Sunday, July 25, 2010
I just returned from a lecture where I was teaching doctors about bioidentical hormones. I presented the data on the Women’s Health Initiative and I was thinking about the results of this study on the flight home. I thought I would share some of these thoughts with you.
The Women’s Health Initiative was a large study involving over 16,000 women who were randomly assigned to take the conventional, synthetic hormones Premarin and Provera or placebo. The study was supposed to last for 8.5 years, but was stopped early (at 5.2 years) because the women in the treatment group (those taking Premarin and Provera) developed serious side effects. Compared to women who took a placebo, those in the treatment group had a 26% increase in invasive breast cancer, a 41% increase in stroke, a 205% increase in Alzheimer’s disease and a 2100% increase in pulmonary embolism. Due to these problems, women were told to stop taking the hormones.
Those numbers were not a big shock to me. Those of us who had been writing and speaking out against the use of conventional hormones knew they were problematic. For nearly 25 years, before the completion of the Women’s Health Initiative, the powers-that-be assured women that conventional hormone replacement therapy was safe and would not lead to increased breast cancer rates. In fact, women were told that taking these synthetic hormones would prevent heart disease. At best, those statements were wishful thoughts, at worst they were lies. During this time there were many studies which pointed to problems with conventional hormones. However, doctors continued to prescribe conventional HRT to more and more women. Unfortunately, now we are left to deal with the side effects.
In my lecture, I presented data (from the Women’s Health Initiative) to the doctors about the numbers of women who developed breast cancer during the five years the subjects took the synthetic hormones. The data showed breast cancer rates increasing about 26% during this time (as compared to women who did not take synthetic hormones). Next, I showed the doctors a graph of the breast cancer rate for a 2.5 year period after the women were told to stop taking the synthetic hormones. Breast cancer rates were reported to fall 27% during the time women stopped taking the synthetic hormones.
So, let’s think about these numbers (as I was thinking about them on the flight home). Specifically, I was thinking about the 26% increase in breast cancer for those women given synthetic hormones and an almost identical decline in breast cancer rates after the women stopped taking them.
What conclusions can you draw from this data? A reasonable conclusion is that no woman should ever receive these items, under any condition. However, that was not the FDA or conventional medicine’s conclusion. They concluded that women should be still be treated with these medications if they need them, but they should only take them for the shortest time needed. What is the data that supports using conventional HRT for the shortest time needed? You can guess the answer to this question; there is no data supporting that statement.
I say the FDA should have removed these toxic hormones from the market. There is absolutely no indication to use these items when there are natural, bioidentical versions available. The bioidentical hormones are clearly safer. Furthermore, they are effective at treating the signs and symptoms of menopause. In the first edition of The Miracle of Natural Hormones, written in 1999 (before the Women’s Health Initiative), I advised women to avoid conventional hormone replacement therapy because there was an increased risk of side effects. My second edition of this book provides more information on the safety and efficacy of bioidentical, natural, hormones and a further analysis of the Women’s Health Initiative.
What can we take away from all of this? We need to go back to using science and common sense. Common sense would dictate that when there are natural, bioidentical versions of hormones available, there is no need to consider using a synthetic version. Science does support this common sense argument.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Are Dental X-rays Dangerous?
Should you get x-rays at the dentist? Dentists will tell you that x-rays are necessary for diagnosing cavities at an early stage, before a tooth is severely injured. All x-rays have risk; they damage our genetic material, the DNA.
Do dental X-rays cause thyroid problems? A recent report in Acta Oncologica found a direct correlation with the number of dental x-rays and thyroid cancer. In other words, the patients who received more dental X-rays were found to have an increased rate of thyroid cancer.
Patients who received four dental X-rays had more than double the risk of developing thyroid cancer as compared to those who were not irradiated. As compared to those not exposed to X-rays, subjects given five to nine X-rays had a risk of developing thyroid cancer that was more than four times normal. Finally, those with ten or more X-rays had a five-fold risk as compared to someone who had not received an X-ray.
The thyroid gland sits in the lower part of the neck. It is very sensitive to radiation. Over the last 30 years, thyroid cancer as well as other thyroid disorders, has been increasing in the U.S. at epidemic rates.
So, should you have dental X-rays or should your children have dental X-rays? There is not a perfect answer here. Dentists rely on X-rays to identify cavities at an early stage. Many cavities are not able to be diagnosed visually. I have spoken to many dentists about this conundrum and they say that X-rays are a necessary and helpful tool in dentistry.
One solution to the problem is to have your dentist use the digital X-rays. Digital X-rays provide much less radiation as compared to conventional radiology equipment. Furthermore, your dentist should provide you with a lead shield in order to protect the thyroid gland. I don’t believe any dental X-rays should be given unless the thyroid gland is properly protected. If your dentist does not provide this protection to you (and, he/she should provide it without asking), it is time to find a new one.
I do believe periodic dental X-rays are necessary for dentists to accurately and quickly make a diagnosis about the health of the teeth. However, the best way to prevent dental disease is to eat a healthy diet free of refined foods and refined sugar. (Acta Onc. May 2010. Vol. 49, No. 4. P. 447-53)
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Synthetic Hormones and Early Puberty
I probably do not have to tell you that, as compared to ten years ago, young girls are reaching puberty at a much earlier age. It is readily apparent to any parent of a teenage girl. A study found that breast development began at an average age of nine years and ten months in a group of 1,000 Denmark girls. Furthermore, the researchers reported that the girls in the study were beginning puberty a year earlier as compared to a previous study fifteen years ago.
Folks, this a big problem. Girls are entering puberty earlier and earlier. The girls will have adolescent issues at an earlier age and, in later years, be more prone to serious illnesses like breast cancer. In fact, in our modern world, breast cancer and other hormone-sensitive cancers are now occurring in much younger people as compared to years ago.
Why is this happening? I have no doubt that a large part of accelerated puberty is being driven by the increasing exposure to synthetic hormones and other synthetic chemicals that mimic our natural hormones. Where are these items found? They are found in food (meat, milk, eggs, fish, etc.,) as well as many commonly used household items such as soap, toothpaste, plastics and electronic equipment.
Conventional farmers feed their animals hormones in order for the animals to grow to a larger size. These synthetic hormones are used to increase the profits from the animals. The problem is that these hormones make it into our food supply. This is a major reason why you need to eat organic food free of pesticides and hormones.
Children are very sensitive to these synthetic hormones, more so than adults. It is vitally important to keep these hormones out of the food supply of our children. Children should not be fed animal products tainted with synthetic hormones.
Chemicals such as bisphenol-A and triclosan have been added to so many consumer items that it has become nearly impossible to avoid being exposed to them. Both of these items have estrogen-like properties and can bind to and stimulate estrogen receptors. I would have to believe that nearly every one of us has significant amounts of these chemicals in our bodies. I believe this is a major part of the driving force of early adolescence as well as the epidemic of breast and prostate cancer we are currently experiencing.
What can you do? As mentioned above, eat organic foods and try to minimize your exposure to toxic chemicals. Furthermore, ensure that your detoxification pathways are functioning normally. I always encourage my patients to do a liver and colon detox at least twice per year. One product that I designed (along with my partners) is known as Total Liver Care (TLC). We designed this product to supply the liver with the proper nutrients that will facilitate detoxification. Just as we clean out our cars or closets every once in a while, the liver can also use a little help. TLC can be found at: www.purezenhealth.com, One scoop twice per day will do the trick!
Friday, July 2, 2010
Problems With HPV Vaccine
My daughter, Jessica, recently asked me why she wasn’t vaccinated with the HPV vaccine (Gardasil). Jessi told me all her friends have received the vaccine. I told her that there were two major reasons that I felt were important enough to not let her get this vaccine. Number one (the most important one), this vaccine is injuring and killing healthy young females. Nearly one young woman has died per month due to this vaccine. This fact alone should cause Congress to act and the media to question its use. The number two reason I don’t believe this vaccine should be given is that most women (over 90%) infected with HPV will overcome the illness without any therapy due to natural immunity.
Gardasil is promoted by Big Pharma Cartel Merck to prevent two types of HPV that are associated with cervical cancer and two more types that cause 90% of genital warts. Gardasil was designed to protect against two strains of HPV that cause about 75% of cervical cancer and two more strains that cause 90% of genital warts. Gardasil does not treat cancer or genital warts. It is given in three injections over six months. The monetary cost of Gardasil is very high—approximately $400 for the series of three vaccines.
Much of the following information is taken from a wonderful article on the Gardasil vaccine which can be found at:
http://healthfreedoms.org/2010/06/28/will-mercks-gardasil-hpv-vaccine-be-its-next-vioxx/. This article should be read by every parent who is considering vaccinating their child against HPV.
Gardasil was approved by the FDA in 2006. Since that time, it has been responsible for 66 deaths and over 17,700 medical injuries to young girls. Six percent of the reported events (1,100) were serious enough to require emergency care. Remember, only about 10% of all adverse reactions are reported to the CDC.
Other adverse effects associated with Gardasil (from PDR) are Guillain-Barre syndrome, lupus, seizures, anaphylactic shock, chronic fatigue, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation, blurred vision, and blindness. Furthermore, the following events have been reported after vaccination from Gardisil: blood and lymphatic system disorders, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, idiopathic thrombotic purpura, lymphadenopathy, pulmonary embolis, pancreatitis, vomiting, asthenia, chills, death, fatigue, malaise, autoimmune diseases, bronchospasm, urticaria (hives), arthralgia, myalgia (muscle pains), and transverse myelitis (inflamed spinal cord).
I say enough said. Who would give that vaccine to their child?
Dr. Diane Harper, a top expert on HPV claimed that the recommendation to vaccinate all young girls, “…went too fast without any breaks. We don’t know yet what’s going to happen when millions of doses of the vaccine have been given and to put in place a process that says you must have this vaccine, it means you must be part of a bit public experiment. So we can’t do that until we have more data.”[i]
So, what do you do? Number one, educate yourself. If the vaccine sounds right to you, then consider it. However, if there are concerns, I suggest continuing to educate yourself. Remember, you can’t take a vaccine back after it is given.