needed treatment.

She also warned the Government needed to make electronic health records an opt-out system – where patients needed to say they did not want a record – instead of the opt-in system being proposed.

A spokeswoman for Acting Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the Government had decided on its access rules for teenagers following extensive consultation with stakeholders and interest groups.

A Senate inquiry into the electronic health records legislation is expected to report by the end of next month.

Sar’s comment:

Until teens can always act responsibly when life throws challenges their way and until they have the wisdom that only age and life experience can bring – for their own safety – teenagers’ parents should still be able to discuss health matters with their children’s doctor, naturopath or other health practitioner and have access to their child’s medical records until they turn 18yo.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you think that a 14yo child is capable of taking full responsibility for their own health?

They need to make big profits for their shareholders which is why they employ ‘celebrities and sports stars’ to sell their products to the public and why they pour millions into their marketing campaigns. Unlike most ‘Off the shelf’products – The formulas that I prescribe are developed especially for practitioners to prescribe to their patients (not to be made cheaply so shareholders make bigger profits) but treatments that I and other practitioners can rely on to get the therapeutic results required in their patients. As qualified practitioners our reputations rest on getting results so I would never consider recommending inferior products to my clients.

I only ever recommend and prescribe safe and effective medicines and supplements that have been clinically tested and that meet the following criteria:

* They need to be Guaranteed to be free from harmful cheap fillers, toxic pesticide residues & dangerous heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium and aluminum, that are commonly found in other supplements.

* They need to contain therapeutic levels of each ingredient – not just a little bit of this and a tiny bit of that to impress you into buying the product and the nutrients used need to be the most easily utilized by the body (most cheap forms will just go straight through you!).

* They need to be natural forms of nutrients – not synthetic!

* The supplement companies that I rely on for my patients spend millions of dollars each year on scientific research to develop products with powerful biochemical activity & the highest absorption rates and to ensure their formulas contain nutrients & herbs in correctly balanced ratios to deliver optimal therapeutic results. Many cheaper, mass market producers compromise on the quality of raw materials & manufacturing processes.

* The companies I recommend need to use the best manufacturing processes when producing supplements – Avoiding the use of excess heat, moisture & compaction – which can reduce the biological activity of many nutrients and herbs. In addition, the companies I rely on do not use the common reactive binders, fillers & synthetic additives which many producers use and which may be unsafe and can cause short-term or long-term side effects.

* The treatments I prescribe have to have a very high percentage of success – my reputation as a practitioner relies on getting results! The supplements and herbal medicines that I prescribe cannot be compared to products available ‘off the shelf’ from retail outlets. In my clinical experience, these products usually have very limited effect or no effect at all.

Serious Quality Issues with ‘Off the Shelf’ Supplements

For a number of years, I have been troubled by the safety and quality issues of these products (as described above) and, at the very least, have found that many of them have excessive binders which result in a reduced ability to dissolve or absorb their ingredients. In addition, from many years of research, I’ve found that a large number of retail supplements do not contain the therapeutic doses of the active substances claimed on the label and, as I said, are only manufactured to deliver profits to shareholders rather than health benefits to consumers.

Therefore, I only ever prescribe nutrient and herbal supplements from companies that are at the fore-front in the field of integrative medicine that I feel confident will provide effective results for my clients. I wouldn’t ever give ‘off the shelf’ multi-vitamins, herbal supplements, fish oil capsules or any other cheap or inferior nutrient supplements to my patients or family members, including my dogs!

If you want effective solutions to your health problems and you want to  achieve a new state of Well-being, thus maximizing your quality of life – I recommend you only take the highest quality herbal formulas and nutrient supplements available through your naturopathic practitioner. Why compromise your health?

Whenever I hear a doctor, vet or anyone else say that Homeopathy doesn’t work and it’s only a Placebo, I am surprised by this due to the significant and successful clinical results achieved with homeopathic remedies in the treatment of disease. Although herbal medicines, nutrient therapies and a healthy diet can be important in the prevention and treatment of disease, I have witnessed what can only be described as miracles with correctly prescribed ‘practitioner-only’ homeopathic medicines (not those you buy off the shelf from a store).

Furthermore, I find the statements about homeopathy only ‘acting as a placebo’ to be irrational. Try telling a dog, cat, horse or any other animal that the pill they just took is useless (which is what many vets and doctors claim) – how would the animal know the difference between a pharmaceutical drug or a homeopathic remedy? They wouldn’t! Yet their response to homeopathic treatment can be incredible.

For example, the highly-resistant Cryptococcus fungal species that had been invading a 2yo cat’s sinuses since it was a kitten – causing excessive phlegm and respiratory problems which hadn’t responded to several courses of antibiotics  and other conventional treatments – was totally cleared up with a homeopathic remedy that contained the fungus. Then there’s the case of the British Bulldog with candida infesting it’s whole body causing severe itchiness, crusty and sore skin patches and infection from all of the itching. Homeopathic medicines and dietary changes resolved this dog’s skin problems within weeks, despite him suffering for years. And then there’s the horse with chronic diarrhoea that hadn’t responded to any of the veterinary treatments and neither the vets nor the owner knew what to do next. Specifically prescribed homeopathic remedies resolved the problem within days.

In human medicine, there was the case of the obvious birthmark on a 5 yo boy that began to disappear within 2 weeks and was totally gone (never to return) within 2 months and the ‘incurable’ granuloma annulare on a woman’s hand and arm that specialists said she would “Have to learn to live with” began to reduce within weeks despite her suffering from the condition for years ……..  and these are just ‘some’ of the cases that I have treated over the years and, although there have been many, many more – I’m sure other practitioners around the world have just as many great outcomes when they have used individually-prescribed homeopathic medicines on their patients. 

The Swiss also believe in the power of Homeopathy and, not only do they include this safe and effective form of treatment in their national health service, but they have also proven its effectiveness through extensive independent research. Read the article below for more information.

THE SWISS GOVERNMENT’S REMARKABLE REPORT ON HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE

The Swiss government has a long and widely-respected history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. When one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.

In late 2011, the Swiss government’s report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland’s national health insurance program.

The Swiss government’s inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country’s health insurance program. It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.

Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government’s health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland’s national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government’s constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).

The Swiss Government’s  “Health Technology Assessment”

The Swiss government’s ”Health Technology Assessment” on homeopathic medicine is much more  comprehensive than any previous governmental report written on this subject to  date. Not only did this report carefully and comprehensively review the body of  evidence from randomized double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials  testing homeopathic medicines, they also evaluated the “real world  effectiveness” as well as safety and cost-effectiveness. The report also conducted a highly-comprehensive review of the wide body of preclinical  research (fundamental physio- chemical research, botanical studies, animal  studies, and in vitro studies with human cells).

And still further, this report  evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses, outcome studies, and epidemiological research. This wide review carefully evaluated the studies conducted, both in terms of quality of design and execution (called ”internal validity”) and how appropriate each was for the way that homeopathy is commonly practiced (called “external validity”). The subject of external validity is of special importance because some scientists and physicians conduct research on homeopathy with little or no understanding of this type of medicine (some studies tested a homeopathic medicine that is rarely used for the condition tested, while others utilized medicines not commonly indicated for specific patients). When such studies inevitably showed that the homeopathic medicine did not “work,” the real and accurate assessment must be that the studies were set up to disprove homeopathy… or simply, the study was an exploratory trial that sought to evaluate the results of a new treatment (exploratory trials of this nature are not meant to prove or disprove the system of homeopathy but only to evaluate that specific treatment for a person with a specific condition).

After assessing pre-clinical basic research and the high quality clinical studies, the Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects (e.g., balancing or normalizing effects) and specific changes in cells or living organisms. The report also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy.* (Bornhöft, Wolf, von Ammon, et al, 2006)

The Swiss report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited 29 studies in “Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions,” of which 24 studies found a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Further, six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed that homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions (the one other trial found homeopathic treatment to be equivalent to conventional medical treatment). All of these results from homeopathic treatment came without the side effects common to conventional drug treatment. In evaluating  only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.

The authors of the Swiss government’s report acknowledge that a part of the overall review of research included one negative review of clinical research in homeopathy (Shang, et al, 2005). However, the authors noted that this review of research has been widely and harshly criticized by both advocates and non-advocates of homeopathy. The Swiss report noted that the Shang team did not even adhere to the QUORUM guidelines which are widely recognized standards for scientific reporting (Linde, Jonas, 2005). The Shang team initially evaluated 110 homeopathic clinical trials and then sought to compare them with a matching 110 conventional medical trials. Shang and his team determined that there were 22 ”high quality” homeopathic studies but only nine “high  quality” conventional medical studies. Rather than compare these high quality trials (which would have shown a positive result for homeopathy), the Shang team created criteria to ignore a majority of high quality homeopathic studies, thereby trumping up support for their original hypothesis and bias that homeopathic medicines may not be effective (Lüdtke, Rutten, 2008).

The Swiss report also notes that David Sackett, M.D., the Canadian physician who is widely considered to be one of the leading pioneers in “evidence based medicine,” has expressed serious concern about those researchers and physicians who consider randomized and double-blind trials as the only means to determine whether a treatment is effective or not. To make this assertion, one would have to acknowledge that virtually all surgical procedures were “unscientific” or ”unproven” because so few have undergone randomized double-blind trials.

In my view, for a treatment to be determined to be “effective” or “scientifically proven,” a much more comprehensive assessment of what works and doesn’t is required.
Ultimately, the Swiss government’s report on homeopathy represents an evaluation of homeopathy that included an assessment of randomized double blind trials as well as other bodies of evidence, all of which together lead the report to determine that homeopathic medicines are indeed effective.

REFERENCES:

Bornhoft, Gudrun, and Matthiessen, Peter F. Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, safety, Costs. Goslar, Germany: Springer, 2011.
http://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-20638-2/page/1 (This book is presently available from the German office of the publisher, and it will become available via the American office as well as select booksellers in mid- to late-February, 2012.)(NOTE: When specific facts in the above article are provided but not referenced, this means that these facts were derived from this  book.)

Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general  practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077

Dacey, Jessica. Therapy supporters roll up sleeves after vote. SwissInfo.ch, May 19, 2009. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Therapy_supporters_roll_up_sleeves_after_vote.html? id=670064

Linde K, Jonas W. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Lancet 36:2081-2082. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67878-6. http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673605678786.pdf

Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015. http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(08)00190-X/abstract

Rist L, Schwabl H:
Komplementärmedizin im politischen Prozess. Schweizer Bevölkerungstimmt über Verfassungsartikel «Zukunft mit Komplementärmedizin» ab. Forsch Komplementmed 2009, doi  10.1159/000203073.

(Translation: Complementary medicine in the political process: The Swiss population votes on the Constitutional Article “The future with complementary medicine” http://www.ayurveda-association.eu/files/swiss_referendum_on_cam_-_forschkomplementmed_2009.pdf

*Although this Swiss government report was just published in book form in 2011, the report was finalized in 2006. In light of this date, the authors evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathic research up until June 2003.

Diabetes in Gen Y set to Skyrocket

ONEin three members of generation Y is set to develop type 2 diabetes during their lifetime, according to new modelling.

A report, Diabetes: the Silent Pandemic and its Impact on Australia, estimated that by 2025, type 2 diabetes would triple in prevalence to affect three million Australians. Experts said type 1 diabetes was rising by about 3% per year, particularly affecting children aged up to four years. The report’s lead author, Associate Professor Jonathan Shaw from the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, said Australia faced a critical point to take “urgent responsibility” to contain the diabetes burden.

“The battle against diabetes requires concerted efforts on a number of fronts – strategies to slow down the rapidly rising number of those developing the disease and ensuring those living with diabetes are able to manage this insidious condition effectively,” Professor Shaw said. “We must also do everything we can to fully understand diabetes via research.”

The report has prompted some of Australia’s leading research and consumer advocacy groups to demand a renewed focus from the federal government on the condition.

Diabetes Australia CEO Lewis Kaplan said it should be an immediate priority to recommit to the United Nations resolution to develop a formal national action plan to tackle diabetes.

“Time is of the essence because, unlike other developed nations [and] despite agreeing to these global recommendations, Australia has failed to take comprehensive action and implement change,” Mr Kaplan said.

While the current estimated annual health bill for diabetes was more than $6 billion, it would increase dramatically as more people were diagnosed.

The report was funded by Novo Nordisk and produced in partnership with Baker IDI, Diabetes Australia and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

THE NHMRC has come under fire for lacking scientific rigour and failing to withdraw draft guidelines on ADHD that have been tainted by accusations of conflict of interest.

Disagreement among experts over ADHD treatment is in the spotlight again following revelations that a Harvard professor, Joseph Biederman – whose work underpins many of the NHMRC recommendations – has been sanctioned for failing to declare ties with pharmaceutical companies.

Associate Professor Ian Scott, who recently critiqued conflict of interest in guidelines development, said doctors viewing the draft may be unaware of the controversy and assume it was “just a matter of time” before the advice was deemed valid.

“I don’t think [the NHMRC] should have any draft guideline up there that’s subject to a conflict of interest investigation. I think they should be taken down,” said Professor Scott, director of internal medicine and clinical epidemiology at Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane. The draft document has been publicly available since 2009.

But it was never approved due to conflict of interest allegations against Professor Biederman, a prominent US ADHD researcher. The allegations last week culminated in sanctions against him by Harvard Medical School.

An NHMRC spokesperson said the council could not yet assess the impact of the sanctions on the ADHD scientific literature. In May, due to the unresolved investigation into Professor Biederman, a working group was convened to develop new “clinical practice points” for ADHD, and these were due for completion in September. “In the interim, NHMRC will continue to provide access to the 2009 draft guidelines as an information source,” the NHMRC said.

Adjunct Professor Michael Fasher, chair of the RACGP Child and Young Person’s Health Network, said GPs needed best practice guidelines they could rely on.

“No GP has got time to evaluate the evidence themselves. That’s what being a generalist is,” he said. “You need… people who are not generalists to provide you with quality guidelines.” Professor Alasdair Vance, head of academic child psychiatry at Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, said the NHMRC was right to release the draft, but he added the process was mired in the politics between advocates of stimulants and proponents of family-based interventions.

“People need to be aware that it is not a rigorous scientific process and that’s because the NHMRC by its very nature represents too broad an interest group to do that,” he said.

Children who are younger and less mature than their classmates are much more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, a Canadian study has shown. In a review of ADHD diagnosis rates in children aged 6- 12 years of age, boys who were the youngest in their grade had a 30% higher rate of ADHD diagnosis and a 41% higher rate of stimulant use than the oldest boys in their grade.

The study, based on records from 938,000 school children, also showed a steady rise in the risk of ADHD diagnosis for every month younger within a school grade. The findings, in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, showed that the trends for higher rates of ADHD diagnosis in younger children within a school year were consistent across 11 years of rising ADHD diagnosis. The study authors say their findings suggest that ADHD diagnosis rates may be strongly influenced by teachers’ perceptions of a child’s behaviour within a class.

Younger children may appear to have more inattentive, distracting or impulsive behaviour, but this may be “age appropriate“ behaviour and should be seen in context. “The potential harms for overdiagnosis and over prescribing and the lack of an objective test for ADHD strongly suggest caution be taken in assessing children for this disorder … greater emphasis on a child’s behaviour outside of school may be warranted,” they conclude.

Sar Rooney’s comment:

Isn’t it normal for young children to be inattentive, lively and have a high spirit? In my view high energy is a sign of a healthy child (unless they are also being destructive and defiant and displaying other negative behavious patterns) – but I guess ‘lively’ children are high maintenance for stressed-out parents and teachers.

What are your thoughts about drugging our young just because they have a high spirit?

Vitamin D deficiency during early pregnancy is associated with an almost two-fold higher rate of language impairment in the offspring, a study from WA has shown.

In a long term follow up study of children born between 1989 and 1991, researchers found that maternal serum vitamin D levels at 18 weeks of pregnancy were related to language difficulties in the children at five and 10 years. However, contrary to other studies, vitamin D insufficiency during pregnancy was not linked to offspring behavioural or emotional problems at any age, according to the findings published in Pediatrics (online Feb 13).

Researchers from the Telethon Institute for Child Health in Perthsay one of the intriguing findings from their research was the suggestion of a threshold for serum vitamin D levels. Rather than a dose-response relationship, they found that there was a cutoff level of 50nmol/L for circulating 25 (OH)-vitamin D levels, below which the language impairment was seen.

This threshold effect was similar to that seen for vitamin D levels and other health outcomes such as bone density and colorectal cancer risk, they note. They say the developing fetus is completely reliant on maternal vitamin D stores, and vitamin D performs a number of physiological and endocrine roles fundamental to neurodevelopment. “Maternal vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy may reduce the risk of developmental language difficulties among their children,” they conclude.