James Bogash, D.C. Mesa, AZ
info@lifecarechiropractic.com
www.lifecarechiropractic.com

Dietary fiber fraction of germinated barley foodstuff and the GI tract

This study evaulates a fiber source (GBF) on the health and healing of colonocytes. The results were promising, identifying the fiber component of GBF as the protective factor (not the protein) and also confirming its ability to aid the healing of the cells of the colon. Butyrate is the substance produced when healthy GI flora digest fiber; it has shown the ability to protect colonocytes, help them heal and also help them differentiate properly (possibly avoiding cancerous changes). Remember, to be effective, the fiber AND the healthy flora have to be present… Synergy Abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1440-1746.2001.02427.x/full

Impact of the 1999 AAP/USPHS Statement on Thimerosal in Vaccines

This review looks at the effects of the recommendations to delay the first after Hep B vaccine in newborns due to the presence of thimerosal, a mercury containing preservative. This review finds that the rates of vaccination dropped with the recommendation and have not return. A few things to consider. Hep B is a blood borne illness; transmitted via blood contact, unprotected sexual relations and IV drug use. How many infants are unknowingly exposed to these risks factors? Not many, I would guess. Infants borne of Hep B+ mothers know this. I would support vaccination in these infants. But a blanket recommendation to all infants? I have a problem with that. Not all infants are at risk. An additional note on the “safe” thimerosal. The mercury present in these vaccines given to infants can potentiall cause problems. The mercury is directly injected, thereby bypassing the GI’s ability to reduce absorption. The infant has no effective route of elimination of mercury via the bile. And the infant has not yet developed a strong blood-brain barrier to keep mercury away from nervous tissue. Does thimerosal still sound safe? Impact of the 1999 AAP/USPHS Joint Statement on Thimerosal in Vaccines on Infant Hepatitis B Vaccination Practices

additional reading: Entrez-PubMed http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5006a3.htm

Relation between sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity

Are these results such a big surprise? Not only to soft drinks add additional, empty calories, but they also replace needed drinks and calories such as water, fruits and vegetables. Couple this with a lack of physical activity and our “mysterious” obesity epidemic is not so hard to believe. It still get my blood pressure up to see toddlers with soda in their sippie cups. I firmly believe that no child should even be exposed to these types of drinks until at least 8 years of age (if ever). That includes such sugar laden drinks such as Sunny Delight and Hi-C.

Lancet 2001; 357: 505-08 The prevalence of obesity among children in USA increased by 100% between 1980 and 1994. Recent national estimates indicate that 24% and 11% of children are above the 85th and 95th reference percentiles of body mass index (BMI), for age and sex, respectively. Various environmental and social factors relating to diet and physical activity have been identified that could contribute to obesity. One such factor, which has received little attention, is the consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks. According to data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), per capita soft-drink consumption has increased by almost 500% over the past 50 years. From 1989-91 to 1994-95, soft-drink intake rose from 195 to 275 mL in the general population, and from 345 to 570 mL among adolescent boys. Half of all Americans and most adolescents (65% girls and 74% boys) consume soft drinks daily, most of which are sugar-sweetened, rather than artificially sweetened. Currently, soft drinks constitute the leading source of added sugars in the diet, amounting to 36·2 g daily for adolescent girls and 57·7 g for boys. These figures approach or exceed the daily limits for total added sugar consumption recommended by the USDA. Although this increase in soft-drink consumption coincides with secular increases in obesity prevalence in children, the long-term effects of sugar-sweetened drink consumption on measures of body weight need to be prospectively examined. We aimed to determine the association between change in sugar-sweetened drink consumption and change in BMI, and incidence of obesity among school-age children, over 2 academic years. Interpretation: Consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks is associated with obesity in children.

Proximity to Pesticide Use and Risk of Birth Defects, Fetal Death

Not only do we have to pay attention to the things we knowingly put into our bodies in order to stay healthy, but we also have to be aware of other sources of toxins from the environment: polluted city water, air pollution, pesticides from home use as well as from nearby agricultural use. The scary thing about this study is that the most dangerous time for exposure to the developing fetus is 3 to 8 weeks–many times this is before a woman even knows she is pregnant.

Epidemiology. 2001:12(2):148 The study, which involved almost 700 women in 10 California counties, showed an increased risk of death among developing fetuses, ranging from 40% to 120% among those whose mothers lived near crops where certain pesticides were sprayed. A report on the study will appear in the March issue of Epidemiology. “Our study showed a consistent pattern with respect to timing of exposure,” said Dr. Erin M. Bell, who earned her doctorate with the research at the UNC School of Public Health, and is now an epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute. “The largest risks for fetal death due to birth defects were from pesticide exposure during the third week to the eighth week of pregnancy.”That span — much of the first trimester — appears to be a special window of vulnerability for birth defects, Bell said, as earlier research has suggested.”The risks appeared to be strongest among pregnant women who lived in the same square mile where pesticides were used,” she said.

Lumbar Belts Fail to Prevent Back Pain or Back Pain Disability

Despite their widespread use and general acceptance, several large studies have not demonstrated any benefits from the use of back belts. One of the reasons for this is that many may use the belt and consider themselves safe from poor lilfting habits. This is NOT true. A back belt is supposed to be used as a reminder when you exceed or perform certain undesireable movements. I believe many may cause their own injuries thinking that back belts make them “super” lifters, immune from injury.

Back Letter 16(1):1, 6, 7, 8, 2001 According to a large new prospective cohort study conducted by researchers at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) back belts do not prevent back pain or back pain disability, according to James T. Wassell, PhD, and colleagues. (See Wassell et al., 2000.)”In the largest prospective cohort study of back belt use, adjusted for multiple individual risk factors, neither frequent belt use nor a store policy that required belt use was associated with reduced incidence of back injury claims or low back pain,” Wassell et al. conclude. (See description of Wassell study on page 6.)The study found no beneficial effect of belt use in any group: among employees with and without a history of back injury, employees with consistent belt-wearing habits, or employees with the most strenuous jobs. The study had some obvious strengths. In addition to its large size, it included subjects from a wide geographic area. The investigation had concurrent comparison groups and detailed exposure information, and was able to control for a wide variety of potentially confounding factors.”Results based on these multiple analyses of data all converge to a common conclusion: back belt use is not associated with reduced incidence of back injury claims or low back pain in material handlers,” according to Wassell et al.

Acupuncture Can Reduce Arthritis Pain

I think positive results in trials of acupuncture are probably the hardest for mainstream medicine to follow. There is very little correlation between our Western beliefs and Eastern medicine. It requires an entirely different view. Just because we do not understand something, however, does not mean it is ineffective. Acupuncture has literally thousands of years of anecdotal evidence relating to its effectiveness and safety. Mainstream medicine barely has decades.

(article) Acupuncture offers a significant adjunct to conventional therapy in the management of osteoarthritis, according to the results of an NIH-supported study of complementary medicine in osteoarthritis pain management presented here at the 17th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. Although more patients are turning to complementary medicine and more physicians want to integrate complementary medicine into their practices, evidence for the efficacy of these methods is lacking, according to Dr. Brian M. Berman, professor of family medicine and director of the complementary medicine program at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. Dr. Berman and colleagues at the University of Maryland conducted a study to investigate the impact of acupuncture on pain levels in osteoarthritis of the knees in the elderly. In the first phase, the researchers evaluated 73 patients, all with moderate to severe osteoarthritis of the knees, who were not relieved by anti-inflammatory medications. The subjects were randomized to continue on anti-inflammatory drugs alone or anti-inflammatory drugs plus 8 weeks of acupuncture treatment. “We found on the 3-month follow-up that there were significant changes,” Dr. Berman told Reuters Health. “Acupuncture did reduce their pain, they had less stiffness and they were able to function better.”

US Supreme Court Says Law Bars Suits on Medical Devices

Let me get this straight. The FDA has the final say in whether a medical related device is safe enough to be released to the public. This information is almost always provided by the manufacturer wishing to market the item. Bias in the info provided and financial ties with the FDA are well known and even documented in some cases. Now, the Supreme Court basically says it’s okay for the manufacturer to provide fraudulant info to the FDA to get their item approved???? And yet the safety of supplements is frequently called into question?? People in glass houses…

(article) The US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that individuals cannot sue manufacturers of medical devices for allegedly defrauding the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in order to win marketing approval. The case involved a lawsuit in which more than 5,000 individuals accused a company of fraudulently winning federal approval for marketing bone screws used in spinal surgery. The lawsuit alleged that the Buckman Co., a consulting firm for medical device manufacturers, used misrepresentations to get FDA approval in 1986 for marketing a device known as the Variable Screw Placement Spinal Plate Fixation System. The ruling also was a victory for the company. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said for the court that a US appeals court had been wrong in reinstating the claims against the company and allowing the lawsuit to go forward. Allowing such lawsuits might expose manufacturers of medical devices to “unpredictable civil liability,” he said. Rehnquist said the federal regulatory scheme amply empowered the FDA to punish and deter fraud against the agency, and that the FDA used its authority to achieve a delicate balance of objectives that can be skewed by allowing such lawsuits. “The FDA…has at its disposal a variety of enforcement options that allow it to make a measured response to suspected fraud upon the agency,” Rehnquist said in the opinion. He said this flexibility was a critical component of the framework under which the FDA pursues its objective of regulating marketing and distribution of medical devices. Rehnquist said state law fraud claims inevitably conflict with the FDA’s responsibility to police fraud. He said companies complying with the FDA’s detailed regulatory regime, but then facing possible lawsuits under the laws of 50 states, might be deterred from seeking approval of devices with potentially beneficial uses. In the case at issue, the FDA had rejected Buckman’s two previous applications, made on behalf of AcroMed Corp., for marketing the device. But a third application, which separated the device into its component parts and which said the screws were intended to be used in the arm and leg bones, won FDA approval. The plaintiffs claimed they were injured when their doctors implanted the device into their spines and alleged that Buckman had perpetrated a fraud on the FDA. The individual claims seeking monetary damages were consolidated into one lawsuit. The lawsuit said that Buckman won FDA approval under a pretext because the intention all along had been to market the bone screws for use in spinal surgery. The FDA did not approve the marketing of bone screws for spinal surgery until 1995.

Hip Pain Not Related to Structural Damage

Any good chiropractor could come to this conclusion without all the money spent on a study. So many times I hear patients coming in saying “My doctor told me I have arthritis.” Guess what?? If you’re over the age of 25, you’ve got arthritis. We can not always rely on X-rays for a diagnosis.

Follow @drbogash