Rx to Wellness, Uncategorized

Be Aware of This Life-Saving IV Protocol for the Flu.

lifesaver

Be Aware of This Life-Saving IV Protocol For the Flu

 

If you or a loved one succumbs to sepsis, whether caused by influenza or some other infection, please remember that a protocol of IV vitamin C with hydrocortisone and thiamine (vitamin B1) can be lifesaving.15 So, urge your doctor to use it. Chances are, they might not even be aware of it.

 

This sepsis treatment protocol was developed Dr. Paul Marik, a critical care doctor at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia, and clinical use has proven it to be remarkably effective for the treatment of sepsis, reducing mortality nearly fivefold.

 

Marik’s retrospective before-after clinical study showed that giving patients IV vitamin C with hydrocortisone and vitamin B1 for two days reduced mortality from 40 percent to 8.5 percent. Of the 50 patients treated, only four died, and all of them died from their underlying disease, not sepsis. Importantly, the treatment has no side effects and is inexpensive, readily available and simple to administer, so you really have nothing to lose by trying it.

 

The only contraindication is if you are glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficient (a genetic disorder).18 G6PD is an enzyme your red blood cells need to maintain membrane integrity.

 

High-dose IV vitamin C is a strong pro-oxidant, and giving a pro-oxidant to a G6PD-deficient individual can cause their red blood cells to rupture, which could have disastrous consequences. Fortunately, G6PC deficiency is relatively uncommon, and can be tested for. People of Mediterranean and African decent are at greater risk of being G6PC deficient. Worldwide, G6PD deficiency is thought to affect 400 million individuals, and in the U.S., an estimated 1 in 10 African-American males have it.

 

Health and Wellness Associates

Archived

Dr P Carrothers

Dir Preventative and Restorative Medicine

 

312-972-9355

HealthWellnessAssociates@gmail.com

FACEBOOK:  https://www.facebook.com/HealthAndWellnessAssociates/

Advertisements
Health and Disease, Uncategorized

Flu is in the Air! Prevention!

' %*

 

Flu is in the Air!   Prevention!

In the midst of an especially tough flu season, here’s more bad news: Researchers say it may be possible to spread the virus simply by breathing.

Until now, it was thought that people picked up a flu virus when they touched contaminated surfaces or inhaled droplets in the air ejected by an infected person’s coughs or sneezes.

But the new study finds coughs and sneezes may not be necessary to saturate the air with flu virus.

In the study, researchers analyzed air around the exhaled breath of 142 people with the flu.

“We found that flu cases contaminated the air around them with infectious virus just by breathing, without coughing or sneezing,” said study author Dr. Donald Milton, a professor of environmental health at the University of Maryland.

“People with flu generate infectious aerosols [tiny droplets that stay suspended in the air for a long time] even when they are not coughing, and especially during the first days of illness,” he explained in a university news release. “So when someone is coming down with influenza, they should go home and not remain in the workplace and infect others.”

In fact, nearly half (48 percent) of the airborne samples captured in the air around flu patients who were just breathing — not coughing or sneezing — contained detectable influenza virus, the researchers noted.

What’s more, when patients did sneeze, that didn’t seem to add much to the viral count in the samples, Milton’s group added.

Of course certain steps — “keeping surfaces clean, washing our hands all the time, and avoiding people who are coughing,” can still help lower your odds of catching influenza, said Sheryl Ehrman, dean of the College of Engineering at San Jose State University, in California.

Helpful Hint:  Use Tilex routinely, even to spray on your hands, since this is the only product out there that kills all germs, even HIV.

But if an infected person’s breathing spreads flu virus, even those precautions do “not provide complete protection from getting the flu,” she added.

That means that if you are unlucky enough to get the flu, “staying home and out of public spaces could make a difference,” Ehrman said.

Historical Tip:   At the time of Spanish Influenza in the States, people who wore gloves and a “muff”, which covered their mouths, did not come down with the flu.

The researchers believe their findings could help improve mathematical models of the risk of airborne flu transmission and could also be used to develop better public health flu prevention measures.

For example, improvements could be made to ventilation systems in places such as offices, school classrooms and subway cars, to reduce the risk of flu transmission, the team said.

HINT:  Turn off the heat!  Open up a window, even for just 30 minutes.  Take your pillow outside in the cold and that will freeze off germs.  Sometimes washing a pillow in hot hot water first does help, but washing alone will not kill influenza germs.   Yes, you can put them in the freezer for awhile, but don’t heat them up in the dryer afterwards. 

 

The United States is in the middle of a particularly nasty flu season, with nearly all states reporting high levels of severe flu, and hospitals swamped with cases. Experts blame the severity of this year’s flu season on a particularly virulent strain of flu and prolonged periods of very cold weather. People who have had this years flu shot are more at risk of becoming sick this year.

 

Health and Wellness Associates

Archived

Dr. P Carrothers

Dir: Personalized Health Care , Preventative and Restorative Medicine

312-972-9355

 

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/HealthAndWellnessAssociates/

HealthWellnessAssociates@gmail.com

 

Health and Disease, Lifestyle, Uncategorized

Heart Disease: 4 out of 5 Heart Attacks are Not From a Block Artery.

heart

 

Heart Disease and Its Treatment

 

Did You Know That 4 in 5 Heart Attacks Are Not Caused by Blocked Arteries?

 

Heart disease is one of the most common chronic health problems in the United States, and we’re wasting tens of billions of dollars on ineffective treatments and surgical procedures. In this interview, Dr. Thomas Cowan, a practicing physician and founding board member of the Weston A. Price Foundation, shares recently published data1,2 showing the ineffectiveness of stents — a commonly performed surgical procedure used to remediate damage from coronary artery disease.

 

Stents Were Never Indicated for Anything but Angina Relief

There are a number of parameters that are crucial for evaluating the efficacy of a treatment for heart disease. For instance, will the patient actually live longer as a result of that intervention? Mortality is one parameter of assessment. Another parameter is the risk of heart attack as a result of the intervention. Alleviation of angina (chest pain) is a third. “There’s probably more, but those are the three big ones,” Cowan says.

 

Earlier research had already dismissed the use of percutaneous interventions (PCI) for most of these parameters, showing the use of stents had no impact on long-term rates of death, nonfatal myocardial infarctions (MI) or hospitalization rates for acute coronary syndrome. The sole indication for the use of stents was angina, as some of the findings showed it helped reduce prevalence of chest pain.

 

“What that means is the state of the literature, before this current Lancet study, was that doing stents or other interventions … has never been shown to help people live longer or to prevent further heart attacks. They have been shown to be of aid in people who are having an acute MI, but in anything but that indication, the state of the science was that they don’t help people live longer, and they don’t prevent further heart attacks.

 

As this study says, the indication was for relieving angina … It was actually not appropriate, and possibly even not allowed, to tell somebody we were doing a bypass or stent so that you would live longer or not have a heart attack. You could tell them that you could do it because you’re having chest pain, and this will relieve your chest pain,” Cowan notes.

 

Do Stents Actually Relieve Angina?

Interestingly, there had never been a double-blind study assessing whether, in fact, stent placement relieves angina. The reason for this lack of data was because doing such a study was considered unethical. In a nutshell, it was assumed that stents were beneficial, and therefore denying patients of this benefit would place them at risk.

 

Eventually, though, a group of interventional cardiologists in England got approval from the review board to perform a comparative study in which half the patients with stable angina received a stent, while the other half received sham surgery. The sham surgery consisted of inserting and removing a catheter in the artery without actually placing a stent. The level of chest pain and exercise tolerance was then assessed and compared between the two groups.

 

Lo and behold, there was no difference in chest pain (angina) between the treatment group and the sham group. This means that the one and only indication for doing a stent, which is to relieve angina, is also invalid. “It’s hard to come up with what the indication is at this point, except in the rare instance of an acute MI,” Cowan says.

 

Blocked Arteries Are but One Symptom of a Diffuse Systemic Disease

The ultimate tragedy here, aside from the exorbitant cost, is that patients continue receiving this useless intervention even though there are several simple strategies that are known to be effective, are far less expensive and pose no risk to the patient.

 

“The Atlantic … had one of the most … provocative, quotes I’ve ever heard from a standard cardiologist,” Cowan says. “This was from Dr. Mandrola … Her quote … summarizes exactly what we’re talking about … Quote: ‘This study will begin to change the mindset of cardiologists and patients that focal blockages need to be fixed.’

 

Focal blockages are these blocked arteries that they put the stents in. Quote: ‘Instead, these findings help doctors and patients understand that coronary artery disease is a diffuse systemic disease. A focal blockage is just one manifestation of a larger disease’ …

 

Now, the thing that was so shocking to me about that is… this is literally the first time I’ve ever heard a cardiologist admit that there is a diffuse focal disease here, of which blocked arteries is only one of the manifestations. That is such a heretical position. I’ve never heard a cardiologist say that. They say, ‘You have blocked arteries. That’s your problem. We’re going to unblock your arteries.’

 

To suggest that what they have is a systemic disease changes everything. I can’t emphasize that enough. This is not a blocked artery disease. A blocked artery may or may not be significant symptom in this disease. The question that I would ask every listener [to pose to their cardiologist is] … ‘I wonder what diffuse systemic disease this [blocked artery] is a manifestation of?’

 

I mean, that’s the question. ‘I’ve heard there’s a cardiologist who’s saying that this blocked artery is only one manifestation,’ which then, of course, is a perfect explanation for why stents don’t work. [Blocked arteries are] not the disease. They’re just one of the symptoms of the disease. ‘If that’s the case, then what’s my disease?’ I would be very interested to hear the answer.”

 

High Cholesterol Does Not Cause Heart Attacks

As noted by Cowan, many cardiologists would probably answer that question saying the underlying problem is high cholesterol. Alas, the evidence does not support this position either. “I actually looked up four papers, [one] in JAMA, three in The Lancet, showing that life expectancy tends to increase as cholesterol goes up, and that there is no relationship between high cholesterol and death,” Cowan says.

 

Many other studies have also come to this conclusion. In short, the “diffuse systemic disease” behind blocked arteries is NOT high cholesterol. So, what is? The answer to this question is detailed in Cowan’s book, “Human Heart, Cosmic Heart,” which we reviewed in an earlier interview. The book explores and tries to answer the question of why people have heart attacks if it’s not blocked arteries.

 

In his 2004 book, “The Etiopathogenesis of Coronary Heart Disease,”3 the late Dr. Giorgio Baroldi wrote that the largest study done on heart attack incidence revealed only 41 percent of people who have a heart attack actually have a blocked artery, and of those, 50 percent of the blockages occur after the heart attack, not prior to it. This means at least 80 percent of heart attacks are not associated with blocked arteries at all. So, what’s really the cause of a heart attack? Cowan explains:

 

“It’s obviously complex, and there’s a number of manifestations, but the three most important things that I point out in my book is, No. 1 … at least 90 percent of people who have a heart attack have an autonomic nervous system imbalance. Specifically, they have a suppressed parasympathetic nervous system tone, which is caused by a number of things, including chronic stress, poor sleep, high blood pressure, diabetes, i.e. a high-sugar, low-fat type of diet [and] smoking …

 

Conventional cardiologists are certainly aware of the role of the autonomic nervous system, which is why standard cardiology care includes beta blockers, which block the sympathetic nervous system, but again, the actual research on this does not show chronic high sympathetic activity. It shows chronic low parasympathetic activity. I would admit they’re similar, but they’re not the same.

 

What’s dangerous to people’s health is chronic stress, chronic sleep deprivation, high carbohydrate diet, low mitochondrial function. All the things that you talk about in your book [‘Fat for Fuel’] that leads to low sympathetic tone. Then, in the face of a sympathetic stressor, you have a heart attack. It’s not the same to say it’s a sympathetic overactivity, which is why I think we could do a lot better than blocking the sympathetic nervous system.”

 

The Riddle’s Solution

The second reason for heart attacks, Cowan explains, is lack of microcirculation to the heart. To understand how the blood flows to and through your heart, check out the Riddle’s Solution section on heartattacknew.com’s FAQ page.4 There, you’ll find detailed images of what the actual blood flow looks like. Contrary to popular belief, blood flow is not restricted to just two, three or four coronary arteries (opinions differ on the actual number).

 

Rather, you have a multitude of smaller blood vessels, capillaries, feeding blood into your heart, and if one or more of your main arteries get blocked, your body will automatically sprout new blood vessels to make up for the reduced flow. In other words, your body performs its own bypass. According to Cowan, your body is “perfectly capable of bringing the blood to whatever area of the heart it needs, and as long as your capillary network is intact, you will be protected from having a heart attack.”

 

Naturally, this raises the question of what might cause an individual to not have a robust network of capillaries. Not surprisingly, the same factors that cause low sympathetic tone also lead to loss of microcirculation. For example, smoking has a corrosive effect on microcirculation, not just in your extremities but also your heart. A high-sugar, low-fat diet, prediabetes and diabetes, and chronic inflammation also reduce microcirculation.

 

“We know that overt diabetes actually corrodes and destroys your microcirculation, your capillary network,” Cowan says. “That’s a predominant reason. We have millions of people living on high-carbohydrate diets, low-fat diets, which has an inflammatory effect on their microcirculation. There are other reasons, too, but those are probably the big ones.”

 

Naturally, one of the most effective ways to encourage and improve microcirculation is physical movement, so chronic inactivity will also deteriorate your body’s ability to maintain healthy microcirculation. “Again, conventional cardiology is aware of this issue. That’s why they use Plavix and aspirin, to keep the microcirculation intact,” Cowan notes.

 

The Role of Mitochondria in Heart Attacks

Another area of concern is your mitochondria. Unfortunately, this is an area that conventional cardiology is still largely unfamiliar with. In essence, angina is a symptom of poor mitochondrial function, causing a buildup of lactic acid that triggers cramps and pain. When this pain and cramping occurs in your heart, it’s called angina. The lactic acid buildup also restricts blood flow and makes the tissue more toxic.

 

When a cramp occurs in your leg, you stop moving it, which allows some of the lactic acid to drain off. But your heart cannot stop, so the glycolytic fermentation continues, and the lactic acid continues to build up, eventually interfering with the ability of calcium to get into the muscle. This in turn renders the muscle — in this case your heart — unable to contract, which is exactly what you see on a stress echo or a nuclear thallium scan.

 

“You see a dyskinetic or an akinetic muscle, which means it doesn’t move, because the calcium can’t get into the cells because the tissue has become too acidic,” Cowan explains. “Eventually, the acidosis continues, and that becomes the cause of necrosis of the tissue, which is what we call a heart attack …

 

By the way … [the] dyskinetic area … the part of the heart that’s not moving, creates pressure … in the artery embedded in that part of the heart, which causes clots to break off. That explains why you get clots forming after the heart attack, not before. This lactic acidosis buildup is one of the key events, without which you won’t have angina, and you won’t have the progression to necrosis.

 

Those are the three [primary causes of heart attacks]: The autonomic nervous system, the microcirculation and lactic acid buildup. Luckily, there are safe, nontoxic, effective ways to address each of those, either individually or together.”

 

Enhanced External Counterpulsation — A Noninvasive Treatment Alternative

One highly effective and noninvasive treatment option that will help improve microcirculation to your heart — which, again, is a common factor responsible for heart attacks — is enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP). It’s a Medicare insurance-approved therapy, and studies show EECP alone can relieve about 80 percent of angina.

 

As explained earlier, the reason you don’t experience a heart attack due to blockage is because you’re protected by collateral circulation. However, if you have diabetes or chronic inflammation, that will eventually deteriorate your capillaries, reducing this built-in protection. EECP works by inflating compression cuffs on your thighs and calves that are synchronized with your EKG.

 

When your heart is in diastole (relaxed), the balloons inflate, forcing blood toward your heart, thereby forcing the growth of new capillaries. It’s a really powerful and safe alternative to coronary bypass surgery for most people. Rather than bypassing one or two large arteries, you create thousands of new capillary beds that supply even more blood than the bypassed vessels. As noted by Cowan:

 

“New blood vessels mean more blood flow, and the blockage becomes irrelevant. This has been shown to be curative, meaning it will stop people with angina for at least five to seven years with one course of treatment … sometimes longer. It’s Medicare approved.

 

It’s paid for by insurance. It’s been studied in the literature. Again, at least 80 percent effective for getting rid of patients’ angina, which, by the way, was the last [indication] for stents, which is now no longer [a valid indication].”

 

The sessions are about one hour long, and most patients will need about 35 sessions to receive benefit. Aside from angina, it’s also effective for heart failure and diastolic dysfunction. Many elite athletes also use it as an aid to maintain cardiac fitness when they are injured and unable to actively exercise, as EECP basically works as a passive form of exercise. To find a provider, visit EECP.com.5

 

Interestingly, EECP also appears to have hormonal benefits. There are studies showing it results in decreased insulin resistance. Many patients also tend to lose weight, and experience improved blood sugar control. There’s cause to believe these beneficial side effects are related to the fact that it mimics exercise.

 

I was so intrigued with EECP’s benefits that I actually purchased one. They aren’t cheap; the traditional ones are close to $50,000, but I found a bright young entrepreneur, Louis Manera, who was well connected in the EECP community and is actually in the process of providing great new units at a significant discount. If you are a clinician, or even a patient with heart disease, this is something you might want to consider.

 

Other Commonsense Prevention Strategies

As noted by Cowan: Heart disease is “a diffuse systemic disease, and every person who goes to a cardiologist, I think, has the … right to know what this diffuse systemic disease is that’s being treated … I have my three-step opinion about what’s going on … The problem is I’ve never heard any cogent explanation in standard cardiology of what diffuse systemic disease they think they’re treating, besides high cholesterol, which turns out to be a red herring … People with higher cholesterol live longer, so that’s not the problem.” To summarize, three of the core, underlying issues at play that cause heart attacks are:

 

Decreased parasympathetic tone followed by sympathetic nervous system activation

Collateral circulation failure (lack of microcirculation to the heart)

Lactic acid buildup in the heart muscle due to impaired mitochondrial function

So, what can you do to prevent and treat these heart attack triggers? Here’s a quick summary of some of Cowan’s suggestions:

 

Eat a whole food-based diet low in net carbs and high in healthy fats, and add in beet juice (or fermented beet powder) to help normalize your blood pressure. Fresh arugula or fermented arugula powder is another option

 

Get plenty of non-exercise movement each day; walk more and incorporate higher intensity exercise as your health allows

 

Intermittently fast. Once you’ve progressed to the point of fasting for 20 hours each day for a month, consider doing a four- or five-day water fast several times a year

 

If you have heart disease, look into EECP, and consider taking g-strophanthin, an adrenal hormone that helps create more parasympathetic nervous system neurotransmitters, thereby supporting your parasympathetic nervous system. It also helps flush out lactic acid. Strophanthus is the name of the plant, the active ingredient of which is called g-strophanthin in Europe, and ouabain in the United States

 

Ground to the earth by walking barefoot on the ground

 

Get sensible sun exposure to optimize your vitamin D status and/or take an oral vitamin D3 supplement with vitamin K2

 

Implement heart-based wellness practices such as connecting with loved ones and practicing gratitude

 

Health and Wellness Associates

Archive

Dr A Sullivan

312-972-9355 (WELL)

 

Healthwellnessassocites@gmail.com

 

https://www.facebook.com/HealthAndWellnessAssociates/

 

Health and Disease, Uncategorized

How to Prevent an Inguinal Hernia

hernia

How to Prevent Inguinal Hernia

With knowledge about inguinal hernia anatomy, you can understand what you can do to prevent it from happening in the first place. What you should understand is that you cannot do much about the congenital defect that increases your risk for developing inguinal hernia. Here are some steps you can take to keep things under control.

You should be active and exercise regularly to maintain a healthy weight. Be sure to talk to your doctor about the exercise you can or cannot do in your condition.

You should work with a healthcare provider to help you make a diet plan. There is no set plan for any one person. Depending on location, and sleep patterns, and medication, each person needs a personalized healthcare plan. As always though, be sure to eat plenty of vegetables, fruits, and whole grains that contain dietary fiber.

It is important to prevent straining and constipation to avoid making your hernias worse. Properly taking the correct supplements is important.

Avoid heavy lifting as much as possible. If you really need to do some lifting, bend from your knees. Never bend from your waist or you will end up making things worse.

You need to avoid smoking because it will cause a chronic cough that can aggravate an inguinal hernia.

You need to bear in mind that when you have inguinal hernias, you cannot correct this situation with a supportive garment designed to keep hernias in place. You should wear it though if your doctor has asked you to wear it for a short time before your surgery.

Health and Wellness Associates

Archived

Patricia Carrothers

Dir. Personalized Healthcare and Preventative Medicine

312-972-9355

healthwellnessassociates@gmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/HealthAndWellnessAssociates/

 

Health and Disease, Lifestyle, Uncategorized

Prostate Cancer Test Saves Lives, Risks Remain

PSA

 

Prostate Cancer Test Saves Lives, Risks Remain

 

Men who get a controversial blood test that looks for signs of prostate cancer appear to have a reduced risk of death from the malignancy, according to a new analysis by an international group of researchers.

The analysis re-examined data from two earlier studies that had led experts to recommend against routine use of the test, which measures levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

 

“The trials taken together indicate there is an important benefit,” said Ruth Etzioni, who is the senior author of the analysis from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

 

A flaw of the earlier trials is that some men who were assigned to a no-screening group actually did get the PSA test on their own, making it difficult to identify differences between the screening group and the no-screening group.

 

The unclear results – and the risk that the blood tests could lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments – led the government-backed U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to recommend against PSA screening.

 

The new analysis attempts to clear up the confusion by reexamining the data in computer models, to account for the men who got PSA tests when they weren’t supposed to. Etzioni’s team compared men in the two trials based on the intensity of screening they received.

 

In one of the trials, PSA testing was tied to a 25 percent to 31 percent reduced risk of death from prostate cancer, the researchers report in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

 

In the other trial, PSA testing was tied to a 27 percent to 32 percent reduced risk of death from prostate cancer, they found.

 

Etzioni said the new results don’t mean all men should be screened for prostate cancer.

 

In the U.S., about one in seven men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society, but most men with the slow-growing cancer won’t die from it.

 

As a result, it’s often reasonable to monitor prostate cancers instead of treating them, since the side effects of treatment – which can include incontinence and impotence – may be more harmful than helpful.

In a proposed update to its recommendation, the USPSTF suggests that men ages 55 to 69 should be able to decide if they want PSA testing based on a discussion with their doctors about the possible benefits and risks, such as biopsies and unneeded treatment.

 

“This finding confirms or reinforces what everybody has been moving to over the last 5 to 8 years,” said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. “There is some benefit to prostate cancer screening and there are some harms associated with it.”

 

Brawley, who wasn’t involved in the new analysis, told Reuters Health that the benefits of screening are becoming more apparent as doctors move away from aggressively treating all prostate cancers and instead decide to monitor the many that will likely never advance and cause death.

In an editorial published with the new analysis, Dr. Andrew Vickers of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City identified ways to help ensure the benefits of prostate cancer screening outweigh the harms.

 

For example, he advises shared decision-making between doctors and patients, carefully selecting which men to biopsy and not screening elderly men, who are unlikely to benefit.

 

“The controversy about PSA-based screening should no longer be whether it can do good but whether we can change our behavior so that it does more good than harm,” wrote Vickers.

Health and Wellness Associates

Archived

Dr P Carrothers

312-972-WELL

 

HealthWellnessAssociates@gmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/angelique.rose.50

Health and Disease

Parkinson’s Disease

parkinsondisease

Parkinson’s Disease

 

Like other diseases this too may originate in the Gut

 

New research suggests additional evidence that Parkinson’s disease may originate in the gut.

 

Though experts called the findings preliminary, Swedish scientists found that patients whose main trunk of the vagus nerve — which extends from the brain stem to the abdomen — was removed were markedly less likely to develop the movement disorder than others who didn’t have the surgery. The patients were followed for at least five years.

 

The study authors said the findings suggest Parkinson’s may start in the gut and spread to the brain through the vagus nerve, which helps control unconscious body processes such as heart rate and digestion.

 

“We were not largely surprised, as other research has also shown evidence for a link between the gut and Parkinson’s disease,” said study author Dr. Karin Wirdefeldt. She’s an associate professor of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

 

“Our findings are in line with other research in the field, although evidence is scarce,” she added. “Further research is needed.”

 

A progressive, incurable disorder, Parkinson’s disease affects nearly 1 million Americans, according to the National Parkinson Foundation. Stemming from the brain’s lack of production of the chemical dopamine, its symptoms include trembling, stiffness, slow movement and poor balance.

 

Using data from national registers in Sweden, Wirdefeldt and her colleagues compared 9,430 people who underwent vagotomy surgery — which removes the main trunk or branches of the vagus nerve to treat ulcers — to more than 377,000 from the general population over a 40-year period.

 

In those with so-called “selective vagotomy,” in which only some branches of the vagus nerve were removed, the difference in Parkinson’s rates was not statistically significant. But that changed for those who underwent a “truncal vagotomy,” in which the main trunk of the vagus nerve was removed.

 

The 19 people who underwent truncal vagotomy at least five years prior were 40 percent less likely to develop Parkinson’s than those who didn’t have the surgery and had been followed for five years.

 

The results were adjusted for other factors, such as diabetes, arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the researchers said.

 

Only an association, rather than a cause-and-effect link, was found between vagus nerve surgery and Parkinson’s.

 

Parkinson’s experts who weren’t involved in the new research said much more evidence is needed to confirm the link, though they praised the study.

 

“The link is not strong,” said Dr. Olga Waln, a neurologist at Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas. “They did an outstanding job on the study and analyzed a large database, but… I don’t think the conclusions are very convincing.”

 

Waln acknowledged the difficulty of designing such a study, because few patients undergo surgery to remove portions of their vagus nerve.

 

“But what the authors found definitely requires attention from scientists, because if we can somehow confirm the disease starts in the intestines… it could give hope to patients,” she said.

 

James Beck, chief scientific officer of the National Parkinson Foundation, also classified the new findings as “not definitive.”

 

“But it’s interesting that this connection [between the gut and Parkinson’s] seems to be persisting,” Beck said. “It’s not causal, but it underscores something potentially going on in the gut and how that may influence Parkinson’s disease.”

 

The possibility of preventing Parkinson’s “is a long way off” and will require more firmly identifying factors that cause it, Beck noted.

 

“Research like this spur further thought as people try to crack this nut of what is the cause of Parkinson’s disease… or perhaps many causes,” he said.

 

The study was published online April 26 in the journal Neurology.

 

If you have anyone in your family who has Parkinson’s Disease, please contact us for help with turning this diseases around, or preventing you and your family from developing it.

 

Health and Wellness Associates

Archived

Neurology 2017

312-972-WELL

 

HealthWellnessAssociates@gmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/HealthAndWellnessAssociates/?ref=settings

 

 

Health and Disease, Uncategorized

Why are American Children So Sick?

children

What is Wrong With America’s Children

 

In America, our children are getting sicker and sicker.  Here are the facts about children living in the United States.

 

1 in 3 children are overweight

1 in 5 children are obese

1 in 6 children have a learning disability

1 in 11 children have asthma

1 in 68 children have autism

1 in 423 boys have autism

1 in 10 children have ADHD

1 in 20 children have food allergies

1 in 2 children have a chronic illness

 

This should alarm everyone.  Every one of these problems concerns intake of chemicals that the body can not utilize or diffuse.

Please give us a call to help eliminate chemical intake from you and your families diet. These problerms start when you are pregnant, and they are not filtered out if you breastfeed.

 

Health and Wellness Associates

Archived

312-972-Well

 

HealthwellnessAssociates@gmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/HealthAndWellnessAssociates/

 

Lifestyle, Uncategorized

Five Most Common STD’s in Women

std

5 Most Common STDs In Women:

 

How To Spot Symptoms Of Sexually Transmitted Diseases

 

Untreated sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) cause infertility in at least 24,000 women each year in the United States alone, according to the Centers for Disease Control And Prevention (CDC). These unacknowledged health issues can be very serious. For example, untreated syphilis in pregnant women causes infant death in up to 40 percent of all cases. It’s important to recognize the signs of an STD so that you can treat the infection before it becomes a health risk. Here are the most common STDs among women.

 

Chlamydia

The rate of infection of chlamydia among women is more than two and a half times the rate among men. Most people with chlamydia have no symptoms, but it can lead to serious health problems like infertility. Your doctor can prescribe antibiotics for treatment. But even if you’ve been treated for chlamydia in the past, you can get the infection again.

 

Gonorrhea

Gonorrhea is similar to chlamydia in that women are more often affected than men. But, unlike the former, many more people with gonorrhea stay undiagnosed. Signs of the infection include painful urination and white, yellow, or green discharge.

 

Gonorrhea treatment involves two different antibiotics, but without medical care women can develop pelvic inflammatory disease.

 

Genital Herpes

Genital herpes is more common in women than men, but it affects a whopping 20 percent of teens and adults. There is no cure for herpes. But your doctor can prescribe medicines that help prevent and ease the pain and shorten outbreaks — which is when it’s more likely to spread.

 

Human Papillomavirus Virus (HPV)

HPV is the most common STD among both genders, and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly every sexually active man and woman will contract at least one strain of HPV throughout their lifetime.

 

Most people with HPV do not know they are infected and never develop symptoms or health problems from it. If untreated, women are the ones at risk. The virus is the main cause of cervical cancer.

 

Syphilis

It can take up to 90 days after exposure to syphilis, an infection caused by bacteria, for symptoms to appear. As previously stated, untreated syphilis in a mother is a serious life risk for an unborn baby. The STD can be treated with antibiotics to kill the bacteria.

 

Last year, the rate of syphilis diagnosis actually decreased 21 percent among women, but increased 1.3 percent in males.

 

When it comes to unprotected sex, women naturally bear more of the consequences than men. Certainly, a man will never become pregnant after sex without a condom, but a woman also might bear, disproportionately, the consequences of sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs). Consider a few sobering facts: untreated STDs cause infertility in at least 24,000 women each year in the U.S. alone. You may be astonished to learn as well that untreated syphilis in pregnant women causes infant death in up to 40 percent of all cases. Finally, when it comes to untreated chlamydia, men suffer neither symptoms nor ill effects most of the time, while women can develop pelvic inflammatory disease which might lead to reproductive system damage.

 

So why are women impacted by STDs differently than men? A few key reasons go a long way to explaining feminine vulnerability:

One/ For many common STDs — including chlamydia and gonorrhea — women are less likely to show symptoms compared to men and when symptoms do occur, they may appear to go away even though the infection remains. More importantly, men find it easier to notice symptoms because they signs are so obvious — an unusual discharge, for example. Since women experience a whole range of natural discharges, all of them quite normal, they find it much more difficult to distinguish when an abnormal one appears.

 

Two/ Not only is the vagina a suitably moist environment where bacteria may easily flourish, but its lining is exceedingly more delicate and thinner than the skin of a penis. This natural fragility means viruses find it easier to penetrate.

 

Three/ Women have visibility issues. Notably, it’s harder for a woman to see a genital ulcer (from syphilis, say, or herpes) because they could occur only inside her vagina and not on the surface of her genitalia. Meanwhile, it’s difficult for a man to miss seeing a sore making its debut on his penis.

 

Four/ Finally, everyday sexually transmitted infections wreak havoc on a woman’s more gentle system while causing no problems in men. Along with chlamydia, the human papillomavirus (HPV) is contracted by both men and women frequently. However this common virus does not lead to serious (if any) health problems for most men while it is the main cause of cervical cancer in women. The fairer sex has been dealt an unequal hand.

 

So what’s a woman to do? In a phrase: protect yourself.

 

Speak Up

See your doctor, but more importantly talk to your doctor. There’s no shame in asking to be tested for sexually transmitted infections and diseases, and this is true whether your visit is with your primary care physician or your ob/gyn. If you haven’t already been given one, you might want to ask for the HPV vaccine.

 

Don’t stop here, though. Once you get a sense of a partner’s sexual history, go all the way and ask about STDs, especially if he or she has been around the block a few times. Make it a joke, if you have to, but simply ask: Ever been tested for STDs?

 

Finally, and yes we’ve saved the best for last, use condoms. Imperfect though they may be, they offer a good deal of protection against STIs and pregnancy. You’re never perfectly safe, and sadly, even long-term boyfriends (and husbands) have been known to spread disease to their partners. It’s always worth it, knowing you’ve done your best at self-protection.

 

Health and Wellness Associates

P Carrothers

312-972-WELL

Rx to Wellness, Uncategorized

Can Aspirin Reduce Your Risk of Cancer?

aspirin

Can Daily Aspirin Lower Cancer Death Risk?

Millions of Americans take low-dose aspirin every day for heart health. In doing so, they may also slightly lower their risk of dying from several cancers, a large new study suggests.

Researchers found that among more than 130,000 U.S. adults, those who regularly used aspirin were 7 percent to 11 percent less likely to die of cancer over the next few decades.

The risks of dying from colon, breast, prostate and — for men — lung cancer were all lower among regular aspirin users, compared to non-users, the findings showed.

The findings add to evidence that aspirin has cancer-fighting abilities, the researchers said. But they also stressed that people should not start popping a daily aspirin in the hopes of avoiding cancer.

There is strong evidence, from research in general, that low-dose aspirin may lower the risk of colon cancer, said Dr. Ernest Hawk, a professor at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) already recommends that certain older adults consider taking low-dose aspirin to curb their risk of colon cancer — as well as heart disease.

Specifically, the task force suggests that people in their 50s and 60s talk to their doctor about whether the benefits of daily aspirin outweigh the risks. The USPSTF is an independent medical panel that advises the federal government.

For one, he said, aspirin has risks, such as stomach bleeding and hemorrhagic (bleeding) stroke. So people need to discuss those potential harms with their doctor.

Plus, even within the 50-to-69 age group, not everyone stands to benefit from aspirin to the same degree. The task force recommends that low-dose aspirin (typically 81 milligrams a day) be considered only for people at increased risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years.

Yin Cao, the lead researcher on the new study, agreed that people should not start using aspirin without talking to their doctor.

She said her findings “add evidence to support the USPSTF recommendation on colon cancer.”

But research has been more mixed regarding breast, prostate and lung cancers. And, the new findings don’t prove that aspirin use prevents those diseases, said Cao, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, in Boston.

The study included more than 130,000 U.S. health professionals who were followed for up to 32 years. They were asked about their aspirin use at the outset, and again every two years.

Nearly 13,000 study participants died of cancer over the next few decades. But the risks were somewhat lower for regular aspirin users, the study authors said.

The biggest difference was seen with colon cancer: Aspirin users were about 30 percent less likely to die of the disease.

In addition, women who used aspirin were 11 percent less likely to die of breast cancer, while men showed a 23 percent lower risk of dying from prostate cancer and a 14 percent lower risk of lung cancer death.

However, Hawk said, the findings can only point to correlations. “It’s always possible that aspirin use is a surrogate for a healthy lifestyle, in general,” he said.

Cao said her team tried to account for other lifestyle and health factors. But she agreed the findings don’t prove cause and effect.

Another issue is that no one knows how much aspirin is needed to see a benefit — or how long it takes to kick in, said Dr. Robin Mendelsohn.

“Many of the studies in colorectal cancer,” she said, “indicate that it takes many years to see a decrease in cancers [with aspirin use].”

Cao was scheduled to present the findings Monday at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in Washington, D.C. The results should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

 

Health and Wellness Associates

Archved

312-972-WELL

Rx to Wellness, Uncategorized

What is Better For You Than The Flu Shot?

flu

Vitamin D Is More Effective Than Flu Vaccine, Study Says

 

Conventional health authorities claim getting a flu shot each year is the best way to ward off influenza. But where’s the actual science backing up that claim?

 

If you’ve repeatedly fallen for this annual propaganda campaign, you may be surprised to find the medical literature suggests vitamin D may actually be a FAR more effective strategy, and the evidence for this goes back at least a decade.

 

Dr. John Cannell, founder of the Vitamin D Council, was one of the first to introduce the idea that vitamin D deficiency may actually be an underlying CAUSE of influenza.

 

His hypothesis1 was initially published in the journal Epidemiology and Infection in 2006.2 It was subsequently followed up with another study published in the Virology Journal in 2008.3

 

The following year, the largest nationally representative study4 of its kind to date discovered that people with the lowest vitamin D levels indeed reported having significantly more colds or cases of the flu. In conclusion, lead author Dr. Adit Ginde stated:

 

“The findings of our study support an important role for vitamin D in prevention of common respiratory infections, such as colds and the flu. Individuals with common lung diseases, such as asthma or emphysema, may be particularly susceptible to respiratory infections from vitamin D deficiency.”

 

Vitamin D Works Better Than Flu Vaccine

 

Since then, a number of studies have come to similar conclusions. Most recently, a scientific review5,6 of 25 randomized controlled trials confirmed that vitamin D supplementation boosts immunity and cuts rates of cold and flu.

 

Overall, the studies included nearly 11,000 individuals from more than a dozen countries. As reported by Time Magazine:7

 

“… people who took daily or weekly vitamin D supplements were less likely to report acute respiratory infections, like influenza or the common cold, than those who did not …

 

For people with the most significant vitamin D deficiencies (blood levels below 10 [ng/mL]), taking a supplement cut their risk of respiratory infection in half.

 

People with higher vitamin D levels also saw a small reduction in risk: about 10 percent, which is about equal to the protective effect of the injectable flu vaccine, the researchers say.”

 

Like Cannell before them, the researchers believe vitamin D offers protection by increasing antimicrobial peptides in your lungs, and that “[t]his may be one reason why colds and flus are most common in the winter, when sunlight exposure (and therefore the body’s natural vitamin D production) is at its lowest …”8

 

According to this international research team, vitamin D supplementation could prevent more than 3.25 million cases of cold and flu each year in the U.K. alone.9 Another statistic showing vitamin D is a more effective strategy than flu vaccine is the “number needed to treat” (NNT).

 

Overall, one person would be spared from influenza for every 33 people taking a vitamin D supplement , whereas 40 people have to receive the flu vaccine in order to prevent one case of the flu.

 

Among those with severe vitamin D deficiency at baseline, the NNT was 4. In other words, if you’re vitamin D deficient to begin with, vitamin D supplementation is 10 times more effective than the flu vaccine.

Please know that you can not take Vitamin D alone.

 

Optimizing Vitamin D May Be Your Best Defense Against Influenza

 

In my view, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best flu-prevention and optimal health strategies available. Your diet also plays a significant role of course, as it lays the foundation for good immune function.

 

A high-sugar diet is a sure-fire way to diminish your body’s innate ability to fight off infections of all kinds by radically impairing the functioning of your immune system.

 

However, I do not agree that fortifying more processed foods with vitamin D is the best solution, although I realize it could potentially have a more widespread impact among people who remain unaware of the beneficial health effects of sunlight in general.

 

I believe sensible sun exposure is the ideal way to optimize your vitamin D. Taking a vitamin D3 supplement is only recommended in cases when you simply cannot obtain sufficient amounts of sensible sun exposure.

 

It’s also important to point out that, contrary to what’s reported by most mainstream media, including NPR report above, most people cannot optimize their vitamin D levels by getting the recommended 600 IUs of vitamin D from fortified foods. The dose you need really depends on your current blood level of vitamin D.

 

If it’s very low, you may need 8,000 to 10,000 IUs of vitamin D3 per day in order to reach and maintain a clinically relevant level of 45 to 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). The only way to know how much you need is to get tested at least once or twice each year.

 

If you’ve been supplementing for some time and your levels are still below 45 ng/mL, you then know you have to increase your dose further. If using an oral supplement, also make sure to boost your vitamin K2 and magnesium intake, as these nutrients help optimize vitamin D levels.

 

Other Studies Supporting Link Between Vitamin D Deficiency and Influenza

 

In a study published in 2010,10 researchers investigated the effect of vitamin D on the incidence of seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren. The randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study included 430 children, half of which were given 1,200 IUs of vitamin D3 per day while the other half received a placebo.

 

Overall, children in the treatment group were 42 percent less likely to come down with the flu. According to the authors: “This study suggests that vitamin D3 supplementation during the winter may reduce the incidence of influenza A, especially in specific subgroups of schoolchildren.”

 

Another study11 published that same year concluded that infection-fighting T-cells need help from vitamin D in order to activate. This is yet another mechanism that helps explain why vitamin D is so effective against infections.

 

When a T cell recognizes foreign invaders like bacteria or viruses, it sends activating signals to the vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene.

 

The VDR gene then starts producing a protein that binds vitamin D in the T cell. A downstream effect of this is PLC-gamma1 protein production, which subsequently enables the T cell to fight the infection. At the time, lead researcher Carsten Geisler told Food Consumer:12

 

“When a T cell is exposed to a foreign pathogen, it extends a signaling device or “antenna” known as a vitamin D receptor, with which it searches for vitamin D. This means the T cell must have vitamin D or activation of the cell will cease. If the T cells cannot find enough vitamin D in the blood, they won’t even begin to mobilize.”

 

With that understanding, it’s no wonder flu shots don’t work. Flu vaccines do absolutely nothing to address the underlying problem of vitamin D deficiency, which is effectively hindering your immune system from working properly.

 

In fact, flu vaccines tend to deteriorate your immune function, and their side effects can be significant.

 

‘Gold Standard’ Studies Ignored by Mainstream Media

 

The gold standard of scientific analysis, the so-called Cochrane Database Review, has also issued several reports between 2006 and 2012, all of which decimate the claim that flu vaccinations are the most effective prevention method available. In 2010, Cochrane published the following bombshell conclusion, which was completely ignored by mainstream media:13

 

“Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission. WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration).

 

An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines …”

 

So, despite the fact that 15 of the 36 studies included were biased by industry interests, they still couldn’t come up with evidence supporting the conventional claim that flu vaccines are the best and most effective prevention available against influenza!

 

Scientific Reviews Show Vaccinating Children and Elderly Is Ineffective

 

Cochrane has issued several reports addressing the effectiveness of flu vaccines on infants and the elderly — two groups that tend to be the most targeted by flu vaccine advertising — and all have had negative findings. For children:

 

  1. A large-scale, systematic review14 of 51 studies, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2006, found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo in children under two. The studies involved 260,000 children, age 6 to 23 months.

 

  1. In 2008, another Cochrane review15 again concluded that “little evidence is available” that the flu vaccine is effective for children under the age of two. Even more disturbingly, the authors stated that:

 

“It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months old in the USA and Canada. If immunization in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.”

 

  1. In a 2012 review,16 Cochrane concluded that “in children aged from two years, nasal spray vaccines made from weakened influenza viruses were better at preventing illness caused by the influenza virus than injected vaccines made from the killed virus. Neither type was particularly good at preventing “flu-like illness” caused by other types of viruses. In children under the age of two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo.”

 

The available evidence with regards to protecting the elderly is equally abysmal.

 

  1. In 2010, Cochrane concluded that:17 “The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older.”

 

  1. Cochrane also reviewed whether or not vaccinating health care workers can help protect the elderly patients with whom they work. In conclusion, the authors stated that:18 “[T]here is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers prevents influenza in elderly residents in long-term care facilities.”

 

Annual Flu Vaccinations May Raise Risk of More Serious Infections

 

Other recent studies have shown that with each successive annual flu vaccination, the protection afforded by the vaccine appears to diminish.19, 20 Research published in 2014 concluded that vaccine-induced protection against influenza was greatest among those who had NOT received a flu shot in the previous five years.21 The flu vaccine may also increase your risk of contracting other, more serious influenza infections.

 

Data shows people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2008 had twice the risk of getting the H1N1 “swine flu” compared to those who didn’t receive a flu shot.22

Compared to children who do not get an annual flu vaccine, those who receive influenza vaccinations have a three times higher risk of hospitalization due to influenza.23

Research also shows that statin drugs — taken by 1 in 4 Americans over the age of 45 — may undermine your immune system’s ability to respond to the flu vaccine.24,25,26 When you consider the low efficacy rate of the flu vaccine in any given year, getting vaccinated if you’re on a statin may well be a moot point.

 

Independent science reviews have also concluded that influenza vaccine does not appear to prevent influenza-like illness associated with other types of viruses responsible for about 80 percent of all respiratory or gastrointestinal infections during any given flu season.27,28,29,30

 

Other Foods and Supplements That Send Pathogens Packin’

 

Besides vitamin D, there are a number of other foods and supplements that can be beneficial for colds and influenza, including the following:

 

Garlic: Garlic has natural antiviral, antibiotic and antifungal activity and has long been hailed for its immune boosting effects.

 

The Cochrane Database, which has repeatedly demonstrated that the science in support of the flu vaccine is flimsy at best, has also reviewed studies on alternatives, including garlic.32

 

Unfortunately, such research is harder to come by, as there’s no financial incentive driving it.

 

Still, in the singular study identified by the Cochrane group, those who took garlic daily for three months had fewer colds than those who took a placebo, and, when they did come down with a cold, the duration of illness was shorter — an average of 4.5 days compared to 5.5 days for the placebo group.

 

While this may not seem overly impressive, it’s still better than the results achieved by the flu drug Tamiflu!

Zinc: A Cochrane Database Review of the medical research on zinc found that when taken within one day of the first symptoms, zinc can cut down the time you have a cold by about 24 hours.

 

Zinc was also found to greatly reduce the severity of symptoms. Zinc was not recommended for anyone with an underlying health condition, like lowered immune function, asthma or chronic illness.

 

I do not recommend taking more than 50 mg a day, and I do not recommend taking zinc on a daily basis for preventive purposes as you could easily develop a copper imbalance that way.

Vitamin C: A very potent antioxidant; use a natural form such as acerola, which contains associated micronutrients.

 

You can take several grams every hour (use the liposomal form so you don’t get loose stools), till you are better. I never travel without a bottle of our liposomal C.

A tea made from a combination of elderflower, yarrow, boneset, linden, peppermint and ginger; drink it hot and often for combating a cold or flu. It causes you to sweat, which is helpful for eradicating a virus from your system.

Oregano Oil: The higher the carvacrol concentration, the more effective it is. Carvacrol is the most active antimicrobial agent in oregano oil.

Medicinal mushrooms, such as shiitake, reishi and turkey tail.

Propolis: A bee resin and one of the most broad-spectrum antimicrobial compounds in the world; propolis is also the richest source of caffeic acid and apigenin, two very important compounds that aid in immune response.

Olive leaf extract is widely known as a natural, non-toxic immune system builder.

Vitamin D Is Important for Optimal Health and Disease Prevention Year-Round

 

In related news, researchers are also homing in on how vitamin D may help protect against age-related diseases such as Alzheimer’s. The video above discusses research33 showing vitamin D extends lifespan in nematode worms by 30 percent and helps slow or even reverse accumulation of beta amyloid protein, which is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s.

 

Vitamin D deficiency has also been linked to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, depression, autoimmune disease and many other chronic diseases. As noted in a recent issue of Orthomolecular Medicine News:34 “Research on the health benefits of vitamin D continues at a rapid pace. There were 4,356 papers published in 2015 with vitamin D in the title or abstract and 4,388 in 2016 …” Among some of the most impactful studies are ones demonstrating:

 

  • Health benefits from sun exposure unrelated to vitamin D production. One recent review concluded benefits of sun exposure includes lower rates of cancer, heart disease, dementia, myopia, macular degeneration, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. My belief is that the majority of these benefits are due to the near-, mid- and far-infrared wavelengths.

 

According to the author: “The message of sun avoidance must be changed to acceptance of non-burning sun exposure sufficient to achieve [vitamin D] concentrations of 30 ng/mL or higher … and the general benefits of UV exposure beyond those of vitamin D.” Also, while intermittent sun exposure is associated with higher rates of skin cancer, “the risks of these cancers is dwarfed by the reduced risk of internal cancers from sun exposure,” William Grant, Ph.D. writes.

 

  • Benefits of higher vitamin D levels during pregnancy. Research demonstrates preterm births steadily decrease as vitamin D levels increase among pregnant women. In one study, raising vitamin D blood concentrations from 20 to 40 ng/mL decreased preterm births by 59 percent.

 

  • Reduction in cancer risk from vitamin D supplementation. One pooled analysis showed that women with higher levels of vitamin D had much lower incidence rates of cancer — from a 2 percent per year cancer incidence rate at 18 ng/mL to 0.4 percent at 63 ng/mL.

 

Overall, maintaining a vitamin D serum level of 45 to 60 ng/mL year-round may be one of the simplest and most efficient ways to safeguard yourself against chronic disease and acute infections. When it comes to seasonal colds and influenza, the rate of protection you get from vitamin D is actually greater than what you’d get from a flu vaccination, and you don’t have to worry about potential side effects either — which in the case of the flu vaccine can be far worse than the original complaint.

 

While death and complete disability from a flu vaccine may be rare, so is dying from the flu itself. I strongly recommend weighing the risk of suffering a debilitating side effect of the flu vaccine relative to the more likely potential of spending a week in bed with the flu. Remember, most deaths attributed to influenza are actually due to bacterial pneumonia, and these days, bacterial pneumonia can be effectively treated with advanced medical care and therapies like respirators and parenteral antibiotics.

 

There are many kinds of Vitamin D, and many have to be taken with another supplement in order for them to work in your system.

 

If you do not have anyone to ask what healthcare plan is right for you, then call us.  We can help with that.

Health and Wellness Associates

Archived

312-972-WELL