Melamine continues to make headlines worldwide. The latest news has discovered the chemical in baby formula in the U.S., and more reports of melamine tainted eggs in Hong Kong. Even more startling is a report from a Chinese Veterinarian reporting melamine is just the tip of the iceberg of chemicals routinely added to animal feed ingredients exported to a world of pet food and animal feed manufacturers.
Epoch Times reports that Ms. Wang Haizhen, a veterinarian from a Chinese Animal Pharmaceutical company has gone public exposing corruption in China's food industry. Her claims are startling. She reports that as early as 2005 "several toxic substances including melamine were detected in some animal feed, resulting in contaminated milk power, eggs, and pork having entered the food market and harming consumers." She also reports that despite the contaminated Chinese baby formula incident, many companies continue to use risky chemicals.
According to Dr. Haizhen, some of those risky chemicals Chinese manufacturers commonly use in animal feed ingredients are melamine, Rh proteins, Lipiodol, Clenbuterol, attractant agents, "just to name a few". "But the chemicals and toxic materials they are adding can easily have carcinogenic effects. Some of these additives are more dangerous than melamine." http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/china/china...
In a separate article on Boxun News by ChinaFreePress.org, Dr. Haizhen reported the most dangerous chemical added to animal feed ingredients in China is rhodium iodide. "This chemical speeds up the birth process in animals, but when processed into food is a dangerous carcinogen, much more dangerous than melamine." http://www.boxun.us/news/publish/chinan...
The U.S. is currently holding all Chinese imports of milk products until testing for melamine is completed. If we consider Dr. Haizhen's report, what isn't being tested for will cause as much harm, if not more, than melamine in Chinese imports? We've learned the hard way to test for melamine, what is our next lesson from Chinese imports? Furthermore, will we have to learn it the hard way too?
It is mind boggling to consider the worldwide effects of tainted animal feed ingredients. The Canadian Press reports a French farm co-op imported 270 tons of Chinese soybean meal found to be contaminated with melamine at 30 times the maximum level allowed. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadi...
A spokesman for the French co-op said the soybean meal was used to produce feed for organic poultry. Although this group reports the poultry tested free of melamine contamination, very little is known about the long term effects on humans or pets consuming meat producing animals fed melamine laced foods. Experience has proven that chickens fed melamine laced feed produce melamine tainted eggs.
With the information provided by Dr. Haizhen, at great risk (her husband is in prison for similar whistle blowing, she is currently in hiding), any Chinese imported animal feed and/or human food ingredients, are of certain risk to a world of consumers. Sadly, it could take years to discover a connection of a cancer or kidney disease in people and pets from tainted feed ingredients; either directly into the food or indirectly into a meat producing animal feed. Even worse, more than likely many connections will never be known. The most contentious consumer, searching high and low for organic meat and vegetables to feed their two or four legged family, would have no idea if the beef or chicken was fed risky chemical laced animal feed or if the soil organic vegetables grow in was fertilized with manure contained melamine or worse.
It is crystal clear China has a tremendous quality control problem. Furthermore, China's problem is putting the world at long term health risks. The FDA must begin to grasp the severity of this. People and pet food manufacturers must act immediately and stop using Chinese imported ingredients. Livestock producers must avoid protein enhanced feeds with Chinese ingredients. Consumers and petsumers must stop using any product that contains the slightest bit of Chinese imported ingredients. The risk is more than likely, far more serious than any of us realize.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
What Most Doctors Won't Tell You About Cholesterol
What Most Doctors Won't Tell You About Cholesterol
http://drbenkim.com/articles-cholesterol.html
During my university years, I used to frustrate my parents by throwing away egg yolks and eating only the whites. No worries, I thought, as my parents just didn't know enough to realize that I was reducing my risk of heart disease by avoiding cholesterol. Looking back, I'm sure that my parents were wondering how I could so easily toss away precious egg yolks that they were able afford only a few times a year when they lived in Korea.
Today, I am grateful to have a better understanding of the relationship between cholesterol and health. How about you? Are you afraid of having high cholesterol? Are you throwing away egg yolks because you think they're bad for your health? Are you taking cholesterol-lowering medication or considering starting on one?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, I encourage you to consider the work of Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD, author of The Cholesterol Myths : Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease. I consider Dr. Ravnskov to be the world's leading expert on the relationship between cholesterol and human health.
Here are some facts from his book:
What about HDL and LDL?
Well, here are some facts about LDL and HDL that the vast majority of my patients are surprised to learn:
Here are the main points to take away from the facts presented above:
Cholesterol that naturally occurs in animal foods is not harmful to your health. But it can become harmful to your health if it is damaged by exposure to high levels of heat and/or harsh processing techniques.
If you regularly consume damaged cholesterol and foods that are rich in free radicals, you likely have significant quantities of damaged cholesterol floating through your circulatory system.
And if you regularly have damaged cholesterol floating around in your blood, then a high LDL level correlates with a higher-than-average risk of developing cardiovascular disease, and a high HDL level correlates with a lower-than-average risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
In other words, if you have significant amounts of damaged cholesterol in your blood circulation, you don’t want a lot of LDL to be available to carry this cholesterol to your arteries, where the damaged cholesterol can contribute to atherosclerosis, and you want a lot of HDL available to shuttle damaged cholesterol away from your arteries.
So while it’s true that a high HDL/total cholesterol ratio can reflect a lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease, what’s most important when it comes to cholesterol and your health is to avoid eating animal foods that have been cooked at high temperatures, since these foods are typically rich in damaged cholesterol.
Where Conventional Guidelines Come From
Sadly, conventional guidelines that promote lower cholesterol levels for a healthy heart are influenced in large part by pharmaceutical companies earning billions of dollars with their cholesterol-lowering drugs.
For example, in the summer of 2004, a panel of physicians lowered the “safe” level of LDL cholesterol from 130 to 100, and further recommended that people at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease aim to lower their LDL levels to 70.
This modification in medical standard of practice caused an estimated eight million Americans to become instant candidates for cholesterol-related drug therapy.
While this “news” was covered by major media outlets and news wires, only one newspaper, Newsday, reported that most of the physicians responsible for establishing the new recommendations had a conflict of interest. Almost all had received money – usually in the form of grants or honoraria – from at least ten drug companies. The National Cholesterol Educational Program, the source of the new medical treatment guidelines for cholesterol, failed to report these financial disclosures.
Guidelines for Healthy HDL, LDL, Total Cholesterol, and Triglyceride Levels
What follows are my personal guidelines on monitoring cholesterol, based on the research that I've done on this issue, and evaluating the blood test results and health of hundreds of people I have worked with over the past several years.
Here's my take-home perspective on cholesterol and your health:
Rather than focus just on the numbers from your latest blood test, your health is best served by:
Ensuring regular intake of a wide variety of nutrient-dense plant foods (vegetables, legumes, fruits, whole grains, and small amounts of nuts and seeds).
Ensuring regular intake of healthy fats, such as those found in avocados, olives, coconuts, organic eggs, and perhaps some cold water fish on occasion.
Minimizing intake of animal foods that have been highly processed and/or exposed to high cooking temperatures.
Striving to live a balanced life that includes adequate rest, physical activity, exposure to fresh air and sunlight (without getting burned), meaningful relationships, and a sense of purpose.
Please note: Some organizations cite various studies that indicate that low-fat and low-cholesterol diets are healthier than diets that include generous amounts of healthy fats and undamaged cholesterol. The problem with these studies, as I see it, is that they don't make a distinction between damaged vs. undamaged fat and cholesterol. And this is an extremely important distinction; there's a huge difference between eating lightly cooked organic eggs vs. a well done steak several times a week for many years.
For more information on Dr. Ravnskov and his book, you can visit http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm.
http://drbenkim.com/articles-cholesterol.html
During my university years, I used to frustrate my parents by throwing away egg yolks and eating only the whites. No worries, I thought, as my parents just didn't know enough to realize that I was reducing my risk of heart disease by avoiding cholesterol. Looking back, I'm sure that my parents were wondering how I could so easily toss away precious egg yolks that they were able afford only a few times a year when they lived in Korea.
Today, I am grateful to have a better understanding of the relationship between cholesterol and health. How about you? Are you afraid of having high cholesterol? Are you throwing away egg yolks because you think they're bad for your health? Are you taking cholesterol-lowering medication or considering starting on one?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, I encourage you to consider the work of Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD, author of The Cholesterol Myths : Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease. I consider Dr. Ravnskov to be the world's leading expert on the relationship between cholesterol and human health.
Here are some facts from his book:
- Cholesterol is not a deadly poison, but a substance that you need to be healthy. High cholesterol itself does not cause heart disease.
- People who have low blood cholesterol have the same rates of heart disease as people who have high blood cholesterol.
- The cholesterol found in your blood comes from two sources: cholesterol in food that you eat and cholesterol that your liver makes from other nutrients. The amount of cholesterol that your liver produces varies according to how much cholesterol you eat. If you eat a lot of cholesterol, your liver produces less. If you don't eat much cholesterol, your liver produces more. This is why a low cholesterol diet does not typically decrease a person's blood cholesterol by more than a few percent.
- Drugs that solely lower your cholesterol do not decrease your risk of dying from heart disease, nor do they increase your lifespan. These drugs pose dangers to your health and may decrease your lifespan.
- he newer cholesterol-lowering drugs - called statins - do reduce your risk of heart disease, but through mechanisms that are not related to lower blood cholesterol. And alarmingly, statins like lipitor mevacor, zocor, pravachol, and lescol are known to stimulate cancer in rodents.
What about HDL and LDL?
Well, here are some facts about LDL and HDL that the vast majority of my patients are surprised to learn:
- LDL and HDL are not types of cholesterol.
- LDL and HDL are lipoproteins that transport cholesterol through your blood circulatory system.
- LDL stands for Low Density Lipoprotein, and HDL stands for High Density Lipoprotein.
- LDL is often mistakenly thought of as being bad cholesterol because it carries cholesterol to your arteries.
- HDL is often mistakenly referred to as good cholesterol because it carries cholesterol away from your arteries (to your liver).
- LDL and HDL carry the same cholesterol.
Here are the main points to take away from the facts presented above:
Cholesterol that naturally occurs in animal foods is not harmful to your health. But it can become harmful to your health if it is damaged by exposure to high levels of heat and/or harsh processing techniques.
If you regularly consume damaged cholesterol and foods that are rich in free radicals, you likely have significant quantities of damaged cholesterol floating through your circulatory system.
And if you regularly have damaged cholesterol floating around in your blood, then a high LDL level correlates with a higher-than-average risk of developing cardiovascular disease, and a high HDL level correlates with a lower-than-average risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
In other words, if you have significant amounts of damaged cholesterol in your blood circulation, you don’t want a lot of LDL to be available to carry this cholesterol to your arteries, where the damaged cholesterol can contribute to atherosclerosis, and you want a lot of HDL available to shuttle damaged cholesterol away from your arteries.
So while it’s true that a high HDL/total cholesterol ratio can reflect a lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease, what’s most important when it comes to cholesterol and your health is to avoid eating animal foods that have been cooked at high temperatures, since these foods are typically rich in damaged cholesterol.
Where Conventional Guidelines Come From
Sadly, conventional guidelines that promote lower cholesterol levels for a healthy heart are influenced in large part by pharmaceutical companies earning billions of dollars with their cholesterol-lowering drugs.
For example, in the summer of 2004, a panel of physicians lowered the “safe” level of LDL cholesterol from 130 to 100, and further recommended that people at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease aim to lower their LDL levels to 70.
This modification in medical standard of practice caused an estimated eight million Americans to become instant candidates for cholesterol-related drug therapy.
While this “news” was covered by major media outlets and news wires, only one newspaper, Newsday, reported that most of the physicians responsible for establishing the new recommendations had a conflict of interest. Almost all had received money – usually in the form of grants or honoraria – from at least ten drug companies. The National Cholesterol Educational Program, the source of the new medical treatment guidelines for cholesterol, failed to report these financial disclosures.
Guidelines for Healthy HDL, LDL, Total Cholesterol, and Triglyceride Levels
What follows are my personal guidelines on monitoring cholesterol, based on the research that I've done on this issue, and evaluating the blood test results and health of hundreds of people I have worked with over the past several years.
- Ideally, it's best to have a blood cholesterol level of over 150 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L). But if your blood cholesterol level is lower than this, so long as you are eating a nutrient-dense, plant-centered diet and not suffering from any health challenges, there is likely no cause for concern.
- Low cholesterol over the long term may lead to depression, increased risk of stroke, and numerous problems related to hormonal imbalances. If you are not getting enough vitamin D from your diet, having low cholesterol may lead to vitamin D deficiency, as sunlight creates vitamin D in your body by acting on cholesterol found in your skin.
- Ideally, your HDL/total cholesterol ratio should be above 25%. Generally, the higher this ratio, the better. If this ratio is 10-15 percent or lower, there increased risk of eventually experiencing a heart attack.
- Ideally, it's best to have a triglyceride/HDL ratio of 2.0 or lower. If your HDL/total cholesterol and triglyceride/HDL ratios are in the ranges listed above, and you are eating mainly undamaged cholesterol, having a total cholesterol of more than 200 mg/dL (5.2 mmol/L) most probably isn't a cause for worry. In fact, even people whose genetics cause them to have total cholesterol above 350 mg/dL (9.0 mmol/L) have been shown to have no elevated risk of heart disease as long as their ratios are fine and they stay away from eating damaged cholesterol.
Here's my take-home perspective on cholesterol and your health:
Rather than focus just on the numbers from your latest blood test, your health is best served by:
Ensuring regular intake of a wide variety of nutrient-dense plant foods (vegetables, legumes, fruits, whole grains, and small amounts of nuts and seeds).
Ensuring regular intake of healthy fats, such as those found in avocados, olives, coconuts, organic eggs, and perhaps some cold water fish on occasion.
Minimizing intake of animal foods that have been highly processed and/or exposed to high cooking temperatures.
Striving to live a balanced life that includes adequate rest, physical activity, exposure to fresh air and sunlight (without getting burned), meaningful relationships, and a sense of purpose.
Please note: Some organizations cite various studies that indicate that low-fat and low-cholesterol diets are healthier than diets that include generous amounts of healthy fats and undamaged cholesterol. The problem with these studies, as I see it, is that they don't make a distinction between damaged vs. undamaged fat and cholesterol. And this is an extremely important distinction; there's a huge difference between eating lightly cooked organic eggs vs. a well done steak several times a week for many years.
For more information on Dr. Ravnskov and his book, you can visit http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
A HELL OF AN ANSWER
The following is an actual question given on a University of Liverpool chemistry final exam. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues via the Internet, which is why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's law that gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave.. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that, if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell. Because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay constant, the volume of Hell must expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Sandra during my freshman year, that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is endothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is extinct.... leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being - which explains why, last night, Sandra kept shouting "Oh my God."
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A".
Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's law that gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave.. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that, if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell. Because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay constant, the volume of Hell must expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Sandra during my freshman year, that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is endothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is extinct.... leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being - which explains why, last night, Sandra kept shouting "Oh my God."
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A".
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Extending Your Expiration Date
The Birth Control Contraceptive Pill
This interview comes from The People's Chemist (TPC)
http://www.thepeopleschemist.com/
TPC: What are birth control pills made of, and are the ingredients natural?
Dr. Sheridan: Birth control pills (BCP's) fall into 2 main categories. The first category contains estrogen (or an estrogenic drug) and a progestin. The second category contains a progestin only. Those containing the estrogen and progestin components are the most common form. The both components serve to shut down ovarian function, thus preventing ovulation. The progestin has an additional effect. Progestins disrupt the endometrial lining of the uterus. Therefore, if ovulation does occur (yes, BCP's can fail), the progestin changes the endometrial lining so implantation cannot occur and the pregnancy is aborted. The estrogen (estradiol) in some BCP's is indeed a hormone, so it is natural. Some BCP's contain ethinyl-estradiol instead of estriol. Ethinyl-estradiolis a drug, in my opinion since it is not made by humans. As far as I know, the human body doesn't make ethinyl-anything! In my view, if the body does not make it, it is not a hormone-period. In fact the ethinyl group is a very reactive chemical entity. The fe deral government's so-called MSDS (a type of chemical information sheet) states that ethinyl-estradiol is extremely hazardous if taken internally! That doesn?t sound natural to me. However, it seems Big Pharma believes its good enough for women in spite of what the MSDS states.
TPC: Birth control pills are convenient to use. Does the risk of using them outweigh the benefit?
Dr. Sheridan: I don't believe so. When a woman takes BCP's, she does not ovulate. That is their function and that is how they prevent pregnancy. If she does not ovulate, she does not make an appreciable amount of progesterone. Such women are called anovulatory. A study published in The American Journal of Epidemiology (1981) reveals to us that pre-menopausal women who do not ovulate have a 540% increase in breast cancer and a 1000% increase in overall cancer mortality. These are astounding numbers! In fact, since the incidence of breast cancer today is about 5 times the incidence of pre-BCP days, these statistics are even more dramatic. There are other medical facts that support my concerns that BCP's are devastating to women. I believe that regardless of age, pregnancy is safer than BCP's. We've known since at least the late 70's that women with the most children have the least breast cancer. I learned that in med school in the early 80's. There's more. There are three separate cancer studies where progesterone was added to cancer cells growing in tissue cultures. In all three, all cancer growth stopped! Note I didn't say cancer growth slowed down. It stopped. In each of these studies, approximately 40%, 50% or 60% of the cancer cells died. That's dead cancer cells. What is the purpose of cancer chemotherapy? Why is this information left to gather dust? The answer lay in the fact that Big Pharma can't patent a hormone. No patent; no mega bucks; it seems to be simple arithmetic. Does the benefit of BCP's outweigh the risk? I don't believe so at all. I believe that BCP's are an assault on women. I believe the most egregious statistic is that the earlier a girls starts BCP's the greater the negative potential. Again, when weighing risk/benefit, I believe pregnancy is safer. I'm ashamed that I once prescribed BCP's. What was I thinking?! Sadly, I wasn't. I was just doing what I was told.
TPC: My OB/GYN told me that taking birth control pills makes my body think it's pregnant. Is this true?
Dr. Sheridan: I think that this is far from the truth! Remember, the BCP contains at least one, if not two drugs! A woman's body does not make drugs as part of pregnancy. In fact, an extra dose of BCP's is one type of morning after abortion method, so how can this be true? When a woman is pregnant, she makes about 300-400 mg of progesterone daily. She does not ovulate, but that is a lot of proge sterone being made! Now she does not ovulate when she is menopausal either, but the similarity stops there because in menopause, she makes little or no progesterone. I believe BCP's mimic menopause but definitely not pregnancy. I believe that the party line described above is just because you can't market menopause to a 20-something young lady. Its just not a sexy, care-free image that makes an attractive image for a young lady.
TPC: If birth control pill use increases my risk of cancer, why is my OB/GYN still recommending them?
Dr. Sheridan: I believe that like me decades ago, most docs believe what they are told. They act in good faith, but don't really think much about what they are doing. Unfortunately, few realize that we are essentially trained by drug companies. Since so many med school professors are doing drug research, their natural bias is in this direction. It boils down to who controls the purse strings of med ical schools. Big Pharma also controls most CME (Continuing Medical Education) and is actually entrenched in the organizations making up the ACCME. This is the governing body that determines much of what goes on in CME meetings. When it comes to education, Big Pharma makes sure it is involved and that their view will be the view.
TPC: What other contraception alternatives are there, and what is their success rate?
Dr. Sheridan: Well, there are 3 methods with success rates rivaling BCP's without the associated risks. Using condoms plus foam or using a diaphragm plus spermacide offers about the same degree of protection against unwanted pregnancy. Those are two commonly used choices. Natural family planning methods done thoroughly (and properly) seem to be in the same category. Couple to Couple League International (CCLI.org) teaches natural family planning all over the country. I have close to 10 couples who taught me about natural family planning. There is not one unplanned pregnancy in the group and each has been married between 5 and 10 years. That represents about 50 to 100 years of child-bearing years. This is certainly longer than a woman's natural fertile years, so this is also an excellent choice. It takes a little discipline, bit the risks of BCP's can be avoided.
About Dr. Sheridan
After traditional medicine had failed him both personally and professionally, Dr. Sheridan turned to an alternative approach of medicine - one which treats patients to achieve health and wellness naturally. Dr. Sheridan, a native of Clifton, New Jersey, graduated from the University of Arizona College of Medicine in 1985. As a 3rd year resident of Family Medicine, he had the opportunity to attend a convention for the American Association of Family Physicians. It was there that he first learned about the Pan American Allergy Society. Because he had always struggled w ith allergies since he was a child, the Society particularly piqued his interest. At that point, he chose to add allergies to his family practice repertoire. Through his affiliation with the Pan American Allergy Society, he made the acquaintance of Dr. Hotze. He was particularly interested in the success that Dr. Hotze had achieved with his patients through his own practice. After exploring his options and realizing that his own goals and knowledge of allergy and thyroid problems were aligned with those of the Hotze Health & Wellness Center, he joined the staff as a physician in 2002. Dr. Sheridan has written a number of articles in the Health & Wellness newsletter and also serves as one of the talk show hosts on KSEV 700 on Health & Wellness.
About the People's Chemist - author
Ellison's entire career has been dedicated to the study of molecules; how they give life and how they take from it. He was a two-time recipient of the prestigiou s Howard Hughes Medical Institute Research Grant for his research in biochemistry and physiology. He is a bestselling author, holds a master's degree in organic chemistry and has first-hand experience in drug design. Use his knowledge and insight to look and feel your best in 90 days with his AM-PM Fat Loss Discovery: http://www.thepeopleschemist.com/obesity_cure.php
This interview comes from The People's Chemist (TPC)
http://www.thepeopleschemist.com/
TPC: What are birth control pills made of, and are the ingredients natural?
Dr. Sheridan: Birth control pills (BCP's) fall into 2 main categories. The first category contains estrogen (or an estrogenic drug) and a progestin. The second category contains a progestin only. Those containing the estrogen and progestin components are the most common form. The both components serve to shut down ovarian function, thus preventing ovulation. The progestin has an additional effect. Progestins disrupt the endometrial lining of the uterus. Therefore, if ovulation does occur (yes, BCP's can fail), the progestin changes the endometrial lining so implantation cannot occur and the pregnancy is aborted. The estrogen (estradiol) in some BCP's is indeed a hormone, so it is natural. Some BCP's contain ethinyl-estradiol instead of estriol. Ethinyl-estradiolis a drug, in my opinion since it is not made by humans. As far as I know, the human body doesn't make ethinyl-anything! In my view, if the body does not make it, it is not a hormone-period. In fact the ethinyl group is a very reactive chemical entity. The fe deral government's so-called MSDS (a type of chemical information sheet) states that ethinyl-estradiol is extremely hazardous if taken internally! That doesn?t sound natural to me. However, it seems Big Pharma believes its good enough for women in spite of what the MSDS states.
TPC: Birth control pills are convenient to use. Does the risk of using them outweigh the benefit?
Dr. Sheridan: I don't believe so. When a woman takes BCP's, she does not ovulate. That is their function and that is how they prevent pregnancy. If she does not ovulate, she does not make an appreciable amount of progesterone. Such women are called anovulatory. A study published in The American Journal of Epidemiology (1981) reveals to us that pre-menopausal women who do not ovulate have a 540% increase in breast cancer and a 1000% increase in overall cancer mortality. These are astounding numbers! In fact, since the incidence of breast cancer today is about 5 times the incidence of pre-BCP days, these statistics are even more dramatic. There are other medical facts that support my concerns that BCP's are devastating to women. I believe that regardless of age, pregnancy is safer than BCP's. We've known since at least the late 70's that women with the most children have the least breast cancer. I learned that in med school in the early 80's. There's more. There are three separate cancer studies where progesterone was added to cancer cells growing in tissue cultures. In all three, all cancer growth stopped! Note I didn't say cancer growth slowed down. It stopped. In each of these studies, approximately 40%, 50% or 60% of the cancer cells died. That's dead cancer cells. What is the purpose of cancer chemotherapy? Why is this information left to gather dust? The answer lay in the fact that Big Pharma can't patent a hormone. No patent; no mega bucks; it seems to be simple arithmetic. Does the benefit of BCP's outweigh the risk? I don't believe so at all. I believe that BCP's are an assault on women. I believe the most egregious statistic is that the earlier a girls starts BCP's the greater the negative potential. Again, when weighing risk/benefit, I believe pregnancy is safer. I'm ashamed that I once prescribed BCP's. What was I thinking?! Sadly, I wasn't. I was just doing what I was told.
TPC: My OB/GYN told me that taking birth control pills makes my body think it's pregnant. Is this true?
Dr. Sheridan: I think that this is far from the truth! Remember, the BCP contains at least one, if not two drugs! A woman's body does not make drugs as part of pregnancy. In fact, an extra dose of BCP's is one type of morning after abortion method, so how can this be true? When a woman is pregnant, she makes about 300-400 mg of progesterone daily. She does not ovulate, but that is a lot of proge sterone being made! Now she does not ovulate when she is menopausal either, but the similarity stops there because in menopause, she makes little or no progesterone. I believe BCP's mimic menopause but definitely not pregnancy. I believe that the party line described above is just because you can't market menopause to a 20-something young lady. Its just not a sexy, care-free image that makes an attractive image for a young lady.
TPC: If birth control pill use increases my risk of cancer, why is my OB/GYN still recommending them?
Dr. Sheridan: I believe that like me decades ago, most docs believe what they are told. They act in good faith, but don't really think much about what they are doing. Unfortunately, few realize that we are essentially trained by drug companies. Since so many med school professors are doing drug research, their natural bias is in this direction. It boils down to who controls the purse strings of med ical schools. Big Pharma also controls most CME (Continuing Medical Education) and is actually entrenched in the organizations making up the ACCME. This is the governing body that determines much of what goes on in CME meetings. When it comes to education, Big Pharma makes sure it is involved and that their view will be the view.
TPC: What other contraception alternatives are there, and what is their success rate?
Dr. Sheridan: Well, there are 3 methods with success rates rivaling BCP's without the associated risks. Using condoms plus foam or using a diaphragm plus spermacide offers about the same degree of protection against unwanted pregnancy. Those are two commonly used choices. Natural family planning methods done thoroughly (and properly) seem to be in the same category. Couple to Couple League International (CCLI.org) teaches natural family planning all over the country. I have close to 10 couples who taught me about natural family planning. There is not one unplanned pregnancy in the group and each has been married between 5 and 10 years. That represents about 50 to 100 years of child-bearing years. This is certainly longer than a woman's natural fertile years, so this is also an excellent choice. It takes a little discipline, bit the risks of BCP's can be avoided.
About Dr. Sheridan
After traditional medicine had failed him both personally and professionally, Dr. Sheridan turned to an alternative approach of medicine - one which treats patients to achieve health and wellness naturally. Dr. Sheridan, a native of Clifton, New Jersey, graduated from the University of Arizona College of Medicine in 1985. As a 3rd year resident of Family Medicine, he had the opportunity to attend a convention for the American Association of Family Physicians. It was there that he first learned about the Pan American Allergy Society. Because he had always struggled w ith allergies since he was a child, the Society particularly piqued his interest. At that point, he chose to add allergies to his family practice repertoire. Through his affiliation with the Pan American Allergy Society, he made the acquaintance of Dr. Hotze. He was particularly interested in the success that Dr. Hotze had achieved with his patients through his own practice. After exploring his options and realizing that his own goals and knowledge of allergy and thyroid problems were aligned with those of the Hotze Health & Wellness Center, he joined the staff as a physician in 2002. Dr. Sheridan has written a number of articles in the Health & Wellness newsletter and also serves as one of the talk show hosts on KSEV 700 on Health & Wellness.
About the People's Chemist - author
Ellison's entire career has been dedicated to the study of molecules; how they give life and how they take from it. He was a two-time recipient of the prestigiou s Howard Hughes Medical Institute Research Grant for his research in biochemistry and physiology. He is a bestselling author, holds a master's degree in organic chemistry and has first-hand experience in drug design. Use his knowledge and insight to look and feel your best in 90 days with his AM-PM Fat Loss Discovery: http://www.thepeopleschemist.com/obesity_cure.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)