Hidden Health Science

Archive for the ‘Alternative Medical’ Category

from Gaia-Health

Lung cancer is particularly virulent and noted as having one of the poorest outcomes. Two recent scientific studies, though, have shown that Polygala senega may be able to prevent the disease or limit its virulence.

Polygala senega  is a common and easy to grow weed that is occasionally grown domestically. It carries several common names, including snakeroot, seneca (for the Seneca indians, from whom the name is derived), sneka, milkwort, mountain flax, and rattlesnake root. It’s a perennial in all but the coldest climates—and seeds can be purchased readily from internet sources.

The Studies

The two studies were done by a team in the Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Laboratory in the Department of Zoology of the University of Kalyani in India. The lead author, Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh, thanks Boiron Laboratories of France for grants to produce the studies. (Please note that these were not experiments in homeopathy and Boiron did not supply materials.)

Read more here.

Previous studies show an increased interest and usage of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the general population and among health care workers both internationally and nationally. CAM usage is also reported to be common among surgical patients.

Earlier international studies have reported that a large amount of surgical patients use it prior to and after surgery. Recent publications indicate a weak knowledge about CAM among health care workers.

However the current situation in Sweden is unknown. The aim of this study was therefore to explore perceived knowledge about CAM among registered healthcare professions in surgical departments at Swedish university hospitals.MethodA questionnaire was distributed to 1757 registered physicians, nurses and physiotherapists in surgical wards at the seven university hospitals in Sweden from spring 2010 to spring 2011.

The questionnaire included classification of 21 therapies into conventional, complementary, alternative and integrative, and whether patients were recommended these therapies. Questions concerning knowledge, research, and patient communication about CAM were also included.ResultA total of 737 (42.0%) questionnaires were returned.

Therapies classified as complementary; were massage, manual therapies, yoga and acupuncture. Alternative therapies; were herbal medicine, dietary supplements, homeopathy and healing.

Classification to integrative therapy was low, and unfamiliar therapies were Bowen therapy, iridology and Rosen method. Therapies recommended by >40% off the participants were massage and acupuncture.

Knowledge and research about CAM was valued as minor or none at all by 95.7% respectively 99.2%. Importance of possessing knowledge about it was valued as important by 80.9%.

It was believed by 61.2% that more research funding should be addressed to CAM research, 72.8% were interested in reading CAM-research results, and 27.8% would consider taking part in such research. Half of the participants (55.8%) were positive to learning such therapy.

Communication about CAM between patients and the health care professions was found to be rare.

Conclusion: There is a lack of knowledge about CAM and research about it among registered health care professions in Swedish surgical care. However, in contrast to previous studies the results revealed that the majority perceived it as important to gain knowledge in this field.

Author: Kristofer BjersaElisabet Stener VictorinMonika Fagevik Olsen

A new study into cannabis and its relation to weight gain or loss has found that, interestingly, it is associated with weight loss and should be further studied as a possible obesity-fighter.

From the abstract:

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of an organic cannabis extract on ?-cell secretory function in an in vivo diet-induced obese rat model and determine the associated molecular changes within pancreatic tissue. Diet-induced obese Wistar rats and rats fed on standard pellets were subcutaneously injected with an organic cannabis extract or the vehicle over a 28-day period. The effect of diet and treatment was evaluated using the intraperitoneal glucose tolerance tests (IPGTTs) and qPCR analysis on rat pancreata harvested upon termination of the experiment.

The cafeteria diet induced an average weight difference of 32 g and an overall increase in body weight in the experimental groups occurred at a significantly slower rate than the control groups, irrespective of diet. Area under the curve for glucose (AUC_g) in the obese group was significantly lower compared to the lean group (p < 0.001), with cannabis treatment significantly reducing the AUC_g in the lean group (p < 0.05), and remained unchanged in the obese group, relative to the obese control group. qPCR analysis showed that the cafeteria diet induced down-regulation of the following genes in the obese control group, relative to lean controls: UCP2, c-MYC and FLIP. Cannabis treatment in the obese group resulted in up-regulation of CB1, GLUT2, UCP2 and PKB, relative to the obese control group, while c-MYC levels were down-regulated, relative to the lean control group. Treatment did not significantly change gene expression in the lean group. These results suggest that the cannabis extract protects pancreatic islets against the negative effects of obesity.

The study was conducted by R-A Levendal, D. Schumann, M. Donath, and CL Frost of the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in South Africa and at the University Hospital Basel in Switzerland.  Find out more about it here.

from study authors Dierdre McLaughlinChi-Wai and LuiJon Adams

The use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) among older adults is an emerging health issue, however little is known about older people’s experiences of using CAM and the cultural, geographical and other determinants of CAM use in this population. This study used qualitative methods to explore older women’s views of CAM and reasons for their use of CAM.

Participants for the project were drawn from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (ALSWH) 1921-1926 birth cohort. Women who responded positively to a question about CAM use in Survey 5 (2008) of the ALSWH were invited to participate in the study.

A total of 13 rural and 12 urban women aged between 83 and 88 years agreed to be interviewed.

Results: The women expressed a range of views on CAM which fell into three broad themes: “push”factors such as dissatisfaction with conventional health services, “pull”factors which emphasised the positive aspects of choice and self-care in health matters, and barriers to CAM use. Overall, the “push’factors did not play a major role in the decision to use CAM, rather this was driven by “pull”factors related to health care self-responsibility and being able to source positive information about types of CAM.

A number of barriers were identified such as access difficulties associated with increased age, limited mobility and restricted transport options, as well as financial constraints.

Conclusions: CAM use among older women was unlikely to be influenced by aspects of conventional health care (“push factors”), but rather was reflective of the personal beliefs of the women and members of their close social networks (“pull factors”). While it was also apparent that there were differences between the rural and urban women in their use of CAM, the reasons for this were mainly due to the difficulties inherent in accessing certain types of CAM in rural areas.

by Aaron Turpen, BreastCancer.co

A new study from the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, published in theJournal of the American College of Surgeons this month, shows that most women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are not well-informed of their treatment options. Many, in fact, are not even meaningfully involved in treatment discussions or asked their preferences regarding the treatment’s approach.

The study is a retrospective conducted amongst women who were treated at one of four academic medical centers in Boston, San Francisco and Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The women were surveyed with questions regarding their knowledge of breast cancer treatment options and then asked about their dealings with physicians and surgeons before treatment began.

The women averaged only 52.7% in their test scores on treatment knowledge and understanding and only 48.6% of them said they’d held conferences with surgeons or physicians about their treatment options in light of the options given on the test itself.

The knowledge gaps are considered a big problem, though this is the first time a study has attempted to get an overall picture of breast cancer awareness amongst those diagnosed with it. Most studies to this point have focused on specific treatments or cancer types.

One of the more problematic issues raised was the fact that most women were not informed that survival rates for alternatives to mastectomy, such as breast-conservation therapy, are the same. Further, those with a partial mastectomy were less likely to understand recurrence rates versus those who had a full mastectomy – despite the fact that rates are usually higher in partials.

The study sheds light on the long strides needed to improve education in breast cancer amongst the general populace and especially in women who have been diagnosed or are at risk.

from BreastCancer.co

New research published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute this month shows that targeted radiation for breast cancer has been widely overused. The research uses new criteria established in 2009 by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) for the use of brachytherapy (targeted irradiation for breast cancer). It compares that new criteria with patient records from the past several years, showing that 2/3 of those receiving brachytherapy probably should not have.

Using records from 138,815 U.S. women who’d received brachytherapy from 2000 to 2007, the study shows that most of them do not fit into the currently recommended criteria for the therapy. This would likely account for some higher recurrence rates amongst the women.

The study compared women who received targeted radiation and those who received the more common whole breast irradiation (WBI). It found that 29.6% of the women receiving brachytherapy would have been classified as “cautionary” (not likely to benefit) and 36.2% would have been classified as “unsuitable” under current ASTRO criteria.

The study briefly discussed cancer return rates (versus recurrence in WBI), but admits that this data would be too preliminary given the specific scope of the study itself.

Targeted irradiation is more convenient for women, since it requires only about a week of therapy instead of a full month, but is designed for very specific situations that only about 7-10% of breast cancer patients fall into. Its use, the study found, varies greatly by geographic region, by rural versus urban (urban is more likely), and by racial demographic (whites are more likely to receive it), but not necessarily by means or income (Medicare covers it).

Findings from another study published this year show that women who receive brachytherapy at twice as likely to eventually have a mastectomy than those who receive WBI.

by Dr. Mercola

The medical profession has a long history of opposing alternative healing professions.

While always claiming public safety as its reason for the attacks, the true reasons often involve protecting their monopoly of the healthcare market.

Medicine’s opposition to chiropractic was its strongest under the leadership of Morris Fishbein, Secretary of the American Medical Association from 1924 to 1949, who led a 50-year anti-chiropractic campaign in both professional publications and the public media.

Historical Antitrust Lawsuits Against Medical Societies

In 1975 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Goldfarb vs. the Virginia State Bar, that learned professions are not exempt from antitrust suits.

In 1982 the Court ruled that the FTC could enforce antitrust laws against medical societies.

These two suits paved the way for five chiropractors to file an anti-trust suit against the American Medical Association (AMA) and several other heath care agencies and societies in Federal District Court (known as the Wilkes Case).

Judge Susan Getzendanner found the AMA and others guilty of an illegal conspiracy against the chiropractic profession in September of 1987, ordering a permanent injunction against the AMA and forcing them to print the court’s findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Even with success of the Wilkes Case and other anti-trust litigation, the AMA continues to this day to wage a campaign against chiropractic.

The American Medical Association (AMA) has maintained a decades-long battle against “alternative” healing traditions, dating back to the 1920s and arguably even earlier. The courts eventually ruled in favor of the chiropractors in 1987, finding the AMA guilty of a conspiracy to take down the chiropractic profession, as the above article recounts in detail.

But was this the end of it? Has the AMA resigned itself to the fact that chiropractic, as well as other forms of natural medicine, are here to stay? Not a chance.

The AMA’s Bedfellows

Even with the success of the Wilkes Case, the AMA has continued to wage war against natural medicine for the past 20 years—but in more covert ways. It’s the “Cold War” phase of this battle, but every bit as fierce. And now the AMA has rallied up a few significant allies, including:

• The American Dental Association (ADA)
• The American Cancer Society (ACS)
• The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and
• The American Psychiatric Association (APA)

… not to mention governmental regulatory agencies; all willing to march toward a common goal—a monopoly on medical care in this country. Together, they form a formidable lobbying force that controls just about every regulatory and legislative body in America. The truth is that chiropractic, naturopathic, and osteopathic medicine have PROVEN to be medically effective and cost effective for the patient, and the AMA can’t stomach this, viewing natural medicine as a huge threat to their bottom line.

Federal Courts Rule AMA “Guilty as Charged”

In 1987, the federal courts found the AMA and several other medical groups guilty of seeking to create a healthcare monopoly. Specifically, they were found guilty of the following actions (published in the January 1988 issue of JAMA):

1. Systematic defamation of naturopathic, chiropractic, and osteopathic physicians
2. Publishing and distribution of propaganda specifically intended to ruin other healthcare professionals’ reputations
3. Forcing MDs to refuse collaboration with naturopathic, chiropractic, and osteopathic physicians in the co-management of patients
4. Denying hospital access to naturopathic, chiropractic, and osteopathic physicians

The attack on osteopathic medicine has largely faded away since then, but chiropractic and naturopathic practitioners, as well as other legitimate natural medicine practitioners, continue to be the targets of suppression and misrepresentation. The war isn’t over, but the rules of engagement have changed.

AMA Declares New War on Natural Medicine in 2006

In 2006, the AMA declared war on natural medicine by publicly stating on its website its intention to forcibly oppose licensure and practice of naturopathic physicians. Although they quickly removed this from their site, the following is a direct quote from that post, according to Naturopathy Digest:

“RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association work through its Board of Trustees to outline a policy opposing the licensure of naturopaths to practice medicine and report this policy to the House of Delegates no later than the 2006 Interim Meeting. (Directive to Take Action) Fiscal Note: Implement accordingly at estimated staff cost of $10,836.”

Translation: Eliminate the competition.

According to The Integrator Blog, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) joined the battle with a statement that their goal was to “thwart the growing threat of expansion of scope of practice for allied health professionals” and included psychologists on the list of medical practitioners who needed to be “thwarted” (in addition to naturopaths, chiropractors, and midwives). The APA pledged their allegiance to the AMA in assisting them with “coordinating research to help medical specialty societies and state medical associations fight expansions in non-medical scope of practice, and improve information sharing among those groups.”

Other medical associations have made similar pledges, such as the Minnesota Medical Association and the New York Academy of Family Physicians. They maintain that their position is based on concern for quality of care and patient safety, but the REAL agenda is just an attempt to destroy the competition.

As Chiropractor Louis Sportelli writes in his 2010 article in Dynamic Chiropractic:

“Just look around and you will see clear and compelling evidence that the long-standing war between the AMA and everyone else who does not come under the AMA umbrella is far from over. The names have changed, the venue has changed, but the intent has remained the same: to maintain monopolistic control over the delivery of health care.”

Old Mission, New Tactics: AMA Learns How to Discriminate with Impunity

In 2010, the AMA House of Delegates introduced a resolution regarding scope of practice that contains limitations on who can be considered a legitimate physician, and who can medically diagnose. Specifically, the AMA’s “Definition of a Physician” (H-405.969) contains the following language:

“The AMA affirms that a physician is an individual who has received a ‘Doctor of Medicine’ or a ‘Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine’ degree.”

This is proof, without a doubt, that the AMA as well as individual state medical associations intend to continue doing everything they can to prevent you from accessing natural healthcare. Texas and Connecticut medical associations were the first to join the cause, and others will likely follow. Similarly, the AMA’s “Comprehensive Physical Examination by Appropriate Practitioners” reads as follows:

“…the performance of comprehensive physical examinations to diagnose medical conditions [should be limited] to licensed MDs/DOs or those practitioners who are directly supervised by licensed MDs/DOs.”

State Medical Associations Jumping on Board

In 2010, the Texas Medical Board of Examiners filed an action against the Texas Chiropractic Board of Examiners challenging the authority of DCs (Doctors of Chiropractic) to perform some of their medical procedures, and challenging their authority to diagnose. How can medical associations get away with such shenanigans now, when they were given such a clear message to back off in the injunction of 1987? After all, these are very similar tactics to what they were found guilty of back in 1987.

Well, according to Sportinelli, the AMA has learned some lessons about how to beat the law—loopholes that allow them to go on the attack while sidestepping “restraint of trade” or “illegal boycott” violations:

“It [AMA] now understands that government action is protected under the Constitution, as is action in petitioning the government. It can lawfully petition local, state and federal legislators and attempt to influence any legislation without fear of committing actionable restraint of trade or illegal boycott. (However, the AMA does seem to be getting dangerously close with its resolution regarding the “definition of a physician,” in that it appears to involve hospital action without the intervention of government.)”

And what does one need in order to effectively influence the government? Money. This is something the AMA has—and piles of it.Sportinelli goes on to say that the medical industry is likely gearing up for a 50-state effort to put non-MD/DO physicians out of business. And this means fewer choices about your own medical care.

Profit Motives Cleverly Disguised as Concern for Your Health and Safety

According to Naturopathy Digest, the AMA and other medical groups justify their opposition to natural medicine on the basis of three areas of concern:

1. Quality of patient care
2. Patient safety
3. Quality of education of medical practitioners

As the article so eloquently points out, none of these arguments holds up, and most are based on medical and pharmaceutical industry propaganda. If they were TRULY concerned about patient care and safety, they would not be targeting natural medicine, which has an incredibly low incidence of adverse consequences, but instead going after their own allopathic medical practices that are leaving a trail of death and destruction.

Drug “side effects”, prescription errors, unnecessary surgeries, nosocomial infections, and hospital “errors” are a leading cause of death in the United States. In fact, one estimate is that allopathic medicine kills 493 American patients daily. The number of people who die each week as a result of medical treatments surpasses the number of deaths caused by the September 11^th terrorist attacks.

Yes, each and every week!

Many of the drugs advertised in JAMA (the AMA’s scientific journal) are the very same drugs that are killing tens of thousands of Americans each year. This massive funding of the AMA by drug companies is a blatant conflict of interest. If the AMA really cared about your safety, they’d be putting their substantial assets into overhauling the American healthcare system. The AMA is fond of lambasting the education and training of chiropractors, when in actuality, they should be more concerned about the educational qualifications of their own physicians. In their own publications, they have stated:

“Medical education is failing to prepare students adequately for their future practice… medical education is currently being held together with peanut butter and bubble gum.”

At least four consecutive studies have documented that most MDs are incompetent when it comes to diagnosing and treating musculoskeletal problems, something at which chiropractors excel. Another example of an abysmal lack of education of Western physicians is in the area of diet and nutrition. The AMA itself has published research showing that dietary interventions should be used before drugs in the treatment of heart disease. Yet, medical students receive virtually NO training in nutrition. Naturopathic and chiropractic physicians, on the other hand, are usually well versed in the importance of nutrition and exercise.

It’s Not Just the AMA

Perhaps it’s time to take a real look at medical associations, and the concern that they may be doing more harm than good. For groups who claim to exist in order to protect your health, they inevitably end up sabotaging it. It isn’t just the AMA. Other medical associations that claim to exist for the betterment of public health include the following:

• American Dental Association (ADA): Continues to support the use of mercury fillings and demonizes biological dentists who oppose the use of mercury in dentistry; continues to support fluoridation, in spite of the evidence it does more harm than good.
• American Cancer Society (ACS): This charity has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry; has rampant conflicts of interest; consistently promotes drugs and screening procedures while ignoring environmental causes of cancer.
• National Cancer Institute (NCI): Has spent billions of taxpayer dollars promoting treatments while ignoring strategies for preventing cancer; abundant ties to the cancer drug industry (for more information, read Samuel Epstein’s new book, National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest)
• American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): Claiming to be protecting your children, the AAP is largely funded by vaccine manufacturers but refuses to disclose just how much money it gets from them; partners with Congress to protect pediatricians and drug companies from liability for vaccine injuries, while preventing you from getting truthful vaccine information.

Actions Speak Louder than Words

When someone’s words differ from their actions, chances are that their actions more accurately reflect their values—and this is true for organizations, as well as individuals. Although medical associations claim to have your best interests at heart, their actions tell a different story. It’s time to begin holding them accountable for their behavior and stop letting them hide behind the same old tired rhetoric.

You have a right to make your own choices about your healthcare, be it allopathic or naturopathic—whether you see an MD, an ND, or a DC should be YOUR decision and yours alone.

References:

• JAMA January 1988
• Naturopathy Digest August 2006
• The Integrator Blog May 2006
• Dynamic Chiropractic July 2010
• Clin Orthop Relat Res. August 2005

A new study published in the Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development looked at non-cancer chronic pain and complementary and alternative medicine use in military veterans.  It found that of the 401 veterans suffering chronic pain interviewed, 82% had tried a complementary or alternative medicine (CAM) for their pain. Nearly all (99%) were willing to try it.

Massage therapy was the most preferred method and those who used CAM therapies were less likely (68% vs 54%) to have service-connected disabilities, despite lifelong pain.

The study discusses the implications these findings have for Veterans Administration policy.

Although direct comparisons are difficult because of differing methodologies and definitions of CAM, a larger percentage of the veterans in this study reported previous CAM use and greater treatment willingness than in the few prior veteran studies [23,25]. Several reasons may explain these differences. As CAM is more accepted and used in the general public, an increase in CAM use among veterans over time may be expected.

Image by jainaj via Flickr

Americans are using more alternative and preventive medicine as costs for traditional healthcare swells. 38 percent of American adults use alternative and complementary medicine, according to the National Institutes of Health. An increasing reliance on alternative and preventative medicine is not surprising when healthcare costs rise 8 percent each year, nearly three times the rate of inflation.

What may surprise some, though, is how effective alternative and preventative medicine can be. Elderberry, used medicinally in Europe for hundreds of years, received some long-overdue respect when researchers in Norway confirmed that it effectively relieves flu symptoms.¹ Even ardent fans of Dr. Oz may have a hard time pronouncing this funny-sounding herb after he featured it on one of his episodes, but Umckaloabo is gaining recognition as an immunity booster since The Journal of Family Practice cited four encouraging studies before saying that Umckaloabo “represents a promising treatment” for viral upper respiratory infections.² And while licorice may go down better than a spoonful of sugar, several studies show that it may be a promising treatment for ulcers as well.

While alternative treatments and herbs have shown promise when used in conjunction with traditional medicine for existing illnesses, the real promise in curtailing healthcare costs lies in prevention. According to the Prevention Institute, even a 5 percent reduction in preventable illnesses and injuries could mean substantial healthcare savings.

While genetics and lifestyle have long been the primary focus of preventative measures, recent science points to the immune system as a powerful predictor of illness. According to the Integrative Medicine Department at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City, the immune system is the deciding factor between who gets sick and who doesn’t.

from BreastCancer.co

In a retrospective study, Barbara Brouwers, PhD of the University of Leuven in Belgium found that women who have higher levels of vitamin D when diagnosed with breast cancer appear to have smaller tumors on average.

“Lower vitamin D levels were correlated with much bigger tumors,” says Dr. Brouwers. “We also saw that higher vitamin D levels were associated with better outcomes, but it wasn’t significant.”

Studies have shown that vitamin D status is important in many chronic disease and illness of various types. Low vitamin D levels have been associated with higher breast and other cancer risks and in some studies higher levels have been shown to correlate with better outcomes for some cancers.

Brouwers and her colleagues look at data from 1,800 breast cancer patients treated at the University of Leuven from 2003 to 2010 which included data on serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D₃ collected at diagnosis. Following those patients for four years showed that lower vitamin D levels were significantly associated with larger tumor sizes (every 0.4ng/mL decrease in level linked to 1cm in tumor increase).

Accompanying this, to no surprise, was a 27% lower risk of death per 10ng/mL increase in vitamin D levels at diagnosis. Close the same could be said for risk of relapse as well.