Health & Fitness

When evaluating the safety of vaccines, adjuvants must be taken into account. The most commonly used vaccine adjuvant is aluminum,¹ a demonstrated neurotoxin that is added to certain vaccines to increase your immune response and, with that, theoretically a higher response of protective antibodies.

Despite aluminum's known health risks, it's widely suggested that aluminum in vaccines is safe, including for newborn babies, but a math error in a key U.S. Food and Drug Administration study² — revealed by scientists at Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) — raises new safety concerns.

When the aluminum adjuvant was first approved for use in vaccines more than 90 years ago, it was approved based on demonstration of efficacy — safety studies weren't performed. A 2002 document from the FDA even states:³

"Historically, the non-clinical safety assessment for preventive vaccines has often not included toxicity studies in animal models. This is because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic, and vaccines are generally administered in limited dosages over months or even years."

That being said, in 2002, researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) released a study on the effect of medical aluminum exposure on public health in order to estimate the infant body burden of aluminum in infants following a standard vaccination schedule during the first year of life.⁴

They found that, while the body burden of aluminum from vaccinations exceeded that from dietary sources, it was still below the minimal risk level established by ATSDR. In 2011, FDA scientists updated the 2002 study with a current pediatric vaccination schedule and other updated parameters,⁵ and that is where PIC found what is described as a "crucial math error."

Error Suggests Aluminum in Childhood Vaccines May Not Be Safe

The 2011 paper compared aluminum exposure from vaccines in infants to the ATSDR safety limit of oral aluminum. They concluded at the time:⁶

"Using these updated parameters we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL.

We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns."

In an erratum published by PIC, however, it's noted that the study based its calculations on 0.78% of oral aluminum being absorbed into the bloodstream instead of the value of 0.1% used by the ATSDR.

"As a result," PIC noted, "the FDA paper assumed that nearly 8 (0.78%/0.1%) times more aluminum can safely enter the bloodstream, and this led the authors to incorrectly conclude that aluminum exposure from vaccines was well below the safety limit."⁷ Christopher Shaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia who has studied the effects of injected aluminum, explained in a news release:⁸

"We knew that the [2011] Mitkus et al. paper modeling aluminum clearance had to be inaccurate since it was assuming that injected aluminum kinetics were the same as the kinetics of aluminum acquired through diet.

Now, in addition, we see that they did their modeling based on using the incorrect level of aluminum absorption. What is particularly striking is that despite all these errors, since 2011, Mitkus et al. is used by CDC and other entities as the basis for claiming that aluminum adjuvants are safe."

Serious Concerns Over Aluminum Adjuvants

In 2011, Shaw and Canadian scientist Lucija Tomljenovic published a paper in Current Medicinal Chemistry questioning whether aluminum vaccine adjuvants are safe. They cited experimental research that showed aluminum adjuvants may cause serious immunological disorders in humans and pose a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications.

"In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community," they wrote.⁹

In one of their studies, mice were injected with aluminum at a dose meant to correlate with that given to U.S. children through vaccines, and they spaced out the injections based on the mice's developmental stages. What they found was that once the mice reached adulthood (which occurs at the age of 6 months), the treated mice had permanent behavioral impairments.

In addition to noting that aluminum adjuvants can persist in the body long-term and penetrate the blood-brain barrier, the adjuvants were found to trigger adverse neurobehavioral outcomes in the mice at vaccine-relevant exposures. "Efforts should be made to reduce Al [aluminum] exposure from vaccines," they concluded.¹⁰

In another study, Shaw, Tomljenovic and colleagues suggested that aluminum may induce adverse neurological and immunological effects, and overstimulation of the immune system in early infancy via vaccinations could play a role in neurobehavioral disorders.¹¹ In 2014, Tomljenovic and colleagues wrote:¹²

"There is now sufficient evidence from both human and animal studies showing that cumulative exposure to aluminium adjuvants is not as benign as previously assumed.

Given that vaccines are the only medical intervention that we attempt to deliver to every living human on earth and that by far the largest target population for vaccination are healthy children, a better appreciation and understanding of vaccine adjuvant risks appears warranted."

Further, in an interview I conducted with Tomljenovic in 2015, she explained:

"There is a huge body of research that shows that if you overstimulate the immune system at the periphery, especially in the critical stage of early development, you are going to influence the brain in a negative way, and by doing so, you can create irreversible damage.

Again, this is research that is rarely discussed, because it really shows that there is reason to question the safety of the burden of vaccines given to infants."

Problems Inherent to Adjuvants

Dr. Suzanne Humphries, author of "Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History," is among those who has raised concerns over the problems with not only aluminum but also adjuvants in general, since they're intended to provoke an inflammatory immune response.

As noted by Humphries, who spoke on the subject of aluminum in vaccines in Tampere, Finland, in November 2015, "babies are programmed to be anti-inflammatory," meaning the placenta and breast milk help "program" the child to maintain a noninflamed state.

In order to make these killed, subunit or toxoid vaccines work, an adjuvant must be used to sufficiently stir or aggravate the immune system into action. By so doing, vaccines "violate the natural programming of the baby's immune system."

Further, even if aluminum is removed from vaccines, the risk of immune system brain disorder remains — even if the new adjuvant is nontoxic. As explained by Tomljenovic in our interview, by overstimulating your immune system, you run the risk of breaking self-tolerance and leading to autoimmunity. Japanese researchers revealed this in a 2009 study on mice, concluding:¹³

"Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host's immune 'system' by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system's self-organized criticality."

What's more, without aluminum, a large number of vaccines would have to be eliminated since there are no viable alternatives. Perhaps this is why researchers looking into adverse events after immunization with an aluminum-containing vaccine wrote in 2004, "Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken."¹⁴

Aluminum Linked to Alzheimer's

In the 2002 ATSDR study, the researchers were clear about aluminum's distribution pattern in the body, including the fact that it "distributes widely to the various body tissues," reaching the kidneys, spleen, liver, heart, lymph and eventually the brain.¹⁵ Aluminum has a known ability to cross the blood-brain-barrier, so any aluminum in the blood can be transported into the brain.

Research has found a strong link between aluminum exposure and Alzheimer's disease. Patients with a genetic mutation that predisposes them to early onset of Alzheimer's and more aggressive disease have universally high aluminum content in their brains.¹⁶ Aluminum may damage your brain function in a number of ways, including:¹⁷

• Adversely influencing neuronal function and survival
• Potentiating damaging redox activity
• Disrupting intracellular calcium signaling that systematically wears down cellular defenses
• Worsening the adverse effects of other heavy metals
• Influencing gene expression

A 2010 paper also pointed out that aluminum salts "can increase levels of glial activation, inflammatory cytokines and amyloid precursor protein within the brain," and, "Both normal brain aging and to a greater extent, Alzheimer's disease are associated with elevated basal levels of markers for inflammation."¹⁸

CDC Vaccine Schedule Leads to Greatest Aluminum Burden

Research published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology found the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule — when adjusted for bodyweight — exposes children to a level of aluminum that is 15.9 times higher than the recommended "safe" level.^19,20

The researchers pointed out that previous efforts to assess the aluminum burden created by vaccines were based on "whole-body clearance rates estimated from a study involving a single human subject."

They also used an aluminum citrate solution that is not used in vaccines, which may affect the excretion rate. Further, infants have immature renal function, which will inhibit their ability to filter and excrete toxins in the first place. The researchers used three models in to estimate the expected acute and long-term whole-body accumulation of aluminum in children as follows:

1. The CDC's 2019 childhood vaccine schedule
2. The CDC's vaccine schedule modified to use low dose aluminum DTaP and aluminum-free Hib vaccines
3. Dr. Paul Thomas' "vaccine-friendly plan,"²¹ which recommends giving only one aluminum-containing vaccine per visit (max two) and delaying certain vaccinations

The CDC's standard schedule resulted in the greatest expected aluminum burden in all model assumptions, while Thomas' schedule resulted in the lowest.

Further research into these options should be a priority for vaccine research, considering the serious questions about the safety of aluminum in vaccines and the fact that considering aluminum-free vaccines or at least limiting the number of aluminum-containing vaccines received at one time may be prudent.

Increasing research is the goal PIC hopes to reach by publishing the math error in the featured 2011 study as well. In a news release, Dr. Shira Miller, president of PIC, said:

"We posted the Mitkus 2011 erratum … in hopes of bringing it to the attention of scientists and researchers who are interested in the safety of the quantities of injected aluminum found in childhood vaccines and would be in a position to further research the safety concern."²²

from Articles https://ift.tt/2RevJ1J
via IFTTT

Remember last year when Washington Post reporters were boldly declaring that vitamins C and D could not (and should not) be used against respiratory infections? The information I was sharing about their use was deemed so dangerous to public health that I was branded as a "fake news" site by self-appointed, pharma-owned arbiters of truth like NewsGuard.

How times have changed. After having defamatory lies published about me, vitamins C and D are now (finally) being adopted in the conventional treatment of novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

That just goes to show that when push comes to shove, the truth eventually prevails. When the medicine cabinet is empty, and doctors have limited options, suddenly the basics become viable again, and that is good news indeed, as it's likely to save thousands of lives, while keeping health care costs down.

Vitamin C Treatment Implemented for Coronavirus Infection

As reported by the New York Post, March 24, 2020:¹

"Seriously sick coronavirus patients in New York state's largest hospital system are being given massive doses of vitamin C … Dr. Andrew G. Weber, a pulmonologist and critical-care specialist affiliated with two Northwell Health facilities on Long Island, said his intensive-care patients with the coronavirus immediately receive 1,500 milligrams of intravenous vitamin C.

Identical amounts of the powerful antioxidant are then re-administered three or four times a day, he said … The regimen is based on experimental treatments administered to people with the coronavirus in Shanghai, China …

'The patients who received vitamin C did significantly better than those who did not get vitamin C,' he said. 'It helps a tremendous amount, but it is not highlighted because it's not a sexy drug' …

Weber … said vitamin C levels in coronavirus patients drop dramatically when they suffer sepsis, an inflammatory response that occurs when their bodies overreact to the infection. 'It makes all the sense in the world to try and maintain this level of vitamin C,' he said."

A Northwell Health spokesperson has reportedly confirmed that vitamin C treatment is being "widely used" against coronavirus within the 23-hospital system. According to Weber, vitamin C is being used in conjunction with the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin, which have also shown promise in coronavirus treatment.²

Vitamin C Is a Vastly Underutilized Antiviral 'Drug'

According to Dr. Ronald Hunninghake, an internationally recognized expert on vitamin C who has personally supervised tens of thousands of intravenous (IV) vitamin C administrations, vitamin C is "definitely a very underutilized modality in infectious disease," considering "it's really a premiere treatment" for infections.

In my interview with him, Hunninghake suggested one of the reasons why conventional medicine has been so slow to recognize the importance of vitamin C has to do with the fact that they've been looking at it as a mere vitamin, when in fact it's a potent oxidizing agent that can help eliminate pathogens when given in high doses.

There are also financial factors. In short, it's too inexpensive. Conventional medicine, as a general rule, is notoriously uninterested in solutions that cannot produce significant profits. One of the primary reasons we're now seeing its use against COVID-19 is undoubtedly because we had no expensive drugs in the medical arsenal that could be turned to.

In my March 17, 2020, interview with Dr. Andrew Saul, editor-in-chief of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, he mentions being in contact with a South Korean medical doctor who is giving patients and medical staff an injection of 100,000 IUs of vitamin D along with as much as 24,000 mg (24 grams) of IV vitamin C. "He's reporting that these people are getting well in a matter of days," Saul says.

As explained by Saul, vitamin C at extremely high doses acts as an antiviral drug, actually killing viruses. While it does have anti-inflammatory activity, which helps prevent the massive cytokine cascade associated with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, it's antiviral capacity likely has more to do with it being a non-rate-limited free radical scavenger. As explained by Saul in our interview:

"Cathcart's view is that you simply push in vitamin C to provide the electrons to reduce the free radicals. This is the way Cathcart and Levy look at vitamin C's function (at very high doses) as an antiviral.

At modest doses, normal supplemental doses … vitamin C strengthens the immune system because the white blood cells need it to work. White blood cells carry around in them a lot of vitamin C … So, vitamin C is very well-known to directly beef up the immune system through the white blood cells."

Vitamin C Effectively Treats Sepsis

Although the vitamin C protocol is new for COVID-19 treatment, it's been used as a treatment for sepsis since about 2017. The vitamin C-based sepsis treatment protocol was developed by Dr. Paul Marik, a critical care doctor at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia, which has since adopted it as standard of care for sepsis.

Marik's retrospective before-after clinical study³ published in 2016 showed giving patients 200 milligrams (mg) of thiamine every 12 hours, 1,500 mg of ascorbic acid every six hours, and 50 mg of hydrocortisone every six hours for two days reduced mortality from 40% to 8.5%.

Importantly, the treatment has no side effects and is inexpensive, readily available and simple to administer, so there's virtually no risk involved. In 2009, IV vitamin C was shown to be a potentially lifesaving treatment for severe swine flu, so it's understandable why both Chinese and American doctors hold hope for it with the coronavirus.

There's already a clinical trial submitted for it at ClinicalTrials.gov.⁴ More recent research,^5,6 published online January 9, 2020, found Marik's sepsis protocol lowered mortality in pediatric patients as well.

The study was performed at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, and as noted by Science Daily,⁷ the preliminary data from this study "supports the promising outcomes seen in adults."

Vitamin C Highlighted During SARS Pandemic

Back in 2003, during the SARS pandemic, a Finnish researcher called⁸ for an investigation into the use of vitamin C after research showed it not only protected broiler chicks against avian coronavirus, but also cut the duration and severity of common cold in humans and significantly lowered susceptibility to pneumonia. In his letter, published in the Journal of Antimicrobal Chemotherapy, Harri Hemilä wrote:⁹

"Recently, a new coronavirus was identified as the cause of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). In the absence of a specific treatment for SARS, the possibility that vitamin C may show nonspecific effects on several viral respiratory tract infections should be considered.

There are numerous reports indicating that vitamin C may affect the immune system, for example the function of phagocytes, transformation of T lymphocytes and production of interferon. In particular, vitamin C increased the resistance of chick embryo tracheal organ cultures to infection caused by an avian coronavirus.¹⁰"

Even before that, many studies had demonstrated the usefulness of vitamin C against infections of various kinds. For example, a randomized double-blind study¹¹ published in 1994 found elderly patients given 200 milligrams of vitamin C per day while hospitalized for acute respiratory infection fared significantly better than those receiving a placebo.

According to the authors, "This was particularly the case for those commencing the trial most severely ill, many of whom had very low plasma and white cell vitamin C concentrations on admission."

Surprising Admission by CDC Chief About Vitamin D

Another powerful component in the prevention and treatment of influenza is vitamin D. Although vitamin D does not appear to have a direct effect on the virus itself, it does strengthen immune function, thus allowing the host body to combat the virus more effectively. It also suppresses inflammatory processes. Taken together, this might make vitamin D useful against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

My claim that vitamin D can cut infection risk was publicly vindicated March 24, 2020, when former U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chief Dr. Tom Frieden published an opinion piece on Fox News stating that "Coronavirus infection risk may be reduced by vitamin D."¹² In it, Frieden writes:

"There are many crackpot claims about miracle cures floating around, but the science supports the possibility — although not the proof — that Vitamin D may strengthen the immune system, particularly of people whose Vitamin D levels are low.

Vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk of respiratory infection, regulates cytokine production and can limit the risk of other viruses such as influenza.

A respiratory infection can result in cytokine storms — a vicious cycle in which our inflammatory cells damage organs throughout the body — which increase mortality for those with COVID-19. Adequate vitamin D may potentially provide some modest protection for vulnerable populations …

Right now, we don't know if vitamin D deficiency plays any role in the severity of COVID-19. But given the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in this country, it is safe to recommend that people get the proper daily dosage of vitamin D.

Most people's bodies manufacture vitamin D in the skin when exposed to the sun. About 15 minutes a day of direct sunlight is sufficient for many people's bodies to manufacture enough vitamin D; people with darker skin need longer exposure to sunlight to manufacture the same amount.

In winter, people in northern latitudes may not be able to make any vitamin D from sunlight. Sunscreen lengthens the exposure time needed. Many people, then, need vitamin D supplementation."

Public Health Specialist Weighs in on Vitamin D

Similarly, in a March 25, 2020, MedPage Today article,¹³ Dr. John C. Umhau writes:

"As a public health specialist at the National Institutes of Health, I outlined how a lack of sun-induced vitamin D in the winter and early spring leads to epidemic acute respiratory infections (and this probably includes viruses like COVID-19).

That review, cited almost a thousand times, argued that groups with low vitamin D levels — the obese and the elderly and those with dark skin — may require 5,000 IU of vitamin D each day to obtain the 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels of 50 ng/mL that appear to protect against viral respiratory infection.

A government-sponsored research strategy to address this issue has not been developed, as officials explained that there was no mandate to explore an alternative to the existing vaccination program.

However, other researchers picked up the ball and provided convincing evidence that vitamin D could reduce the incidence of acute respiratory infection."

While Umhau specifies a daily dosage, it's crucial to remember that required dosages can vary widely from one person to another, and that the most important factor here is your blood level. You simply must adjust the vitamin D dose based on your specific recently measured vitamin D level.

I haven't swallowed oral vitamin D for over a decade and my D level is over 70 ng/mL, as I walk in the sun nearly every day for one hour with my shirt off. I take no supplemental vitamin D. For those who are unable to get sun exposure and have low levels, doses of vitamin D3 may be 10,000 units a day or even higher, but the only way to know is to measure your blood levels.

For that, you must get tested, and then take whatever dosage required to get into the ideal range. While 50 ng/mL may be sufficient, I recommend a vitamin D level between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL for optimal health and disease prevention. GrassrootsHealth's D*Action research has shown you need at least 40 ng/mL to lower your risk of many diseases.¹⁴

In his article Umhau cites a 2017 meta-analysis¹⁵ of 25 randomized controlled trials showing vitamin D supplementation helped prevent acute respiratory infections. Those with vitamin D blood levels below 10 ng/mL, which is a serious deficiency state, cut their risk of infection by half, while people with higher vitamin D levels reduced their risk by about 10%.

Importantly, they found that, among those with severe vitamin D deficiency at baseline, you only need to treat four individuals in order to prevent one infection. That's FAR more effective than influenza vaccination, which requires 71 individuals to be vaccinated in order to prevent a single case of influenza.¹⁶

According to this international research team, vitamin D supplementation could prevent more than 3.25 million cases of cold and flu each year in the U.K. alone.¹⁷ In my view, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best strategies available to prevent respiratory illness of all kinds.

Sun Exposure Recommended

Umhau also points out that:¹⁸

"Critical care research¹⁹ also documents the important effect of vitamin D on survival in ICU patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. There are several mechanisms by which vitamin D activity is critical for immune defense: vitamin D acts to maintain tight junctions, promote the effect of antimicrobial peptides (i.e., cathelicidin and defensins), and moderate the inflammatory response.²⁰

Aggressively identifying and treating people with vitamin D deficiency is one potential strategy to reduce the risk of COVID-19. As outlined in the BMJ review, regularly taking oral vitamin D3 mitigates infection, although the optimal oral dose is debatable.

Bolus doses do not appear to provide benefit against infection, possibly through a dysregulation of vitamin D metabolism. There may be a simple yet effective alternative.

Since exposing the whole body to bright sunlight can provide long-lasting and rapid correction of deficiency, this may provide a critical boost to host immune defenses. Lacking definitive research, any risk of exposing the body to sunshine while sheltering in place is clearly outweighed by the risk of COVID-19."

Vitamins C and D Recommendations

Based on the available scientific evidence, there's no reason to ignore vitamins C and D for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections.

Remember to test your vitamin D level. Do it at home and stay away from hospitals unless you're already having symptoms of worsening respiratory infection, such as difficulty breathing. The level you're aiming for is 60 ng/mL.

GrassrootsHealth makes testing easy by offering an inexpensive vitamin D testing kit as part of its consumer-sponsored research. All revenues from these kits go directly to GrassrootsHealth. I make no profit from these kits and only provide them as a service of convenience to my readers.

Vitamin C is also a crucial aid, both for the prevention and treatment of viral illnesses. You can find pertinent reports and research about vitamin C against COVID-19 on the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service website.²¹ I recommend using liposomal vitamin C, as it allows you to take far higher dosages than regular vitamin C (as regular vitamin C is limited by your bowel tolerance).

Dr. Robert Rowen, whom I recently interviewed about the use of vitamin C and ozone therapy for COVID-19, suggests taking upward of 6 grams (6,000 mg) per hour for acute illness, to simulate intravenous administration levels. Prophylactically, it is not recommended to take such high doses.

The only contraindication to high-dose vitamin C treatment is if you are glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficient, which is a genetic disorder.²² G6PD is required for your body to produce NADPH, which is necessary to transfer reductive potential to keep antioxidants, such as vitamin C, functional.

Because your red blood cells do not contain any mitochondria, the only way it can provide reduced glutathione is through NADPH, and since G6PD eliminates this, it causes red blood cells to rupture due to inability to compensate for oxidative stress.

Fortunately, G6PD deficiency is relatively uncommon, and can be tested for. People of Mediterranean and African decent are at greater risk of being G6PD deficient. Worldwide, G6PD deficiency is thought to affect 400 million individuals, and in the U.S., an estimated 1 in 10 African-American males has it.²³ Be sure to read this Thursday's lead article on one of the most important preventive and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2x8QnK2
via IFTTT

Strict rules have been enforced around the country to curb the spread of COVID-19, with hefty on-the-spot fines been issued if these restrictions are breached. Here are all the 'reasonable excuses' for leaving your house in each state. 

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3bSiXxO

Working from home lunches just got a whole lot easier with this light and nutritious recipe, that we'll be stealing on repeat from the CSIRO Protein Plus cookbook.

from Nutrition | body+soul https://ift.tt/2Xj0VRp

Jump on the #comfortbaking bandwagon and give Richard Kerrigan's healthy (but delicious) mini banana bread recipe a whirl. 

from Nutrition | body+soul https://ift.tt/2yG4Z3Z

A nurse has demonstrated how quickly COVID-19 can spread – even if you’re taking popular precautionary methods, such as wearing gloves.   

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/2V8JIHz

On the hunt for a coronavirus cure, a vaccine funded by tech billionaire Bill Gates will start clinical trials in the United States today. But when will it be ready for mass usage?

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/2x9urOL

In people with type 1 diabetes without known cardiovascular disease, the presence of autoantibodies against heart muscle proteins was associated with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging evidence of increased volume of the left ventricle (the heart's main pumping chamber), increased muscle mass, and reduced pumping function (ejection fraction), features that are associated with higher risk of failure in the general population.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2xX2BFO

Some insect wings such as cicada and dragonfly possess nanopillar structures that kill bacteria upon contact. However, to date, the precise mechanisms that cause bacterial death have been unknown. Using a range of advanced imaging tools, functional assays and proteomic analyses, a study by the University of Bristol has identified new ways in which nanopillars can damage bacteria.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3e1Xnc4

A larger thigh circumference may be associated with lower blood pressure and a reduced risk of heart disease in people with obesity, according to a new study. In overweight and obese Chinese men and women, larger thigh circumferences were associated with lower blood pressure. These findings suggest that carrying more weight on the thighs may be a marker of better heart health in Chinese obese and overweight people, who are at a greater risk of heart disease.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3dX2XMZ

A friend of mine takes a statin medication each day to lower his cholesterol. More than once I’ve heard him say “I ate too much! I’m going to have to take an extra pill.”

Never mind that it doesn’t work that way — a single additional statin pill won’t make much difference to his cholesterol or his health. And never mind that you shouldn’t self-adjust the dose of your medications (talk to your doctor before making any changes in medication dosing).

But my friend’s overindulging does bring up the question of whether starting medications for conditions like high blood pressure or high cholesterol might lead people to pay less attention to healthy lifestyle choices. Would my friend have been as likely to overeat before he was started on a statin?

What actually happens to lifestyle changes after medications are prescribed?

The thinking might go like this. If your cholesterol or blood pressure is not ideal, your doctor will likely recommend changes in your diet, regular exercise, and loss of excess weight, as these measures will lower cholesterol and blood pressure in many people. But if that doesn’t work well enough, a medication may be prescribed. Once the medicine is doing its job, it may seem like it’s not so important to continue with the diet and exercise routine.

A new study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association suggests that this way of thinking might be widespread: people with hypertension (high blood pressure) or high cholesterol seem to let their healthy habits slide once they start taking medications.

Researchers collected data on weight, smoking, physical activity, and alcohol use among more than 40,000 adults with no history of cardiovascular disease. Compared with people who were not prescribed medications for high cholesterol or high blood pressure, those who were prescribed medications

• tended to gain more weight. In fact, they were 82% more likely to become obese.
• exercised less. They were 8% more likely to be physically inactive.

The news wasn’t all bad. Those starting medications tended to drink less alcohol and to quit smoking more often than those not taking medicines.

It’s not okay to slack off on lifestyle changes like diet and exercise if you’re taking a statin or blood pressure pill

These results can be interpreted in a number of ways. Perhaps people who start taking medications assume they no longer need to be as careful with how they eat or other lifestyle choices. It’s also possible that people who ultimately needed medications were less careful with following a healthy lifestyle even before medications were prescribed — and that may explain, at least in part, why they needed medications in the first place. Or, it could be that those destined to require medication therapy inherited more high-risk genes for future obesity.

Whatever the explanation, people with high blood pressure or high cholesterol should maintain a healthy weight and get regular physical activity, regardless of whether medications are prescribed. In fact, it may be even more important for those who were prescribed medications, because if their conditions were severe enough to warrant a prescription, they may be at higher risk for complications (such as heart attack or stroke) than those able to avoid medications.

The bottom line

For many conditions, a medication can only do so much. Healthy lifestyle habits can improve the chances that a medication will be effective.

For people with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and many other conditions, medications should be in addition to lifestyle changes, not instead of them. Not only will these lifestyle choices improve the chances your medicines will work to lower blood pressure or improve cholesterol, they come with a long list of other health benefits, such as improved mood, a reduced risk of diabetes, and a lower risk of certain cancers. And if you stick with the lifestyle changes, there’s a chance you will be able to stop the medication in the future.

If you’ve been prescribed a medication after trying diet, exercise, or other lifestyle changes, ask your doctor whether it’s still important to focus on these lifestyle factors. And don’t be surprised if the answer is yes.

The post Lifestyle changes are important even if you take medications appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

from Harvard Health Blog https://ift.tt/2XkDC9I

A group of scientists has found another small piece in the puzzle of understanding COVID-19. Looking for reasons why the mortality rate is up to 12% in the northern part of Italy and only approx. 4.5% in the rest of the country, they found a probable correlation between air pollution and mortality in two of the worst affected regions in northern Italy.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2wgPL4v

The movements of cell muscles in the form of tiny filaments of proteins have been visualized at unprecedented detail.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2JHcw4C

The number of hospitals providing TAVR could double with changes to Medicare requirements. Researchers see reason for both excitement and concern.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2Xg2aAO

Consuming a diet high in fiber was linked with a reduced incidence of breast cancer in an analysis of all relevant prospective studies.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2UMQaVS

Consuming a diet high in fiber was linked with a reduced incidence of breast cancer in an analysis of all relevant prospective studies.

from Women's Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2UMQaVS

Consuming a diet high in fiber was linked with a reduced incidence of breast cancer in an analysis of all relevant prospective studies.

from Diet and Weight Loss News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2UMQaVS

Unprovoked recurrent seizures are a serious problem affecting most patients who suffer from glioma, a primary brain tumor composed of malignant glial cells. Researchers tested the hypothesis that glioma-induces processes that renders a type of brain cells dysfunctional, perpetuating the imbalance between excitation and inhibition in tumor-associated epilepsy.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/39R5dlv

Using a modified natural substance along with current approaches could improve colon cancer treatment, according to findings by biologists. The discovery comes from their research into the role of an amino acid in tumor development and a potential method for reversing the process. The disease is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2wnjEjS