Become a Patron!

Jimi's Daily Health Articles

Rhianne

Rhianne

Diamond Contributor
Member For 2 Years
ECF Refugee
Jimi said:
Friends and Family are Good for Your Brain

"When you are just getting out and interacting with people, you are using your brain a lot." So says Claudia Kawas, Professor of Neurology at the University of California, Irvine.

She strongly suggests we speak to as many people outside of our own households as often as we can.

There's a lot of evidence to support her advice, but none of it proves an active social life is good for the brain. That may be about to change. Now a thorough and very well conducted new study goes a long way to provide the proof we've been missing until now.

It's time to take notice and get chatting.

In 2015 a research group from the Netherlands reviewed 19 studies that looked at social relationships and the risk of dementia. The conclusion they came to after analyzing all the data is that dementia is linked to a lack of social interaction.

Three years later Australian psychiatrists carried out their own review. This included 33 studies involving over two million participants.

Like the Dutch scientists, they also concluded that poor social engagement was associated with an increased risk of dementia. They suggested health authorities target social isolation and disengagement as a way of preventing the condition.

From these studies, it sure looks like being with people is good for our brains, while being lonely and isolated is not. But actually, it’s not so simple.

Cause or Effect?

The main problem with all the research conducted so far is that social impairment itself is typical of dementia.

It’s one of the most common symptoms of the disease.

People may feel less inclined to meet friends, visit family or interact with strangers when they have the disease or in the years leading up to it, even before symptoms of cognitive decline show themselves. That's because pathological changes in the brain take place over many years.

To provide really good evidence that a lack of social engagement is a cause of dementia and not just linked to it, researchers would have to follow a group of initially healthy participants over several decades.

So that's just what a team from University College London decided to do.

A 28-Year Follow-Up Study

They used data from a study called Whitehall II, established between 1985 and 1988. It was collected from 10,228 London-based office staff (two-thirds men, one-third women), aged 35–55, working in 20 civil service departments.

Between 1985 and 2013 each participant was asked six times how frequently they met with friends and relatives.

Also, beginning in 1997, the cognitive abilities of the participants were tested on five separate occasions ending in 2016. These were tests of verbal fluency and short-term verbal memory. The researchers also assessed verbal and mathematical reasoning.

In addition, the researchers examined the participants’ electronic health records to see if a diagnosis of dementia had ever been made. This continued until 2017.

In conducting the analysis, the researchers took into account the participants’ age, gender, ethnicity, education, socio-economic status, employment and marital status, whether they smoked, how much alcohol they consumed, and their physical activity.

Builds Cognitive Reserve

"We found that more frequent midlife social contact was associated with higher subsequent cognitive performance,” said the authors, “[and] that greater frequency of social contact at age 60 years was associated with lower risk of developing dementia."

Seeing friends almost daily at age 60 provided a 12% reduction in the chances of developing dementia compared to those who saw only one or two friends every few months.

Because the study was conducted over a period of almost 30 years, it strengthens the evidence that social engagement can protect people from dementia.

Commenting on their findings, senior author Professor Gill Livingston said, "People who are socially engaged are exercising cognitive skills such as memory and language, which may help them to develop cognitive reserve. While it may not stop their brains from changing, cognitive reserve could help people cope better with the effects of age and delay any symptoms of dementia."

Her comments were supported by Tara Spires-Jones, a professor of neurodegeneration at the University of Edinburgh who was not involved in the study.

"Learning new things builds connections between brain cells, and so does social contact,” wrote Prof. Spires-Jones. “The biology underlying this study is that the people who are socially active keep their brains better connected. If you have a better connected network in your brain, it can resist pathology for longer."
Click to expand...

Good thing I’m talking to everyone here!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Two parts, maybe three

11 Banned Foods Americans Should Stop Eating

Each country has its own standards for what ingredients and food production practices it considers safe. And some of what’s considered normal practice for the food industry in the United States is handled very differently in other countries.

It’s well known that rates of chronic diseases like cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity are high in the U.S. And the country is also saturated with food allergies and behavioral disorders. In many cases, these conditions and diseases are highly preventable. It turns out that there are a number of ingredients and food additives that other countries have banned, but the U.S. still uses. Could it be possible that some of them could be playing a part in the public health crises?

The Problem with FDA Regulation
mcdonalds-fries-in-us-vs-uk-768x679-3.jpg

Foodbabe.com
https://foodbabe.com/food-in-america-compared-to-the-u-k-why-is-it-so-different/
As much as we would like to believe that everything on store shelves is delicious, good for us, and safe, the truth is not always so reassuring. In fact, the food supply in the U.S. (and many other nations, too) is full of chemical flavorings, additives, colorings, and other ingredients that you may not want to put in your body. Before we start naming names, let’s explore how the U.S. government could let this happen.

For starters, the FDA states that food companies can market new chemicals and food additives WITHOUT FDA oversight or approval, so long as “the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe… ”

This is known as the GRAS system, and it might sound all well and good. But what makes someone a “qualified expert”? And how are they able to determine which chemicals food companies can add to the food we feed our children? It turns out that these companies often convene their own “expert” panels to decide whether the ingredient will pose harm. And many of these panels contain scientists with financial ties to all manner of industries – even including the tobacco industry (“experts” who may have, at one time, recommended that cigarettes were safe!). Based on the panel’s recommendations, companies then decide whether or not to share the results of the assessment with the FDA. They don’t even have to do so!

Most of the chemicals on the GRAS list have never had long-term testing on humans, and therefore can’t possibly be guaranteed safe. And some of them don’t stand up to the test of time, either. For example, BHA is “generally recognized as safe” – despite the fact that the National Institutes of Health’s National Toxicology Program concluded that BHA can be “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”

And then there are artificial trans fats, which have historically been on the GRAS list and added to foods like frozen pizza, peanut butter, packaged snack foods, vegetable shortenings, and ready-to-use frostings to improve their flavor, texture, and shelf life. Unfortunately, we later learned that trans fats were causing upwards of 500,000 deaths per year from associated heart disease.

In 2015, the FDA finally decided that trans fats, or partially hydrogenated oils, were unsafe, giving food manufacturers a few years to remove them from the food supply. Since the ban took place, many food companies have replaced trans fats with ingredients like palm oil instead, which comes with its own set of concerns.

11 Banned Ingredients That Are STILL Widely Used in the U.S.
iStock-458462013-1.jpg

iStock.com/nkbimages
Below are some of the most commonly used food ingredients and practices that are allowed in the United States, but banned elsewhere.

Banned Ingredients #1 — Dough Conditioners
Dough conditioners, such as potassium bromate and azodicarbonamide are chemicals used to improve the strength and texture of bread dough. Dough conditioners are often found in white breads, rolls, and “egg breads.” However, they are possible human carcinogens (potassium bromate is classified as a category 2B carcinogen). And exposure to them is known to cause respiratory sensitivity, such as asthma or other breathing difficulty. As such, potassium bromate is banned in China, India, Brazil, the European Union, and Canada. And azodicarbonamide is banned in Australia and Europe.

Banned Ingredients #2 — Brominated Vegetable Oil (BVO)
Brominated vegetable oil (BVO) was originally patented by chemical companies as a flame retardant. But now, BVO can be found in certain colorful sports drinks and citrus-flavored sodas as an emulsifier. Studies have shown that BVO isn’t harmless. It actually accumulates in human tissue, as well as breast milk, and can cause memory loss over time. Bromine toxicity can lead to skin rashes, appetite loss, and heart problems, as well as major organ damage and birth defects. Bromine also competes with iodine for receptor sites in the body, which can increase risk for iodine deficiency, autoimmune disease, and even certain cancers. And although BVO has been banned in countries like Japan, it’s been used in food and beverages in American since 1977 when it was approved by the FDA.

 
Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Part Two

Banned Ingredients #3 — Propylparaben
In the United States, propylparaben is used as a preservative in tortillas, muffins, trail mix, pies, sausage rolls, and more. Research has found that it can affect sex hormones and sperm counts in young rats. Cornell University research had also indicated that exposure to parabens may be linked to breast cancer. Environmental Working Group senior scientist Johanna Congleton, Ph.D., tells us, “It is of great concern to us that the use of an endocrine-disrupting chemical in our food is considered safe by our own government… Studies show that chemicals that disrupt hormone signaling can lead to developmental and reproductive problems.” Propylparaben is totally legal in the U.S., but in 2006 the European Food Safety Authority banned the use of propylparaben in food. And in 2015, the EU went further – also banning propylparaben from cosmetic products.

Banned Ingredients #4 — BHA and BHT
BHA and BHT are popular man-made antioxidants used in dry mixes, cereals, and dehydrated potato products to preserve them and increase shelf life. They’re also found in product packaging. These are possible carcinogens and endocrine disruptors — meaning that they can alter the normal function of your hormones and lead to disease. BHA and BHT are banned for use in food and beverages by the United Kingdom, European Union, Japan, and other countries.

Banned Ingredients #5 — Synthetic Food Dyes
Food manufacturers use synthetic food dyes, such as blue 2, yellow 5, and red 40, to enhance the coloring of certain foods and ingredients to make them more appealing to consumers. Some foods that contain food dyes include beverages (like juices, sports drinks, and sodas), candy, and glazes used in baked goods and sweets. They’re even used in silly things like making mustard more yellow, salmon more pink, and jarred pickles the perfect shade of yellow-green. And don’t even get me started on maraschino cherries!

Research has linked consumption of synthetic dyes to an increased risk for numerous conditions, like tumors and hyperactivity in children. What’s even more infuriating is that the U.S. used to use natural food dyes until the mid-19th century. But then, food manufacturers realized it was much cheaper to use chemicals, which turned food even brighter colors.

Synthetic food dyes are banned in Europe and Australia, where more natural coloring compounds are used. For example, in most of the world, Fanta contains actual fruit juice and is dyed naturally. But Americans enjoy Fanta colored with petroleum-derived artificial dyes like red 40 and yellow 6.

Banned Ingredients #6 — GMOs
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been around since the 1980s. But they have become a controversial topic — and for good reason. While they’re widespread in the U.S. — with most U.S. soy, sugar beets, corn, canola, cotton, and alfalfa being GMO crops — many European countries have banned or regulated them due to public safety concerns.

One common genetic manipulation involves altering DNA in certain crops to make them resistant to herbicides. One of the most common herbicides used in conjunction with these GMOs is glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup. Glyphosate consumption is linked to cancer. In fact, several people have won cases that allege glyphosate caused their cancer. Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup, is currently fighting cancer lawsuits that involve over 13,000 people. As of June 2019, there were bans or major restrictions on use of glyphosate in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Scotland, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

Banned Ingredients #7 — Roxarsone
The arsenic-based drug roxarsone, was routinely used in chicken in the U.S. until July 2011, when Pfizer decided to stop selling it. However, there is no actual ban on the use of arsenic in the raising of chickens for food. Roxarsone was used to increase the pink coloring of raw chicken meat, to speed the growth of the birds before slaughter, and to prevent parasites in the chicken’s stomach. Research shows chronic exposure to arsenic can lead to anemia, skin lesions, kidney damage. It can also increase the risk for certain cancers, miscarriage, and birth defects. The European Union banned the use of arsenic-based drugs, while many chicken products in the U.S. still contain it.

Banned Ingredients #8 — Ractopamine
In the U.S., ractopamine is a muscle enhancer for pigs, cows, and turkeys. And, like other harmful substances used during the raising of animals, it doesn’t just go away when the animal is slaughtered. Some of it is still left in the meat you buy. Ractopamine is banned in 122 countries including Russia, mainland China, Taiwan, and many countries across Europe. This is because it’s been linked to reproductive and cardiovascular damage in humans, as well as chromosomal and behavioral changes.

Banned Ingredients #9 — Herbicides, Insecticides, Fungicides
Herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides are widely used on crops in the U.S. food system to keep them free of bugs and diseases. Meanwhile, other countries see (and act on) the danger they pose to humans. Of the 374 active ingredients authorized for agricultural use in the U.S. in 2016, the European Union banned 72 of them. Wow.

Banned Ingredients #10 — Olestra
Olestra, or Olean, is a cholesterol-free fat substitute created by Procter & Gamble. The FDA approved it for use in foods in the 1990s and it’s still used in certain potato chips and french fries. But Olestra may cause extremely unpleasant digestive reactions, like diarrhea and leaky bowels. Consuming a lot of it can also lead to deficiencies in fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, K, as well as carotenoids. Both Canada and the United Kingdom have banned the ingredient.

Banned Ingredients #11 — Synthetic Hormones
Synthetic hormones, such as rBGH and rBST, are widely used in the U.S. dairy industry. The primary reason for this is to increase milk production in dairy cows. However, rBGH increases IGF-1 levels in humans and may increase the risk of developing cancer. Additionally, cows treated with rBGH are more likely to develop mastitis, an udder infection, requiring treatment with antibiotics. Canada, the EU, and other countries have banned these compounds.
 
Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Part Three

What You Can Do
iStock-1145101557-1.jpg

iStock.com/kali9
The question you might be asking right now is, what can I do to protect myself from these banned ingredients? While we can’t immediately control what food companies put in their products, we don’t have to eat them. And there are steps you can take to make healthier, safer food choices, wherever you live.

Here are some things you can do to make sure the food you eat is as safe as possible:

  • Read all food labels carefully. Get familiar with these banned ingredients and their alternative names, and look for them on packaged foods.
  • Eat minimally processed or, even better, whole, organic foods as much as possible. Fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains won’t have the long list of ingredients that packaged and processed foods often do.
  • Cook at home as much as you can. This way, you have more control over the food you’re eating. You know exactly what ingredients are being used, and can decide to eat foods that best align with your values as much as possible.
  • Sign petitions. This is a great way to get involved in public policy, and you don’t even have to leave your house. One of my favorite places to find and sign petitions is the Center for Food Safety website.
The good news is, you don’t have to wait for the U.S. FDA or USDA to change policy for you to make informed choices about what you eat and feed to your family. Every bite you take is a chance to take a stand for a safer and healthier life.
 
Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
New Electrical Therapy Zaps
Cancer Cells to Death
Phillip Stricker, an Australian urologic oncologist says, "You can't underestimate the potential of this technology."

And Boris Kuvshinoff from New York's Roswell Park Cancer Institute agrees that it's "one of the real exciting technologies that's come out in the last few years."

It's already been trialed in patients with prostate, liver, kidney, lung and pancreatic cancers with encouraging results.

It’s called Nanoknife. What makes it so special?

Prompts cancer cells to commit suicide

Ablation therapies use cold or heat to ablate (destroy) tumors.

With most variations of this approach, needles/probes deliver the treatment directly to the tumor. This avoids invasive surgery, causes minimal pain, and only requires a very short recovery time.

There are several different types of ablation therapy. Cryoablation destroys cancerous tissue by freezing it to minus 40 degrees; radiofrequency ablation heats up the tumor by delivering radiofrequency waves until it's destroyed; and high intensity focused ultrasound also kills through extreme heat.

These therapies rely on temperature – usually heat or extreme cold – to kill cancer cells. The problem is that – at least in the case of heat -- this can harm surrounding structures such as nerves and blood vessels and, because of the irregular distribution of the heat, cancer cells close to these tissues may not all be killed, leading to a recurrence of the disease.

Cryoablation – the freezing version -- also has its own set of challenges because variable amounts of ice are required within different tissues.

Now comes a new approach that may solve all these problems. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) -- more familiarly known by its commercial name, Nanoknife -- is a form of ablation that has no thermal effects. Instead it uses direct, high strength electrical current to permanently damage the cell membrane of the cancer cell. This leads to the cell’s death.

It was named Nanoknife because of the size of the holes it creates in the cancer cell and because it was seen as a kind of electronic scalpel that opens up the cell membrane.

The technique involves inserting anything from two to six needle-shaped electrodes or probes through the skin, guided by scanning technology, to surround the tumor. When the generator is switched on, a strong disruptive magnetic field is created.

The ultra-short (10 thousandths of a second) electrical pulses are contained between the probes and produce many microscopic (nanosized) pores or holes in the cell membrane which are too extensive for cancer cells to repair. The end result is death by apoptosis (suicide).

If the cancer ever comes back in the future, the procedure can be repeated.

Almost doubles survival time in pancreatic cancer

Some of the best news about the Nanoknife is that it seems to be effective against pancreatic cancer, for which conventional medicine has no solutions.

Surgery to remove the tumor offers the best chance of long-term survival in pancreatic cancer patients, but most are not eligible because the disease has already progressed beyond the pancreas by the time it’s diagnosed.

For such patients, survival times average less than two years. It’s one of the most dreaded cancers.

In a 54-patient trial conducted by surgical oncologists at the University of Louisville, patients treated with standard treatment plus Nanoknife, when compared to those who received only standard care, had better than 50% improvement in overall survival (20 months vs 13 months).1

A much larger follow-up involving 200 patients achieved even better results. The investigators wrote:

"The appropriate and precise use of IRE in appropriately selected patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer can result in a median overall survival close to 24 months, which is nearly double the survival rate with the best new chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy,"2

A UK study published last year tested the procedure on 75 patients with unresectable (can't-be-removed-by-surgery) locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma who had also received chemotherapy.

Progression-free survival averaged 15 months, and overall survival averaged 27 months.

The researchers concluded that the procedure is "safe and potentially effective with improved survival."3

"What's really innovative about it," states Boris Kuvshinoff, “is that it kills the tumor without damaging surrounding structures.” He and others at Roswell Park have treated 25 patients with Nanoknife, and of eight that have had post-op CT, MRI or PET scans, no visible tumors could be detected.4

Keith Lillemoe, Chief of Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, is a specialist in disorders of the pancreas and Editor-in-Chief of the journal Annals of Surgery. He describes the procedure as an "exciting new therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer."5

Zero incontinence

Dr. Michael Stehling is a physician, physicist, and medical innovator, and is also an internationally recognized expert on irreversible electroporation for prostate cancer. He founded The Prostata Center in Offenbach, Germany in 2010.

In the Center’s first seven years he treated 650 patients with Nanoknife, more than anyone else in the world. He also works closely with Boris Rubinsky from the University of California, Berkeley, the man who developed the procedure in 2002.

In a 2015 study, Dr. Stehling and his team treated 265 patients with all stages of prostate cancer. Over a follow-up period of four years, the recurrence rates were 0 patients out of 55 with a Gleason score under 7; three out of 117 in a second group with Gleason 7, and only ten out of 67 among the patients with scary Gleason scores of more than 7. (The higher the Gleason Score the more aggressive the cancer.)

The most common side effects -- impotence and incontinence – were either eliminated or greatly reduced, and minimal toxicity was seen on surrounding structures even in advanced cancers.

Commenting on his experience, Dr. Stehling said, "The patients we have treated at The Prostata Center have had their cancers destroyed without the need for surgery, with a low incidence of side effects and in most cases have been back on their feet the next day.

"The data from this study confirms what we see every day. We have a very attractive approach for patients who are concerned about quality of life challenges and are considering options for the treatment of localized and late stage prostate cancer.

"Treating prostate cancer with minimal pain and minimal risk of impotence and incontinence, even in patients with advanced and recurrent cancer, with a one-time, one-day treatment, until recently, was unthinkable. The cutting-edge technology of IRE makes this a reality."6

An impotence rate of just three percent

Dr. Stehling published a review of 429 patients (and 471 treatments) with intermediate to high risk cancers in the journal PLoS One in April this year.

He described Nanoknife as "primarily successful in all treatments except three."

After five years, 27 recurrent cancers were detected, mostly in the high grade, high risk group. Recurrent-free survival was approximately 98% for Gleason 6, 92% for Gleason 7, and 75% for a Gleason score greater than 7.

Adverse events occurred in about a quarter of patients, with four out of five of these described as mild. The most common was short-term urinary retention.

In patients who were fully continent before the procedure, no urinary incontinence was observed 12 months later. This compares favorably with radical prostatectomy (RP) surgery, which removes the whole gland. The incontinence rate here varies from 20 to 50%.

The researchers evaluated I am a spammer ban me function in 124 patients by way of a questionnaire. 14 said they developed severe dysfunction, but this persisted for over a year in just four patients (3%). Radical prostatectomy has an impotence rate of up to three out of four patients a year after surgery.

The conclusion of the study was that IRE is "a safe, effective and suitable modality for the treatment of [prostate cancer] at all clinical stages and recurrent disease." Overall toxicity was low and continence "was preserved in all cases."7

There is now a branch of the Prostata Center in San Diego, where it is called the Vitus Prostate Center with Dr. Stehling as its director.

"Extremely effective"

Phillip Stricker is one of the leading experts in the treatment of prostate cancer in Australia and one of the pioneers in the use of Nanoknife.

He describes current outcomes as performed by him and his team:

  • 97% clearance of the primary tumor
  • 0% ongoing incontinence
  • Less than 5% I am a spammer ban me dysfunction.
  • No major complications.
  • Less than 10% recurrence in other parts of the prostate (up to five-year follow-up), one third of which had successful redo treatments.
Prof. Stricker says that for the right candidates the therapy is "extremely effective" and will "save a lot of people from having unnecessary surgery." He believes it is now "an established and real treatment option."8

Nanoknife technology is only offered by a small number of specialized centers around the world at this time, but is expected to become more widespread in the years ahead.
 
Rhianne

Rhianne

Diamond Contributor
Member For 2 Years
ECF Refugee
Jimi said:
The bad side of peanut butter is the oils they use and thay peanuts are inherently fungal, that's why it causes inflammation/a.k.a. stomach ache in some people:eek:.
Click to expand...

I usually get cashew or almond, but every now and then get PB. I like the one ingredient Maranatha PB, though. But yeah, aflatoxin is not good at all!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Thumbs-Down to Sleeping Pills –
If You Want to Avoid Dementia

The advice from sleep experts couldn't be clearer. If you have trouble sleeping, seek help. Ignoring the problem increases the risk of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart attack, stroke and Alzheimer's disease.

But seek out natural sleep aids.

A visit to the doctor's office too often means a prescription for sleeping pills.

Even if the pills give a better night's sleep, it’s a type of sleep that may not decrease your Alzheimer’s risk. The drugs themselves may harm the brain.

Let’s take a look at what these popular drugs do to cognitive ability and memory. . .

There are already studies linking sleeping pills with an increased risk of Alzheimer's, but last year the biggest study, involving over 350,000 Finnish participants, provided crushing new evidence.

The researchers examined the effect of taking benzodiazepines and z-drugs.

The former are some of the most commonly prescribed medications in the US, sold under about 60 brand names including Valium, Ativan and Xanax, and used to help people sleep and also to reduce anxiety.

Z-drugs are prescribed for insomnia only and include Lunesta, Sonata and Ambien.

After adjusting the findings to take into account socioeconomic status, various health problems and the use of antidepressants and antipsychotics, the scientists found these drugs may cause something like 5.7% of Alzheimer's cases.

The authors accepted that the increased risk was modest, but still found their findings "worrying" because these two types of pharmaceuticals are prescribed for millions of older people and are often used long-term, even though they are only designed to be used for a month.

Risk Increases by 43% for Highest Users

At the Alzheimer's Association International Conference held in Los Angeles in July, Dr. Yue Leng from the University of California San Francisco explained that "sleep medication use is very common in the elderly, but the effect of sleep meds on cognition is poorly understood."

To find out more, he and his colleagues examined 3,068 men and women, all in their 70s and without dementia at the onset of the study. They followed the participants over a period of 15 years, dividing them into five groups according to how often they took sleeping pills per month: never, rarely (once or less), sometimes (2-4 times), often (5-15), almost always (16-30).

After adjustment for the APOE4 “Alzheimer’s” gene and other risk factors, they found those in the “often” or higher category were 43% more likely to develop dementia than those in the bottom two categories. Those taking sleeping pills only “sometimes” were not at any increased risk.

Dr. Yue Leng told the audience that clinicians should be more cautious about prescribing these medications to older people and suggested that there are "non-pharmacological sleep treatment options that should be considered."

Men & Women Affected Differently

In another presentation, Elizabeth Vernon, from the University of Utah, shared findings from 3,656 adults aged 65 or older who were followed for 12 years.

The researchers found men using sleep medication had 3.6 times the risk of developing Alzheimer's compared to non-users.

However, for women the findings were unexpected and surprising. Those who took sleep medication to facilitate sleep but who did not suffer with insomnia had almost four times the risk of developing Alzheimer's.

But women who took the pills to relieve insomnia had a 35% decreased risk.

The researcher was unable to explain this finding, but did tell the audience the research indicates -- as have other studies -- that men and women should be viewed differently when it comes to Alzheimer's risk.

She also explained that several classes of sleep meds decrease slow wave and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep which are needed to turn new experiences into long-term memory.

In other words, as I suggested at the beginning, even if people get a better night's sleep by taking medication, the changes caused are harmful to the brain. Normal healthy sleep is not the same as drug-induced sleep.

I hope that by the time the study is peer-reviewed and published, the researchers will be able to explain the strange difference in the findings among women.

Like Dr. Leng, Elizabeth Vernon advises non-drug alternatives such as sleep hygiene interventions and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia.
 
Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Last edited:
Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Some Infections Boost
Survival in Cancer Patients
Some viruses provoke a runny nose and sneezing. Nastier types can cause paralysis. At their most virulent, they can kill you.

While viruses may be unpleasant, crippling and even deadly, they also have another role, one that's new and still in development.

And that is to fight cancer.

Can you put this unlikely side effect to work for you? Let’s see. . .

Hepatitis B and C viruses are leading causes of liver cancer.

There are a dozen strains of human papillomavirus that can cause cancers of the anus, cervix, penis, vagina, vulva and throat.

Epstein-Barr virus increases the risk of lymphomas and stomach cancer.

Let me leave you in no doubt: You absolutely don’t want to catch any of these infections.

But for people who already have cancer, coming down with a virus can have the opposite effect and actually fight the disease.

This was observed over a century ago when cancer patients who developed a viral infection were able to enjoy a brief respite from their malignancy.

For instance, in 1951 a small child suffering with leukemia contracted chickenpox. For a month, some of the worst symptoms of his cancer -- swollen liver and spleen -- were reduced, and his organs returned to their normal size, and his elevated blood counts were back to those of a healthy child.

Deliberately infecting patients

Similar observations led to tests of viruses in patients.

Cervical cancer was halted for a time with rabies virus vaccine. The same brief remission was later seen with melanoma and brain cancer (glioblastoma).

These effects came about, scientists discovered, because viruses could sometimes attack tumor cells. Sadly, the benefits were always short-lived, with the tumor resuming its destructive path.

In the early days, patients could sometimes die from the virus itself because doctors didn't have enough knowledge to supply a safe yet effective dose or the most effective strain of virus.

Repeated failures led to practitioners giving up on the approach for some years, but a few adventurous doctors revived the concept again in 1991. After several false starts, a way was finally found to engineer a virus to attack the tumor, but not harm healthy cells.

And so, the field of oncolytic virus therapy was born, in which a virus could be used to infect and lyze (break down) cancer cells without harming normal cells.

An unexpected positive side effect

In 2015, the herpes-based drug Imlygic became the first FDA-approved oncolytic virus. It can be prescribed for the treatment of late-stage melanoma.

A surprising and exciting discovery came from the initial trials with Imlygic.

The researchers saw that metastatic tumors far from the original cancer site were also being destroyed even though the drug itself did not enter these cells. It looked as if the viral treatment was triggering the immune system to attack tumors no matter where they were located.

The discovery gave rise to another new discipline called oncolytic virus immunotherapy. This form of cancer therapy uses genetically engineered or modified viruses to selectively enter, replicate and lyze tumor cells, yet at the same time release cancer antigens, prompting the immune system to attack the infected tumor.

Earlier this year, researchers released findings on 80 patients suffering from melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer. They had been treated with Imlygic for three years. The melanomas were advanced, ranging from stage 3 to 4.

By the end of the trial 31 patients (39%) saw their tumors disappear, while another 14 (18%) had a partial response.

A member of the trial team, Dr. David Ollila, was very excited about the results:

"It's pretty hard to ignore a response rate of 39%. Our findings in the real world mimic what the clinical trials have found.

"It's a different world now in metastatic melanoma because instead of the traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy that not only kills cancer cells but also kills normal cells, we're stimulating the immune system to attack the cancer cells."

He added, "It appears that there's no role for traditional chemotherapy any longer for treating this disease."1

Scientists have also conducted trials using common cold viruses.

Dramatic response

Last May a trial was published from scientists at the MD Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas.

They gave an engineered common cold virus called DNX-2401 to 25 patients suffering from recurrent glioblastoma, a deadly brain cancer. Typically, such patients live another six months following a recurrence of the cancer. Yet in those treated with the cold virus, reduced tumor size was seen in 18 patients and they lived for another 9½ months on average, while five patients saw their lives extended by at least three years.

Of these five, three saw their tumors diminish by 95%.

I think any of us would be grateful for that if we found ourselves in a similar situation.

There were minimal side effects and all enjoyed a far superior quality of life on this treatment compared to chemotherapy and radiation.

Commenting on these results, lead author Frederick Lang said, "Of those five long-term survivors, three had durable complete responses, which is impressive for a phase I clinical trial in glioblastoma. Many phase I trials might have one patient who does well, so our result is unusual..."

Another of the senior authors, Juan Fuevo, who helped invent the drug, added, "We designed DNX-2401 to specifically infect cancer cells, replicate inside those cells to kill them, and spread from cell to cell in a destructive wave throughout the tumor.

"The clinical trial shows that happens...and it also shows that in some patients, viral infection was followed by an immune reaction to the glioblastoma that led to the strong responses."

Explaining this in more detail, the other co-inventor, Candelaria Gomez-Manzano, said, "In the case of these long-term complete responders, the virus breaks the tumor's shield against immune response by killing cells, creating multiple antigen targets for the immune system. These tumors are then completely destroyed."2

No trace of cancer after just seven days

Another engineered common cold virus called CVA21, a type of coxsackievirus, was tested in 15 patients with bladder cancer. The results were published in Clinical Cancer Research in July.

It was tested on a type of bladder cancer called “non-muscle invasive.” This accounts for four out of five of all bladder cancers, with 60,000 new cases per year in the U.S.

The treatment options aren’t very good. Existing treatments can require surgery and often have nasty side effects. The cancer often returns, and in a more aggressive form.

A week before the patients in the study were scheduled for surgery to remove the tumors, they were treated with CVA21 to the bladder, administered via a catheter. After surgery, tumor cells were found to have been killed in most patients, and for one patient, there was no trace left of the tumor.

An examination of the tissue samples showed the virus was highly selective, targeting only tumor cells and leaving normal cells intact. After infecting the tumor, the virus was able to replicate itself and continue attacking it.

Typical bladder tumors do not stimulate a response from immune cells, but CVA21 inflames tumor cells, provoking an immune response by the body to attack and destroy them.

May revolutionize treatment

Principal investigator and Professor of Medical Oncology Hardev Pandha was very upbeat about the group’s findings, saying that CVA21 "could help revolutionize treatment for this type of cancer.

"Reduction of tumor burden and increased cancer cell death was observed in all patients and removed all trace of the disease in one patient following just one week of treatment, showing its potential effectiveness. Notably, no significant side effects were observed in any patient.”

According to another member of the research team, Dr. Nicola Annels, “Traditionally viruses have been associated with illness, however in the right situation they can improve our overall health and well-being by destroying cancerous cells.

"Oncolytic viruses such as the coxsackievirus could transform the way we treat cancer and could signal a move away from more established treatments such as chemotherapy.”3

Common cold viruses alone are now undergoing human trials in a range of cancers including breast, bowel, lung and skin.
 
Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Part One of Two

Grass-Fed vs Grain-Fed Beef: Which Is Better?



Health is all about choices, such as choosing grass-fed versus grain-fed.


To be clear, which one should you pick: grass-fed beef or regular beef? Which one is healthier?


Let’s break down the differences and benefits here!


But first, consider this for a second. The average American eats more than 60 pounds of beef every year.


This statistic tells us beef is a staple of the American diet and an integral part of our way of life. Now, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing!


If you are eating grass-fed beef, you’re probably getting a huge dose of perfectly-balanced, nutritious protein. Highly nutrient-dense foods satiate you faster, so you can’t overeat them easily.


Your body literally makes you put your fork down. You also won’t have to deal with ingesting chemicals if you opt to eat organic grass-fed beef.


Before going into that, let’s talk about the difference between grain-fed beef and grass-fed.


Grain-Fed Beef

mail


  • Do you know where your hamburger meat came from?
  • Was the cow healthy or sick?
  • Did the cow live a happy life?

The answers to these questions relate directly to your well-being as well as the planet’s.


Great news! This means you can immediately have a positive effect on both through one simple choice.


The first step to that wellness? Know the dangers related to that abundantly available, sold-on-every-corner, commercial beef.


The Grains

The first danger—grains.


Regular cows raised for their meat are given enormous amounts of corn and other grains during the second phase of their lives. Beef production is faster if farmers raise grain-fed cattle, but this may not be the healthiest option.


Grain-fed beef has high levels of saturated fat and omega-6 oils, which can promote heart disease.


The Hormones and Other Drugs

Most commercial beef calves become huge in just 14 months — from 80 to 1,200 pounds.


Livestock that gain this much weight over such a short period of time most likely receive supplements in addition to their food. That’s because farmers need to keep up with consumers’ beef products needs.


While some of this growth can be put down to protein supplements, any combination of the following hormones may be implanted or injected into them:


  • Estradiol
  • Progesterone
  • Testosterone
  • Zeranol
  • Melengestrol acetate
  • Trenbolone acetate

And we’re finding out our own consumption of estrogen from hormone-fed beef can increase the risk of cancer, premature puberty, and male infertility.


Now we can cue the vaccines and other medicines, which may include:


  • A 4-way viral and 5-way leptospirosis vaccine and vibriosis protection cocktail
  • A drug to prevent clostridial diseases which can be fatal to cattle
  • Medicine to prevent calf scours
  • Something that prevents and/or treats internal and external parasites

What is leptospirosis? This is a bacterial disease found in rodents, dogs, and other mammals. It is infectious to humans.


What is vibriosis? This is a venereal disease (obtained through sexual contact) common among cattle. It is a bacterial infection that causes infertility and spontaneous abortion in cattle.


Doesn’t it make you wonder what beef doesn’t contain residues of all these chemical and anti-parasitic substances taste like?


The Antibiotics

As if the hormone- and vaccine-injected beef weren’t sad enough, farmers are using around 28.9 million pounds of antibiotics in animal agriculture annually in

the States.


In fact, around four times more antibiotics were used for animals than by humans in America in 2009. And these antibiotics aren’t primarily used to treat cow diseases or alleviate their suffering when they’re unwell.


Nope. They’re often used just in case as well as to fatten them up and make them grow more.


The crowded conditions cows are raised in also make them sick more often, so preventative measures probably seem even more critical. A sick cow costs money, of course.


So what does this routine antibiotic use in cows mean for you? Unfortunately, it can mean antibiotic resistance.


It also means you might be consuming a lot more than beef when you slice into that yummy steak and slide the fork into your mouth.


The Irradiation

Some commercial beef is irradiated, which is another way of saying blasted with gamma rays produced by radioactive material or electricity to kill bacteria. They don’t know what effect this has on the body just yet.


What are gamma rays? These are the most active and energetic electromagnetic radiation, used in X-rays and in anti-cancer treatments.


Inhumane Conditions

Imagine you were allowed to roam free and eat all the natural food available around you for the first 70% of your life. Then, you were denied some of the most basic requirements of life for the rest: fresh air, space, and normal social interaction.


It’s like being taken good care of until your old age and then being cast out into the cold. That’s basically what grain-fed cows have to deal with. On some ranches, they are kept in tight cages their entire lives.


The Benefits of Grass-Fed Beef

mail

Why is grass-fed beef better? Organic, grass-fed beef (such as Butcher Box’s beef) may:


  • Contain twice as much omega-3
  • Contain two or three times more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a potential cancer fighter and heart disease reducer
  • Come from more environmentally-friendly, (22-35% more) profitable, and sustainable farms
  • Contain way less toxic heavy metals and carcinogens
  • Have less total fat and a healthier fatty acid composition
  • Contain no antibiotics, vaccines, hormones, or other hazardous drugs
  • Contains essential antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals, including vitamin B12 and E, beta-carotene, zinc, selenium, choline, phosphorus, iron, and pantothenic acid

There are other benefits of grass-fed beef. You just have to be careful to ensure you’re really getting the meat from a naturally fed, humanely-treated cow.


How to Buy American Grass-Fed Beef

So where can you find this kind of beef without being tricked? To make sure you get organically raised and fed beef, you need to look for a local supplier.


Grass-fed animals can be hard to find. Start by looking for ranches that allow their cattle to graze in pastures filled with organic grass and plants.


Getting pre-cut meat from the grocery store may not be the best choice. Sadly, beef that is not grass-fed is often labeled as such.


You need 100% grass-fed, not 50%! Right?


It’s important to know where to buy grass-fed beef. The best way to ensure you are really eating 100% grass-fed beef and getting all the benefits is to go straight to a trustworthy source.


Butcher Box is one of those sources. Get your clean, hormone-free, healthy ribeye steak from them!


5 More Questions That Settle the Grass-Fed versus Grain-Fed Comparison

To further help you decide between these two types of beef, here are some FAQs you should know:


1. Is There a Difference When It Comes to Grass-Fed vs Organic Beef?

Much of the confusion with grass-fed versus grain-fed stems from the fact there are so many terms to understand. For example, people use words like “grass-fed” and “organic” interchangeably when they don’t mean the same thing.


With grass-fed vs organic beef, it’s all about the type of animal feeding the cows receive or the source of their diet.


A grass-fed beef means the meat comes from cattle that graze pastures and eat grass. Organic beef means the cow didn’t receive any synthetic growth hormones, vaccines, and antibiotics.


Note, however, organic beef can still mean the cows are grain-fed with soy or corn. Only these types of food grow from organic land.


Meanwhile, grass-fed beef may eat grass from land previously burdened with chemical fertilizers. In turn, the meat is still not organic.


Note: You may also confuse yourself with grass-fed beef and beef that’s grass-finished. They are also different.


A grass-finished beef means the cow ate grass throughout its life, while a grass-fed cow may still end up consuming grains during the later months.


2. When It Comes to Grass-Fed Beef vs Regular Beef, Which Has Better Taste?

Let’s face it, while it pays to eat healthily, we might as well enjoy the food we eat. With regard to grass-fed versus grain-fed, which of these two types of beef tastes better?


The choice is actually not unanimous. Some people like the taste or flavor of grain-fed beef because of its higher amount of fat and marbling, which is the flecks of fat in between the muscles.


The more marbling you see, the more the meat can tolerate varying degrees of heat. Fat also gives the meat more flavor, so it tends to be juicier.


There are also others who consider, say, grass-fed ground beef to be chewy and gamey, but it has its own distinct taste that makes it special over grain-fed beef.


In other words, grass-fed vs grain-fed beef taste depends on what the person prefers.




 
Jimi

Jimi

Diamond Contributor
Member For 5 Years
Part Two of Two

3. Are Grass-Fed Cows Free from Disease?

Cows are not immune to disease, but while some are treatable, others are fatal. Worse, they can affect human health.


One of these is mad cow disease. Also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), it is a disease caused by a protein called a prion.


Scientists aren’t sure how cows develop this, but one thing is clear: healthy cows can contract the disease usually due to the method of animal feeding.


It may be gross to think about, but when it broke out in Europe, the primary reason was living bovines dined on the dead, which meant they ate the prion.


Now, it may seem with the debate of grass-fed versus grain-fed, the cows that eat grass seem healthier and more immune from mad cow disease.


Note, however, that grass-fed cows can still end up eating other grains and food, especially when they’re nearing their slaughter date.


4. Grass-Fed versus Grain-Fed, Which Beef Has More Fat Content?

As they say, you are what you eat. The same thing applies to cattle.


If one does a grass-fed beef nutrition comparison, especially when it comes to fat, you’ll find it is leaner than corn-fed or grain-fed beef. In other words, it contains less fat, which may partly explain its chewy texture.


Diving deeper, however, you learn they also differ in the quantity and type of fatty acid they provide. Take, for example, the analysis from the Texas A&M University researchers.


The team analyzed the fatty acid profiles of ground beef from grain-fed and grass-fed cattle. They learned omega-3 fatty acids in the form of alpha-linolenic acid were higher among those that fed in the pasture.


Omega-3 is a nutrient that may help reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease as it prevents chronic inflammation.


Meanwhile, oleic acid, which may help bring down cholesterol levels, was more notable in grain-fed beef. Perhaps what is more controversial is the amount of trans fat.


For many years, trans fat has received a bad rep because of its ability to increase the risks of metabolic diseases such as heart disease and hypertension.


This fat, however, comes from the hydrogenation of oils, the conversion of fats from unsaturated to saturated by introducing hydrogen.


The trans-fatty acid in meat is more naturally occurring, and it’s present in a mother’s milk. One study showed it may even be beneficial to one’s health when consumed in moderation.


5. Which Cow Is Better for the Environment?

The grass-fed beef vs corn-fed beef debate far extends from their nutrition composition. It also touches on their contribution to climate change.


Studies showed cows do contribute to climate change through the production of the greenhouse gas called methane. Livestock creates it during the fermentation process in the intestines and excretes it when they burp or fart.


Some people assumed shifting to grass-fed beef helps reduce the carbon footprint or delay climate change. A study published in the Animal Frontiers disagreed as they can still produce methane and livestock production still uses a lot of resources.


If you want to save the environment, the best way is to reduce your consumption of meat. Even better, shift to a plant-based diet.


Eating a plant-based diet further improves your health as the food sources are lower in bad fats than grass-fed or grain-fed beef. With options such as Alkalizing Greens, choosing this lifestyle is also more convenient.


Before you think about grilling steak for dinner, perhaps, this is the time to start considering whether you’re getting the right type of meat first. To eat healthily, always opt for grass-fed beef.


Apart from searching for grass-fed beef, part of the challenge is also sourcing for ranchers who only breed grass-fed cattle or grass-fed cows.


You have to be 100% sure the cows eat grass in a well-maintained pasture and they’re free of any chemicals or unnecessary medication.


If you are a beef lover, that’s exactly why you should take action towards switching to eating organic beef instead. Your body will thank you for it!


To your health,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

VU Sponsors

Top