Bad news for the Quaker Oats man: He’s getting a milk mustache this October.
Quaker is launching a campaign urging you to douse oatmeal’s disease-fighting benefits with dairy milk, which is loaded with cholesterol, saturated fat, and sugar. MilkPEP, a milk promotion program funded by the dairy industry, is behind the promotion. But you can urge Quaker to save face—and its customers’ health—by ditching the dairy.
Dairy is the top source of saturated fat in the American diet and exacerbates America’s No. 1 killer: heart disease. Milk also increases the risk prostate, ovarian, and other cancers. And it causes cramping, diarrhea, and bloating for the 65 percent of the population who are lactose intolerant.
Swapping whole milk for 2% won’t lessen the nutritional impact either. Skim and nonfat milks are not much better than the full fat variety. Most of their calories come from sugar—lactose—which is why they pack about as many calories as a typical soda
But Quaker Oats recipes can be easily made with plant-based milks that—unlike dairy products—are cholesterol-free and don’t contribute to heart disease, cancer, or digestive issues.
Please take a minute to sign our petition below. Let Quaker Oats know that dairy-free is the healthiest way to be!
Dear Ms. Nooyi,
[City, State ZIP]
It is very important to consume lysine-rich foods on a daily basis, so as to supply the body with the necessary lysine required for the body to carry out various functions. Foods like eggs, meat, fruits, nuts, (and many)vegetables, etc. are high in lysine content.
Proteins are the building blocks of our body, which are made up of 20 different amino acids. Of these 20 amino acids, half are known as essential amino acids, while the rest are called non-essential amino acids. The non-essential amino acids are produced by the body itself, which is why we do not need to furnish the body with them additionally. On the other hand, essential amino acids are those amino acids that are not produced by the body and need to be provided to the body, on a timely basis by eating foods rich in them. One such essential amino acid required by the body is Lysine, or L-lysine, which needs to be attained from lysine rich foods.
What is Lysine?
Lysine plays a significant role in overall growth of the body and also helps in carnitine (component that helps lower cholesterol) production. Moreover, it also helps absorb calcium from the body, thereby helping in retaining calcium. This helps strengthen the bones and teeth and prevent osteoporosis. Lysine plays a significant role in collagen formation, which happens to be an important component of connective tissues like the skin, cartilage and the tendon. This is because lysine produces allysine, a derivative in the body, which aids in collages and elastin production.
Let’s not forget how lysine is important for muscle building, injury recovery and the production of enzymes and hormones. It is also known to be effective in treating cold sores and herpes simplex infections. During times of physical stress and strain, as in the case of an athletes body, intense training sessions and workouts causes the body to use up more lysine. Loss of too much lysine can result in cannibalization of body muscle tissues, thus, athletes need to have lysine supplements to avoid any such circumstances.
List of Lysine Rich Foods
The different food items rich in lysine content are as follows:
➢ Legumes (Lentils, beans, peas)
➢ Soybean products (Tofu, soy milk)
➢ Fenugreek seeds
➢ Seaweed (Spirulina)
➢ Cheese (Parmesan, Gruyere, Edam, Gouda)
➢ Plain skim yogurt
➢ Dried fruit (Figs)
➢ Brewer’s yeast
➢ Tomato, carrot or orange juice
➢ Fruits (Pears, apricots, mangoes, bananas and apples)
➢ Vegetables (pumpkin, peas, beets,cauliflower, celery)
➢ Nuts (cashew nuts, almonds, Brazil nuts, walnuts, pecans)
For Non Vegetarians
➢ Fish (sardines, cod, flounder)
➢ Shellfish (Shrimp, Oysters)
While the above-mentioned list consists of food items high in lysine, there are some from the list which contain more arginine content than lysine. During conditions like cold sores, these arginine levels have to be kept under control. Thus, even though lysine is present in nuts like walnuts, pecans, almonds, etc. they have to be avoided for faster recovery from cold sores. Shellfish should also be avoided. Consume more of dairy, soybean and meat products to counter the high arginine levels.
Symptoms of Lysine Deficiency
When one does not consume enough lysine rich foods, a lysine deficiency may develop. The symptoms of lysine deficiency are as follows:
Inability to concentrate
Fatigue and lethargy
Kidney stone formation
Is Lysine safe?
Lysine is a safe amino acid that helps build, heal and restore the body parts. However, people taking lysine supplements need to be cautious. With lysine supplement intake, there lies the danger of an overdose. This overdose triggers side effects like diarrhea, stomach cramps, gallstone formation, rise in blood cholesterol levels, etc. When had in appropriate amounts, lysine is safe and only benefits the body in several ways.
Generally non-vegetarian people do not encounter lysine deficiencies. It’s the vegans that do not get adequate amount of lysine from their diet. They can easily solve this problem by consuming lysine supplements. Lysine rich foods are to be consumed on a daily basis so as to furnish the body with a constant supply of lysine. Lack of appropriate levels of lysine simply results in several health problems, moreover, having excess of it also triggers side effects. Maintaining the balance is the key to good health. People taking supplements should only take them after consulting their health care provider.
By Priya Johnson
Last Updated: February 23, 2012
Benefits and Side Effects of L-Lysine
Lysine Side Effects
Lysine for Herpes
Lysine for Cold Sores
More From Buzzle
Foods High in Lysine and Low in Arginine
Lysine Dosage for Cold Sores
L-Lysine for Shingles
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/lysine-rich-foods.html
Trigonella foenum in graecum (Fenugreek) is a traditional herbal plant used to treat disorders like diabetes, low lactation, respiratory ailments, wounds, inflammation, gastrointestinal ailments, detoxification of heavy metals, pain, colds and even cancer.
Fenugreek is used as an herb (dried or fresh leaves), spice (seeds), and vegetable (fresh leaves, sprouts, and microgreens). Sotolon is the chemical responsible for fenugreek’s distinctive sweet smell.
They contain alkaloids (mainly trigonelline) and protein high in lysine (Lysine is an essential amino acid needed for growth and to help maintain nitrogen balance in the body.) and L-tryptophan. Its steroidal saponins are thought to inhibit cholesterol absorption and synthesis. Trials have shown that fenugreek lowers elevated cholesterol and triglyceride levels in the blood, but does not lower HDL (“good”) cholesterol levels. The typical range of intake for cholesterol-lowering is 5-30 grams with each meal or 15-90 grams all at once with one meal. As a tincture, 3-4 ml of fenugreek can be taken up to three times per day. Due to the potential uterine stimulating properties of fenugreek, which may cause miscarriages, fenugreek should not be used during pregnancy.
Cuboid-shaped, yellow-to-amber colored fenugreek seeds are frequently encountered in the cuisines of the Indian subcontinent, used both whole and powdered in the preparation of pickles, vegetable dishes, daals, and spice mixes such as panch phoron and sambar powder. They are often roasted to reduce bitterness and enhance flavor.
It is recognized as a member of the pea family listed as GRAS (generally regarded as safe) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Fenugreek is high in iron and selenium and is a rich source of viscous fiber (about 27%) and protein (about 25%). Fenugreek contains generous amounts of choline and vitamin A, as well as biotin, inositol, lecithin, PABA and vitamins B1 , C and D. Fenugreek also supplies a sizeable amount of the amino acids arginine, histidine, leucine and lysine.
1) BLOOD SUGAR
Scientists from the National University of Singapore, McMaster University (Canada), and Harvard University report that medium and high doses (at least 5 grams per day) of fenugreek seed powder were associated with significant reductions in fasting blood glucose levels in diabetics.
“Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that fenugreek seeds may contribute to better glycemic control in persons with diabetes mellitus with a similar magnitude of effect as intensive lifestyle or other pharmaceutical treatment added to standard treatment,” they wrote in the Nutrition Journal.
“Fenugreek is widely available at low cost and generally accepted in resource poor countries such as India and China where a large proportion of persons with diabetes in the world reside. Therefore, fenugreek may be a promising complementary option for the clinical management of diabetes.”
Studies have indicated a potential role of compounds in fenugreek to inhibit enzymatic digestion and the absorption of glucose from the gut, while there is also the potential for an amino acid derivative called 4-hydroxyisoleucine to stimulate glucose-dependent insulin.
“The fenugreek herbal product must be standardized and tested for the composition and can be administered in the form of capsules with a recommended dose of at least 5 g per day.
Results from clinical trials support beneficial effects of fenugreek seeds on glycemic control in persons with diabetes. Fenugreek significantly changes fasting blood glucose.
French scientists have also shown fenugreek stimulates general pancreatic secretion, of use for improving severe diabetes. A study in theEuropean Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed fenugreek lowered blood glucose and serum lipid levels in type I diabetes. An earlier study published in this same journal showed similar results in non-insulin-dependent diabetics. Experiments have shown a reduction in urinary glucose by 54%, along with decreased blood glucose and cholesterol levels when defatted fenugreek seed powder was added to the diets of diabetic participants. Other studies have further confirmed fenugreek’s hypoglycemic activity, as well as its hypocholesterolemic ability, due to the high amount of fiber, cellulose and lignin in the defatted portion of the seeds. Fenugreek’s rich supply of steroidal saponins, including diosgenin, have also been implicated as responsible for lowering cholesterol.
Fenugreek seeds are galactagogue, meaning they promote lactation. They are often used to increase milk supply in lactating mothers. Studies have shown that it is a potent stimulator of breast milk production and its use was associated with increases in milk production.
When it comes to enhancing lactation, fenugreek is in the same class as
milk thistle, anise, fennel seeds, and marshmallow. Usual dose of fenugreek is one to four capsules (580-610 mg) three to four times per day, although as with most herbal remedies there is no standard dosing. The higher of these doses may be required in relactating or adoptive mothers. Alternatively, it can be taken as one cup of strained tea three times per day (1/4 tsp seeds steeped in 8 oz water for 10 minutes).
Fenugreek increases milk supply within 24 to 72 hours. Use during pregnancy is not recommended because of its uterine stimulant effects.
Cancer is the final outcome of a plethora of events. Targeting the proliferation or inducing programmed cell death in a proliferating population is a major standpoint in the cancer therapy and more herbs are being recognized for their potential to effectively stimulate apoptosis as effectively as drugs.
Proliferation of cancer is regulated by several cellular and immunologic processes. Fenugreek inhibits the proliferation by augmenting immune surveillance, silencing acute inflammation, and inducing mediated apoptosis of cancer.
In the journal Integrative Cancer Therapy researchers found that fenugreek along with other medicinal extracts reduced the number, incidence, and multiplicity of tumors, which was confirmed by the pathologic studies that showed regressed tumors.
Results of the study confirmed that fenugreek extract not only limits the rate of proliferation by inhibition of the processes integral to cancer development but also induce programmed cell death of cancer cells leading to fewer and regressed tumors.
Various animal experiments have shown fenugreek inhibits liver cancer cells. In China, fenugreek is employed as a pessary in the treatment of cervical cancer.
4) REDUCE ALUMINUM TOXICTY
In open access, peer-reviewed journal Nutrition Research and Practice, researchers demonstrated that a diet supplemented with fenugreek seeds could offer protection from aluminum toxicity for the kidney, bone and brain, at the same time.
The researchers concluded that fenugreek seeds can be used as a regular nutrient to alleviate the side effects of aluminum ingestion, especially for anybody populations who are more susceptible to developing aluminum toxicity.
The known multiple pharmacological effects of fenugreek, including its antidiabetic, antioxidative, antineoplastic, anti-inflammatory, antiulcerogenic, antipyretic, antitumor and immunomodulatory effects assist in the detoxification process. The active components of fenugreek seeds behind their most common properties have been described as polyphenolic flavonoids, steroid saponins, and mainly galactomannans.
5) COUGHS AND RESPIRATORY
Fenugreek increases the production of mucosal fluids to help remove allergens and toxins from the respiratory tract. Fenugreek acts as an expectorant and antispasmodic to loosen phlegm and help stop chronic coughs. Research has also found that fenugreek induces perspiration to help lower fever, a quality which has been compared by some authorities with that of quinine. It is often included in lung-healing formulas for treating emphysema and lung congestion, as well as allergies, bronchitis, fever, hayfever and respiratory tract infection.
6) ENHANCES DIGESTION
Fenugreek also stimulates the production of digestive fluids to enhance digestion and assimilation of nutrients. Fenugreek is even recommended during convalescence and in cases of anorexia to promote weight gain. Fenugreek provides anti-inflammatory properties which help soothe inflamed tissues, as confirmed by Belgian researchers. In fact, these soothing properties have been found to help stomach problems such as dyspepsia, gastric ulcers and gastritis. Fenugreek even acts as a mild laxative to relieve constipation.
In general, fenugreek encourages an overall improvement in health, weight gain, more efficient protein utilization, reduced phosphorous secretion, and increased red blood cell counts. It is a worthy medicinal herb in any kitchen or medicine cabinet.
Read the full article here: http://preventdisease.com/news/14/020314_Fenugreek-6-Reasons-Herb-Spice-Belongs-In-Your-Medicine-Cabinet.shtml
John Summerly is nutritionist, herbologist, and homeopathic practitioner. He is a leader in the natural health community and consults athletes, executives and most of all parents of children on the benefits of complementary therapies for health and prevention.
The Percentage Calories From Protein in Common Plant Foods
Jeff Novick, MS, RD ©2013
The following numbers are from the USDA Standard Reference Release 26, which can be
found here. All items were calculated at 454 grams (1 lb). To see the exact description,
look up the USDA NDB# in the USDA SR 26 Database.
|Food Item||USDA NDB#||Calories
|Great Northern Beans||16075||536||37.82||28.2%|
|Red Kidney Beans||16033||577||39.36||27.3%|
AFP Paris, September 19, 2014
Promoted as an aid to good health, artificial sweeteners may in fact be boosting diabetes risk, said a study Wednesday that urged a rethink of their widespread use and endorsement.
Also called non-calorific artificial sweeteners, or NAS, the additives are found in diet sodas, cereals and desserts- a huge market for people worried about weight gain and sugar intake.
Some experts recommend NAS for people with Type 2 diabetes, a disease that has attained pandemic proportions, and for a pre-diabetic condition called glucose intolerance, with elevated blood-sugar levels.
After leaving a sensation of sweetness on the tongue, NAS molecules pass through the intestinal tract without being absorbed.
Also read: Go natural: Now, bust diabetes with Hibiscus
This explains why, unlike sugar, they add negligibly, if at all, to the calorie count. But scientists reported in the journal Nature that experiments on lab mice and a small group of humans found NAS disrupted the makeup and function of gut bacteria, and actually hastened glucose intolerance.
“Artificial sweeteners were extensively introduced into our diets with the intention of reducing caloric intake and normalising blood glucose levels without compromising the human ‘sweet tooth’,” the paper said.
“Our findings suggest that NAS may have directly contributed to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to fight,” it said bluntly.
Scientists led by Eran Elinav and Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel added three commonly-used types of NAS- aspartame, sucralose or saccharin- to the drinking water of mice in body-size appropriate doses equivalent to recommended maximum human intake.
Those rodents given NAS developed glucose intolerance, whereas mice that drank only water, or water with sugar, did not.
Next, the researchers transplanted faeces from NAS-fed and glucose-fed mice into rodents bred to have no gut bacteria of their own.
The blood-glucose levels of the NAS transplant recipients rose sharply, the team found- and their gut bacteria worked harder than the other group’s at extracting glucose from nutrients.
The next step was to apply these insights to humans.
Poring over questionnaires and health data from 381 non-diabetic people, the team found a “significant” link between glucose intolerance and higher NAS consumption.
Finally, the researchers placed seven volunteers who did not normally use NAS on a seven-day regimen that included the maximum sweetener intake recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Within five to seven days, four developed elevated blood-glucose levels and an altered gut bacteria mix, apparently mirroring the effect in mice.
Past investigations into NAS have delivered mixed results. Some showed benefits in weight loss and glucose tolerance, while others suggested the opposite.
The picture is muddied by the fact that many NAS consumers are people who already have diabetes or are prone to it. The new experiments are a red flag, the team said.
“This calls for a reassessment of today’s massive, unsupervised consumption of these substances,” said Elinav.
Independent commentators praised the work for its innovation, but warned against overreaction. The human trial involved just seven people over a week, and wider and longer trials are needed to draw any firm conclusion, they said.
“Human diets are complex, consisting of many foods, the consumption of which can vary in amounts, and over time,” warned John Menzies of the Centre for Integrative Physiology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.
“This research raises caution that NAS may not represent the ‘innocent magic bullet’ they were intended to be to help with the obesity and diabetes epidemics,” Nita Forouhi, a University of Cambridge epidemiologist told Britain’s Science Media Centre.
“But it does not yet provide sufficient evidence to alter public health and clinical practice.”
Vitamin C, lysine and Dr. W. Gifford-Jones
posted on February 14, 2014 by
It all started with a simple question from one of my blog readers at Heart Sisters. Another heart attack survivor asked me if I’d heard about the use of high-dose vitamin C and lysine to prevent or reverse coronary artery disease, a treatment duo often touted in health food stores. It turns out that almost any Canadian who reads any daily newspaper across our great country has likely heard of these particular supplements, thanks to a syndicated health columnist named W. Gifford-Jones MD whose columns have been published in over 70 newspapers in Canada and beyond.
He’s a University of Toronto- and Harvard-trained MD and author whose bio also includes “family doctor, hotel doctor and ship’s surgeon”. (That’s not his real name, by the way – which is Ken Walker). In one of his columns published in the Windsor Star in December, the 89-year old Gifford-Jones/Walker described his own personal experience taking this vitamin C and lysine combo:
“Following a severe coronary attack, cardiologists warned me I’d die without using cholesterol-lowering drugs. Rather, for the last 16 years I’ve relied on high doses of vitamin C and lysine as recommended by Dr. Linus Pauling. It was a risky decision at that time as there was no evidence that this combination could reverse coronary blockage.
“Now, photos of arteries show that combined vitamin C and lysine not only prevents but also reverses blocked arteries. This combination powder known as Medi-C Plus is available at health food stores.
“It’s a monumental discovery. But this research is collecting dust due to the closed minds of cardiologists who refuse to look at it.”
One of the “closed minds” objecting to this blanket endorsement of Vitamin C and lysine to reverse coronary artery disease belongs to endocrinologist Dr. Raphael Cheung of the Windsor Regional Hospital. He responded to the Windsor Star like this shortly after he read the December column:
“Dr. Gifford-Jones’ anecdotal experience belongs to medicine that was practiced half a century ago!”
But he also spanked the Star itself, asking why the newspaper shouldn’t bear some responsibility for running Gifford-Jones medical columns like this one in the first place:
“Why does (the Windsor Star) keep printing articles written by a retired OB-GYN regarding vascular health? Not knowing any better, there are patients who are at high risk for heart disease and stroke in our community who have stopped taking their medications after reading Gifford-Jones articles.
“While there is always a disclaimer at the end of a Gifford-Jones article that relieves him of any legal liability, the Windsor Star should be held to a higher standard by providing a more balanced approach by at least interviewing a medical expert in the field for another opinion.
“Our motto should be: First do no harm.”
Dr. Cheung also told the Star that he had noticed something else about the unreserved recommendation by Gifford-Jones/Walker of the Medi-C Plus supplement to miraculously prevent and reverse heart disease:
“I was surprised recently when a patient with coronary heart disease told me that he had stopped his heart medications and had started taking Dr. Gifford-Jones’s Medi-C Plus treatment purchased online.”
Suddenly, that folksy anecdote in his syndicated health column has now morphed from casual endorsement to retail marketing tool for the good doctor.
In fact, he’s able to use his considerable public profile (plus his free lectures and online webinars he calls “The Dynamic Duo For Fighting Heart Disease”) to shill his own W. Gifford-Jones MD line of supplements. He recommends that people consume 2-3 scoops of his Medi-C Plus a day; that’s 2,000 mg of vitamin C and 1,300 mg of lysine per scoop.
But evidence suggests that lysine supplements may interact with cardiac medications that can increase bleeding risk, such as anti-coagulant medications like Coumadin or anti-platelet medications like Plavix. Lysine may also increase the risk of low blood sugar if you take medication for diabetes, and Health Canada warns against taking lysine for more than six months at doses higher than 300 mg per day.
In Canada, we tend to take a dim view of docs who go retail.
Here in my province of British Columbia, for example, our B.C. College of Physicians & Surgeons code of conduct guidelines specifically warn MDs here against the practice, calling it “not only unethical, but constituting a direct conflict of interest”, adding:
“A conflict of interest occurs when a professional or business arrangement provides an opportunity for a physician to receive a personal benefit over and above payment for his or her professional services. Conflict of interest can be direct or indirect, real or perceived, financial or non‐financial.
“Such transactions might reasonably be perceived as self‐serving. Even if there is no direct financial gain for the physician, the selling of products might be considered ethically questionable since patients often believe that a physician’s recommendation naturally implies an endorsement of the product’s value and/or efficacy.”
I’ve added emphasis to that second sentence in the last paragraph because the Gifford-Jones/Walker website claims that sales of Medi-C Plus “help support the Gifford-Jones Professorship in Pain Control and Palliative Care at the University of Toronto.”
We don’t really know what “help support” means in this case. Does it mean that 50% of all Medi-C Plus sales do the “helping” – or just .05% of sales? And why doesn’t he spell this out for consumers?
Either way, much like the B.C. practice guidelines specify, the optics are sketchy even if a physician receives no money personally through retail product sales.
And aside from the pure stomach-churning queaziness surrounding a person with the letters M.D. after his name shilling dietary supplements produced within an entirely unregulated industry (as illustrated in his Twitter page below), there’s also the rather sticky issue of credibility.
Gifford-Jones/Walker cites the work of both Dr. Linus Pauling and Dr. Sydney Bushfor their work on the benefits of mega doses of vitamin C, including its miraculous claim of preventing/curing diseases ranging from the common cold to cancer and heart disease. Pauling himself reportedly took at least 12,000 mg of vitamin C daily, and up to 40,000 mg if symptoms of a cold struck.  By comparison, according to the National Institutes of Health, the current Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) for the vitamin is 75 mg per day for women (that’s the equivalent of eating one medium orange) or up to 120 mg if you’re pregnant or breastfeeding, and 90 mg for men (about 1/2 cup of red pepper).
But as Dr. Stephen Barrett of QuackWatch reminds us:
“Pauling is largely responsible for the widespread misbelief that high doses of vitamin C are effective against colds and other illnesses. While his basic science work was brilliant and his peace activist work was highly significant, his clinical vitamin C work was never accepted by the medical profession as it failed to withstand the scrutiny of clinical trials.”
“For many years, the largest corporate donor of The Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine that he founded in 1973 was Hoffmann-La Roche, the pharmaceutical giant that produces most of the world’s vitamin C.”
Besides Pauling, Gifford-Jones also defends his Medi-C Plus supplement by quoting the “monumental findings” of a researcher named Dr. Sydney Bush (actually an English optometrist) who claimed that vitamin C can reverse atherosclerosis. Bush developed an interest in cardiovascular disease at some point during 1998, when he noticed microscopic changes in blood vessels in the eye, calling his theory “nutritional preventative cardioretinometry. From approximately 2003, he began to “promote his findings in his shop window.”
But Gifford-Jones/Walker mocks those who dismiss the optometrist’s theories by asking:
“So what has happened to these monumental findings? Bush has been ridiculed by cardiologists.
“One has to ask whether cardiologists, by ignoring his results, are condemning thousands of people to an early coronary heart attack.”
Well, another thing that’s happened to those “monumental findings” is that Bush has recently been found guilty of misconduct, according to the U.K.’s General Optical Council. The Council found that Bush had violated its code of conduct requiring optometrists to “ensure that personal beliefs do not prejudice patient care.”
All allegations were proved and Bush’s name has now been erased from General Optical Council registers “for the protection of the public” – an outcome that merely confirms to conspiracy theorists that Bush and his believers continue to be persecuted by the evil forces of power.
High quality studies on the impact of vitamin C on cardiovascular health outcomes have certainly been mixed, like this large (over 14,000 men), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled factorial trial in Boston whose conclusion offered “no support for the use of supplemental vitamin C for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.”  Other research has even shown that high supplemental vitamin C intake is actually associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease mortality in post-menopausal women with diabetes.
Meanwhile, the fine print disclaimer on Gifford-Jones/Walker’s own website warns:
“Natural products and any claims made about specific products on the site have not been evaluated by the United States Food and Drug Administration nor Health Canada.”
That’s known as a CYA disclaimer, strictly for legal liability protection. It’s like saying that, even though there’s no proof that any claims I make about this stuff is true, I will continue to keep on making them.
Or as Dr. Cheung wrote to the Windsor Star:
Posted by: TLB Staff
Published August 9, 2014, filed under HEALTH
Dr. Niall McLaren, an Australian practicing psychiatrist for 22 years, explains what is wrong with the psychiatric profession: That it cannot/will not take criticism, for fear the entire model of biological psychiatry will unravel.
That there is no science to psychiatric diagnoses, no brain based diseases. And that psychiatry only pushes mental disordersas biological disease in order to convince people to take psychiatric drugs, causing a host of dangerous side effects.
For more psychiatrists/psychologists and doctors who have spoken out against the fraud of psychiatry’s biological model of mental disorders (chemical imbalance, etc) click here:http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-diso … fic-tests/
Psychiatrists, Physicians & Psychologists That Debunk Psychiatry as a Science, “There are no objective tests in psychiatry-no X-ray, laboratory, or exam finding that says definitively that someone does or does not have a mental disorder.”
— Allen Frances, Former DSM-IV Task Force Chairman “…modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness…Patients [have] been diagnosed with ‘chemical imbalances’ despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and…there is no real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like.”
— Dr. David Kaiser, psychiatrist: “There’s no biological imbalance. When people come to me and they say, ‘I have a biochemical imbalance,’ I say, ‘Show me your lab tests.’ There are no lab tests. So what’s the biochemical imbalance?”
— Dr. Ron Leifer, psychiatrist“DSM-IV is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document… DSM-IV has become a bible and a money making bestseller—its major failings notwithstanding.”
— Loren Mosher, M.D., Clinical Professor of Psychiatry: “All psychiatrists have in common that when they are caught on camera or on microphone, they cower and admit that there are no such things as chemical imbalances/diseases, or examinations or tests for them. What they do in practice, lying in every instance, abrogating [revoking] the informed consent right of every patient and poisoning them in the name of ‘treatment’ is nothing short of criminal.”
— Dr Fred Baughman Jr., Pediatric Neurologist: “Psychiatry makes unproven claims that depression, bipolar illness, anxiety, alcoholism and a host of other disorders are in fact primarily biologic and probably genetic in origin…This kind of faith in science and progress is staggering, not to mention naïve and perhaps delusional.”
— Dr. David Kaiser, psychiatrist : “In short, the whole business of creating psychiatric categories of ‘disease,’ formalizing them with consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them, which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public trough.”
— Dr. Thomas Dorman, internist and member of the Royal College of Physicians of the UK: “I believe, until the public and psychiatry itself see that DSM labels are not only useless as medical ‘diagnoses’ but also have the potential to do great harm—particularly when they are used as means to deny individual freedoms, or as weapons by psychiatrists acting as hired guns for the legal system.” — Dr. Sydney Walker III, psychiatrist
“The way things get into the DSM is not based on blood test or brain scan or physical findings. It’s based on descriptions of behavior. And that’s what the whole psychiatry system is.” — Dr. Colin Ross, psychiatrist
“No biochemical, neurological, or genetic markers have been found for Attention Deficit Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Depression, Schizophrenia, anxiety, compulsive alcohol and drug abuse, overeating, gambling or any other so-called mental illness, disease, or disorder.” — Bruce Levine, Ph.D., psychologist and author of Commonsense Rebellion
“Unlike medical diagnoses that convey a probable cause, appropriate treatment and likely prognosis, the disorders listed in DSM-IV [and ICD-10] are terms arrived at through peer consensus.” — Tana Dineen Ph.D., Canadian psychologist
Intro to Psychiatry: Industry of Death
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Frightening side effects, cover-ups on the record, and no reason to believe they do what they are supposed to
I believe that I have a professional and moral obligation to question the prescription and widespread use of old-generation (SSRI class) anti-depressant medications such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa and Luvox. I cannot condemn it: I am not qualified to make that judgement. Condemnation must be left to the credible experts, and their interpretation of the evidence. However, I share my concerns: that the manufacture, marketing, excessive prescription, and sale of these drugs has probably been dangerous and negligent.
This position is well-supported by references to credible and recent scientific opinion and evidence. Credible criticism first came to public attention when David Healy, a professor of psychiatry who lost his job for speaking out about the undeniable risk that SSRIs cause a small percentage of patients to kill themselves, which had not yet been addressed in the scientific literature.2 In January 2008, New England Journal of Medicine reported that drug manufacturers failed to publish every FDA-registered study3 that didn’t make SSRI anti-depressants look good.4 Then PLos Medicine followed up in February with the largest review of SSRI studies to date — including5 all the previously unpublished FDA studies, as discussed byarstechnica.com. The effectiveness of anti-depressants has always been debatable, but this new analysis of all the evidence resulted in a particularly underwhelming picture of the efficacy of these drugs, which appear to be no more effective than sugar pills for most depression6 — though they may be modestly effective for severe depression.7 This is not a new expert opinion, but simply the most recent credible evidence to support an existing opinion. See the footnotes for full details, and please bear in mind the weight of this evidence as you read on.
A personal perspective
I have a personal history with so-called “clinical” depression and bipolar disorder. In 1991, a psychiatrist not only diagnosed me with manic-depression (probably a misdiagnosis), but told me that I would be dead by suicide “within a year” — yikes! — if I did not accept pharmaceutical treatment in the form of SSRI antidepressants. Prozac was three years old then, and had been the most prescribed drug in history as of 1990. I walked out of that psychiatrist’s office, and later cured my own depression and mood swings through personal development.
“Take this mood-altering drug or you’re dead within a year,” was probably not the voice of compassionate wisdom.
Fortunately, I recognized that “take this mood-altering drug or you’re dead within a year” was probably not the voice of compassionate wisdom. But, in fact, it was more dangerous than I knew.
Ely Lily is the manufacturer of Prozac. “The company’s internal documents, some dating to the mid-1980s, as well as government applications and patents, indicate that the pharmaceutical giant has known for years that its best-selling drug [Prozac] could cause suicidal reactions in a small but significant number of patients.”8
Taking Prozac could have induced my suicide rather than preventing it! The same is true for all the millions of people out there ingesting SSRI antidepressants. Scientific controversy about this allegation continues vigorously to this day, as any quick internet search can demonstrate (Google “SSRI suicide”). As long the truth remains elusive, there is a strong “better safe than sorry” case to be made against their use.
I have long condemned anti-depressants on the basis of general cynicism. I always knew or suspected that they have numerous alarming side effects, that they are marketed aggressively by some of the most profitable and unaccountable corporations in the world, and that their usage does not have a sound scientific rationale. These have been reason enough to suspect that they are more myth than medicine.
Yet, for all my cynicism, I foolishly had some faith that these drugs could not be all bad. I assumed that their side effects were more or less as reported in drug references, that the manufacturers’ power to obscure the facts is mitigated by government agencies, and that the physiological rationale for the drugs is at least intelligible.
As a health care professional, I have had the opportunity to learn otherwise. I have observed dozens of my own clients struggle with depression both with and without SSRI antidepressants, had numerous conversations with other complementary and conventional health care professionals on the subject, and read many articles and books.
Worse than I’d feared
Contrary to what I once assumed, the side-effects of anti-depressants are actually numerous, severe, potentially life-threatening, and not widely known or even understood. They cause a low but measurable rate of psychotic mania, for instance — equal to millions of people who have been reduced to quivering wrecks, their behaviour drastically altered, careers, marriages and lives lost. Withdrawal symptoms from SSRIs are even more problematic.
The power of the SSRI manufacturers is quite unchecked by government institutions like the American FDA. Indeed, there are documented cases of these companies successfully:
- bribing plaintiffs to make an ineffective case,
- launching dummy lawsuits to create favourable legal precedents, feeding trial subjects Valium to hide severe side effects from the FDA.
This is no surprise given the amount of money and conflicts of interest involved. For instance, President George Bush Sr. was on the board of directors of Eli Lilly & Co. (Prozac), and the head of the FDA during the Prozac approval now works for the pharmaceutical industry as a consultant!
Finally, the scientific rationale for anti-depressants is not, it turns out, very good at all. It is as clumsy as the rationale for electroshock therapy and lobotomy was historically. The popularity of anti-depressants is a continuation of the historical tendency to use “brain-disabling treatments” in psychiatry.9
It is important to understand that SSRIs quite literally just “mess with your head,” specifically interfering with the function of a common messenger molecule (serotonin), one of thousands of others, whose purpose and broad significance to brain function in general is only vaguely understood, and whose particular significance to depression is completely unknown. Consider this 2010 article in New Scientist, emphasizing how recent research has only emphasized our ignorance:
If you thought depression was caused by low serotonin levels, think again. It looks as if the brain chemistry of a depressed person is much more complex, with mounting evidence suggesting that too much serotonin in some brain regions is to blame.
The most sophisticated method known for even measuring serotonin levels in the brain — never mind understanding the significance of these measurements — is to grind up a piece of brain, spin it in a centrifuge, and measure the sum total of serotonin relative to other substances. And how about our ability to measure the amount of serotonin in any given synapse at any time? Exactly zero. Yet the marketing of these drugs would have us believe that they are extremely specific in their effects. It is simply not so.
Despite the commercials — treating depression pharmacologically is not treating something as simple as a low level of a single neurotransmitter. Measuring serotonin levels, even if practical, would likely be of no clinical value. Depression is a result of poor emotional regulation among various brain regions. Drugs are a blunt tool by which we can nudge brain function in a direction which, for some people, can change this regulation and reduce depression. It’s not really about the levels.
Given these limitations, the idea that we can diagnose a “chemical imbalance” in the brain is pure nonsese — even if we could measure it, we don’t know what normal brain chemistry is. Bear in mind also that no psychiatrist actually attempts to measure your brain chemistry before prescribing SSRIs. They don’t do it, of course, because they have not the slightest idea how to diagnose allegedly dysfunctional neurochemistry. They infer the idea of dysfunctional neurochemistry from your subjective symptoms (i.e. depression). That idea has achieved an outrageously disproprotionate credibility, seeming like certain knowledge to the layperson, when it fact the reality is that the nature of sertonin and related neurotransmitters remain almost completely mysterious to medical science.
The concept of a “chemical imbalance” in the human brain is one of the most fantastic oversimplifications in science, and one of the worst legacies of the modern pharmaceutical industry. A bowl of soup could have a chemical imbalance …
We do not prescribe medicines to “treat” brain chemistry, we prescribe medications that messwith it — to rock the boat, stir the soup — not because we know what to do to brain chemistry, but because it is something that we can do to brain chemistry. The precision is in the mechanism of effect, and not the consequences.
Indeed, the scientific rationale for these drugs is so bankrupt that to even call them “antidepressants” has more to do with marketing than science, and various studies have shown that they simply do not work as advertised.10 Antidepressants are, in fact, closely related to amphetamines like ecstasy and cocaine. Cocaine essentially does exactly the same kinds of things to the brain, only it messes with serotonin plus a few other molecules. You can think of anti-depressants as “simplified cocaine.” And also “legal cocaine.” It’s an incredibly blunt medical instrument that does not do anything except generally interfere with normal brain function.
It is not necessarily a bad thing to carefully “tinker” with your brain. Humans have a long history of finding ways to mess with our own heads. There are times in life when almost any change in mental state feels like an upgrade. But we need to be more realistic and acknowledge that this is what we’re really doing with SSRIs.
My responsibility as a health care professional
If the allegations against them are correct — and they seem to be — the presence and typical usage of these drugs in our society is just as unconsciounable as any snake oil ever was, only worse because of the massive scale. Too often we think of our civilization as scientifically sophisticated in all fields. Yet neurophysiology is still primitive in many ways, lacking in testable theories with the power to explain many mental phenomena — yet touted (marketed) as advanced. Consequently, medical malpractice is still common. It’s my responsibility as a health care professional to raise these concerns, even though there are more credible voices to be heard.
Indeed, please do not take my word for it. Although under-reported in the past, lately all of this information is readily available from other and more credible sources. If you are considering antidepressant medication, please do your homework first. If you are already taking antidepressant medication and want to quit safely, it is not sufficient to simply ask your physician. You must educate yourself.
Metabolism is the sum total of all chemical reactions involved in maintaining the living state of the cells, and thus the organism. In general metabolism may be divided into two categories: catabolism or the break down of molecules to obtain energy; and anabolism or the synthesis of all compounds needed by the cells (examples are DNA, RNA, an protein synthesis). The diagram on the left contains a summary of all the types of metabolism that will be examined. In this module, the electron transport chain is examined.
Bioenergetics is a term which describes the biochemical or metabolic pathways by which the cell ultimately obtains energy.
Nutrition is a science that deals with the relation of food substance to living things. In the study of nutrition, the following items must be considered: a) bodily requirement for various substances; b) function in body; c) amount needed; d) level below which poor health results. Essential foods supply energy (calories) and supply the necessary chemicals which the body itself cannot synthesize. Food provides a variety of substances that are essential for the building, upkeep, and repair of body tissues, and for the efficient functioning of the body.
A complete diet must supply the elements; carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and at least 18 other inorganic elements. The major elements are supplied in carbohydrates, lipids, and protein. In addition, at least 17 vitamins and water are necessary. If an essential nutrient is omitted from the diet, certain deficiency symptoms appear.