Alternative to Baby Aspirin - Nattokinase !

Fortunately, there is a much better alternative for preventing heart disease than a daily aspirin. nattokinase contains a powerful enzyme called nattokinase -- derived from the food natto -- that has been safely used for 20 years to help circulatory problems, joint pain, vision problems, bone density and other chronic health problems. If you are looking for an alternative to aspirin for heart health, nattokinase is a safer, more effective and healthier option.

Is Aspirin Really Good for Heart Disease? NO!

By Dr. John G F Cleland

Despite the vast size of these meta-analyses, the evidence in support of aspirin preventing atherosclerotic events is still inconclusive.

The third meta-analysis from the Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration contains data on over 100 000 patients at high risk of atherosclerotic events, representing more than 250 000 patient years of follow up.1

This meta-analysis and its predecessors form the major argument for the current widespread fashion of prescribing aspirin to such patients. 2 3 It is an enormous body of research and the collaboration is to be congratulated for having gathered so much data. However, quality as well as quantity matters. And the quality is such that the results can only be inconclusive.

Summary Points:

• The series of meta-analyses on the antiplatelet activity of aspirin overvalues aspirin's effectiveness and safety
  

• All the large long term trials of aspirin after myocardial infarction show no effect on mortality
  

• Aspirin may change the way vascular events present rather than prevent them
  

• This may lead to a "cosmetic" reduction in non-fatal events and an increase in sudden death
  

• Data on the safety and cost-benefit of aspirin are inadequate
  

• Advocating the use of aspirin for preventing atherosclerotic events diverts attention from other, more effective, drugs
  

Trials Do Not Show That Aspirin Saves Lives

Meta-analysis is increasingly viewed either as a way of verifying that the outcome of an individual trial is consistent with the rest of the known data or as a way of generating a hypothesis.

However, in the absence of a definitively positive trial, many consider meta-analysis inadequate evidence for clinical decision making. The series of meta-analyses from the trialists' collaboration contains serious additional flaws.3-6

It is remarkable and probably statistically significant how seldom trials of antiplatelet agents have shown benefit on their selected primary outcome. The choice of the primary endpoint by the Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration is arbitrary and suspect.

Antiplatelet agents seem to be substantially more effective in reducing the incidence of non-fatal events than in reducing death. Indeed, among large long-term trials after myocardial infarction there is no evidence that aspirin saves lives.

An intervention can reduce non-fatal events in three ways: by genuinely reducing them, by concealing them, or by converting non-fatal events into fatal ones.

The failure of aspirin to reduce mortality despite a reduction in non-fatal events in many studies suggests that aspirin may conceal, rather than prevent, vascular events.6

Epidemiological data suggest that 25% of non-fatal myocardial infarctions are silent. 4 5 As aspirin, even at low doses, is an analgesic and because it may provoke dyspepsia, which may create confusion about the cause of chest pain, it is not difficult to believe that aspirin could increase the proportion of silent events from 25% to 30%. This could explain all the benefits of antiplatelet agents on non-fatal myocardial in the meta-analysis.

Aspirin increased the risk of sudden death in every long-term study after myocardial infarction that reported such events.

This increase was from 4.4% on placebo to 5.6% on aspirin in the persantine-aspirin reinfarction (PARIS) study; from 2.0% to 2.7% in the aspirin myocardial infarction study (AMIS); and from 2.0% to 2.4% in the persantine-aspirin reinfarction study (PARIS-II).9

This could reflect an increased risk of sudden death among concealed, and therefore untreated, events. Another possible mechanism by which aspirin may convert non-fatal events into fatal ones is by increasing the risk of hemorrhagic conversion of cerebral and myocardial infarctions.

All cause mortality and, arguably, disabling stroke are the only robust markers of benefit with an antiplatelet agent. It is not clear that antiplatelet agents reduce the risk of either.

Some trials that were included lost more than a quarter of their patients to follow up.10 In similar circumstances, with other agents, it has been suggested that all patients lost to follow up in the active treatment group should be considered to have died and none of those in the control arm. Such an analysis would neutralize the benefit observed in one of the few seemingly convincingly positive studies of aspirin, the ISIS-2 trial.11

Bias In Interpretation

The Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration shows bias in the analysis and interpretation of their results. We are given scant detail on how the numbers of events credited to each trial changed between meta-analyses. 2 3 Trials were retrospectively reanalyzed, resulting in resurrection of a number of apparently dead patients and the discovery of a number of new deaths.

Most interventions probably help some people some of the time and harm others some of the time. A small benefit could reflect a small overall benefit in a large population or a substantial benefit in some patients and harm in others.

Aspirin could exert a short-term benefit followed by long term harm, in which case the benefits and safety of aspirin could be increased by using only a short term course of therapy.14 Aspirin may be harmful in patients with coronary disease and heart failure. 5 6 12

The evidence for an adverse interaction between aspirin and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors observed in the SOLVD (studies of left ventricular function) and HOPE (heart outcomes prevention evaluation) trials is also a matter for concern. 6 12 These are important issues that have not been adequately addressed.

Neither Safe Nor Cheap

Many believe that, even if aspirin is not effective, it is safe. Aspirin does appear to be relatively safe for the patients included in clinical trials, but as these studies excluded by design patients at risk of adverse events with aspirin and tended to include younger patients with lower multiple morbidity it is likely that aspirin is not as safe as suggested.

Low dose aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis may account for more than 30% of all major gastrointestinal hemorrhage in patients aged over 6, 4 6 15 and may also be associated with an increased risk of renal failure.

Finally, there is a widespread view that aspirin is cheap. However, when evaluating the costs of treatment the amount and type of benefit and the costs of managing adverse effects also need to be evaluated. Very few economic appraisals of aspirin have been done.

One such analysis, recently commissioned by the chief scientist's office in Scotland, suggested it may cost more than £80 000 to prevent one event with aspirin for primary prevention and more than £3000 for secondary prevention.16 These analyses have assumed that aspirin is as effective as the meta-analyses suggest, which may not be true.

A Diversion

Perhaps the greatest potential detriment of aspirin on health care, however, is that it diverts attention away from treatments that are of unequivocal benefit to many groups of patients.

The reader should not accept the conclusions of the Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration uncritically but rather read the original papers on which their conclusions are based.

Daily Aspirin Use Increases Risk of Pancreatic Cancer

Women who take aspirin regularly may be at an increased risk of pancreatic cancer, a particularly deadly form of cancer. Researchers found that taking two or more aspirins a week for 20 years or more increased the women's risk of pancreatic cancer by 58 percent, and women who took 14 tablets or more per week had an 86 percent greater risk. Millions of women take aspirin daily in order to protect against heart disease and to treat aches and pains.

Women in the study who took between six and 13 aspirins a week had a 41 percent higher risk than women who did not use any, compared with an 11 percent greater risk among women who took one to three aspirins a week.

Although pancreatic cancer affects only 31,000 Americans a year, most patients die within three years. The cause behind pancreatic cancer remains unknown, however a previous study found that taking aspirin regularly may cause an inflammation of the pancreas known as pancreatitis, which sometimes leads to pancreatic cancer.

Yahoo News October 27, 2003

Sugar and No Exercise Increase Pancreatic Cancer

Obesity and physical inactivity contribute to the risk of cancer of the pancreas. The body becomes less sensitive to the glucose-lowering effects of insulin with obesity and inactivity, and diminished sensitivity to insulin leads to higher blood levels of insulin. Higher levels of insulin are thought to increase the risk of cancer of the pancreas. But previous attempts to link inactivity and obesity with pancreatic cancer brought inconsistent results. The investigators used body mass index (BMI), a measure of weight in relation to height, to determine whether or not patients were obese. Men and women with high BMI faced a pancreatic cancer risk 1.5 to 2 times higher than those with low BMI. Dieting, however, apparently lowered the risk, the report indicates, as both men and women who reported a 10% to 12.5% decrease from their maximum lifetime weight had only about half the risk of cancer of the pancreas faced by others. Exercise lowered the risk. The researchers note that men who exercised strenuously at least 8 hours a month had only 59% of the pancreatic cancer risk of men who exercised less. International Journal of Cancer 2001;94:140-147 Gene Therapy May Destroy Pancreatic Cancer Cells Using a new two-pronged attack, researchers were able to destroy deadly pancreatic cancer cells in the test tube and in lab animals. Researchers were interested in using a tumor-stopping protein from a newly discovered gene known as mda-7, which has been found effective in destroying other types of cancer cells. However, the investigators had previously found that mda-7 alone, delivered to pancreatic cancer cells in the lab, could not destroy the cancer cells. In this study, they added a small piece of DNA that blocked the expression of the K-ras gene to the mda-7. The K-ras gene is associated with uncontrolled cell growth when mutated, and it is mutated in 85% to 95% of pancreatic cancer cells, including the cells the experimenters used. The combination of the two killed the pancreatic cancer cells in the lab after a few days, Lebedeva said. The researchers also found the combination killed tumor cells in lab animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2001;98:10332-10337

Sunscreen is skin caner in a bottle, just try it!!!

Did you know that 97 percent of Americans have been found to be contaminated with oxybenzone, a chemical that actually increases the risk of skin cancer by making it more sensitive to light? It's called a "photocarcinogen," meaning that people who use it are increasing the risk of cancer when they expose their skin to sunlight. And yet this is the chemical being used in sunscreen! Amazing, huh? Check out our feature story by Ellen Holder (below) to learn more details.

CDC Finds 97 Percent of Americans Contaminated by Sunscreens

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) released a new study showing that nearly all Americans are contaminated with oxybenzone, a widely-used sunscreen ingredient. This chemical so far has been linked to allergies, hormone disruption, and cell damage, as well as low birth weight in baby girls whose mothers are exposed during pregnancy. Oxybenzone is also a penetration enhancer, a chemical that helps other chemicals penetrate the skin. So where has the FDA been on this?

Apparently in the back pocket of the sunscrene industry. The Food and Drug Administration, again, has failed in its duty to protect the public from toxic chemicals like oxybenzone. Caving to the industry lobbyists, the agency has delayed final sunscreen safety standards for nearly 30 years. FDA issued a new draft of the standards last October under pressure from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), but continues to delay finalizing them because of pressure from the industry.

In their online cosmetic safety database, EWG identifies nearly 600 sunscreens sold in the U.S. that contain oxybenzone, including leading brand names like Hawaiian Tropic, Coppertone, and Banana Boat, and many facial moisturizers as well. On top of that, they also show many of these so-called sunscreens offer inadequate protection from the sun. In fact, they found that sunlight also causes oxybenzone to form free radical chemicals that may be linked to cell damage, which is the exact opposite reason many women mistakenly use the sunscreen - to protect them from damaging free radicals which lead to premature aging.

And interestingly, as sunscreen sales have risen, so has the rate of skin cancers. Go figure. We've been pressured to believe that the sun is our enemy and we need to slather on loads of sunscreen to protect ourselves, when in actuality we need sunlight for our bodies to manufacture vitamin D. For those of us who are either fair skinned or just plain vain and worry about age spots and wrinkles, limiting our unprotected sun exposure to 20 minutes a day is adequate for our daily dose of vitamin D. For more fun in the sun, overexposure can be avoided by using a natural or organic sunscreen with a reflective barrier like zinc, instead of chemical sunscreens. Even a small amount of shea butter rubbed into the skin daily offers a bit of natural UV protection. Whatever you do, don't wait for the FDA to help you in your choice. Based on their history in this category, it could be another 30 years before safety standards are improved.

References:
1. Environmental Health Perspectives: Concentrations of the Sunscreen Agent, Benzophenone-3, in Residents of the United States: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003–2004
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/1126...

2. Environmental Working Group: Comments from EWG on the U.S. FDA's Proposed Amendment of Final Monograph for Sunscreens
http://www.ewg.org/node/25705

3. Environmental Working Group: Americans Carry 'Body Burden' of Toxic Sunscreen Chemical
http://www.ewg.org/node/26212

Fergie's Vinegar Shots?

In a recent Glamour interview, Fergie Ferg revealed that one of her diet tricks is shots of organic apple cider, unfiltered. She said:

"Two tablespoons. For some reason I've noticed a difference on my stomach. I just trusted [my trainer] on this one. I'm sharing. I'm all about sharing secrets."

WebMD is skeptical, but they are a front for big pharma, who cannot patent Apple Cider Vinegar!

DHA & EPA: Omega-3s for Healthy Hearts, Minds and More

People are becoming increasingly aware of how important omega-3 fatty acids are in promoting good cardiovascular health. In fact, the American Heart Association has endorsed omega-3 fatty acids for this benefit. The recommendation calls for about 1 gram each day in the combination of DHA and EPA. Although the American Heart Association's statement identified oily fish as an ideal source, they also noted that fish oil, either in capsule or liquid forms, was also an acceptable option. The data regarding cardiovascular events is extremely clear cut. There have been three large randomized placebo-controlled trials involving about 32,000 individuals, noting a reduction in cardiovascular events anywhere from 19% to 45% compared to the placebo groups.

Omega-3 fatty acids however do a lot more than maintain healthy heart function. In the March 2008 edition of the British journal Rheumatology¹, researchers performed a double-blinded randomized controlled study in patients that had inflammation of the joints. A total of 97 patients participated and were randomized to receive either an effective dose of 2.2 grams of DHA/EPA (from 10 grams of cod liver oil) or placebo. The trial was conducted for a total of nine months. It was found that those patients given the fish oil reduced their daily intake of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by more than 30% which was highly statistically significant. They noted that cod liver oil supplements containing omega-3 fatty acids could be used as an NSAID-sparing supplement in patients with inflammatory joint health concerns.

Another area of benefit is concerns poor mood. In the March 2008 edition of The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry², researchers enrolled 36 pregnant women to receive either 3.4 grams a day of omega-3 fatty acids or placebo for eight weeks. At the end of the study, those individuals given the omega-3 fatty acids had significantly better mood compared to the placebo group. They concluded that the omega-3 fatty acids may offer health benefits regarding poor mood during pregnancy.

Finally, there was another study just published in the April 2008 edition of the British Journal Dermatology³ that caught my attention. Fifty three patients with an allergic skin condition, ranging in age between 18 to 40 years old, were randomized to receive either 5.4 grams a day of DHA or a placebo agent for eight weeks. It was found that those individuals given DHA had a statistically significant clinical improvement in their skin conditions compared to placebo.


1. Galarraga B, Ho M, Youssef HM, Hill A, McMahon H, Hall C, Ogston S, Nuki G and Belch JJF, Cod liver oil (n-3 fatty acids) as an non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug sparing agent in rheumatoid arthritis, Rheumatology, published online on March 24, 2008.

2. Su K, Huang S, Chiu T, Huang K, Huang C, Chang H, and Pariante C, Omega-3 Fatty Acids for Major Depressive Disorder During Pregnancy: Results From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial, The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, March 18, 2008.

3. Koch C, Dölle S, Metzger M, Rasche C, Jungclas H, Rühl R, Renz H, Worm M, Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplementation in atopic eczema: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, British Journal of Dermatology, Volume 158 Issue 4, Page 786-792, April 2008.

Lipo-Dissolve - an insane scam

Can shots safely dissolve fat deposits? Fat-Dissolving Injections:
Fat-Dissolving Injections Too Good To Be True?

Lipodissolve, a non-surgical alternative to liposuction, is attracting a steady stream of customers looking to trim problem fat from their bodies, while health officials debate the product’s safety.

From 50,000 to 100,000 Lipodissolve treatments have been conducted in the United States and Europe, according to The American Society of Non-Surgical Aesthetics.

Liposuction is currently far more popular -- there were 300,000 procedures performed in the United States in 2006 -- but Lipodissolve procedures are expected to grow to 500,000 a year in the United States.

During a Lipodissolve treatment, a chemical found in lecithin (phosphatidylcholine deoxycholate) is injected into fatty areas such as “love handles” and “bra rolls,” where it dissolves fat cells.

However, the injectable compound is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and no long-term studies have been conducted on Lipodissolve’s safety.

Among the chief questions about the procedure is where do the fat cells go once they are dissolved. Lipodissolve practitioners say the cells are excreted by your body naturally, but no one really knows for sure.

According to the FDA, Lipodissolve is a “buyer-beware situation.”

After receiving complaints related to Lipodissolve, including pain, nausea, diarrhea, elevated liver enzymes, and lumps at the injection site, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, which regulates Kansas doctors, has moved to ban marketing and sales of Lipodissolve. They are the first state to do so.

Proponents of the procedure maintain that it is safer than liposuction because it doesn’t involve surgery, and, according to The American Society of Non-Surgical Aesthetics, Lipodissolve does not require FDA approval because it isn’t a drug, but a treatment.