Tag Archives: dementia

100 ways to live to 100: 10 drugs to avoid whenever possible

Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

10 drugs to avoid whenever possible

WDDTY frame this with a truly staggering statement of faith:

After 24 years of publishing WDDTY, we’re still searching for one single drug out there besides antibiotics that actually cures something. We still haven’t found one. Virtually all drugs are for maintenance—that is, they manage, ease or suppress symptoms, but they do not cure. In spite of assurances from the pharmaceutical industry that drugs can target certain receptors in the body with laser-like accuracy, the fact is that many unrelated systems in the body have identical receptors—which is why drugs invariably affect other parts of the body indiscriminately and cause side-effects.

There is a better, alternative solution to virtually every chronic health problem except emergency medicine, which is where orthodox medicine comes into its own. If you’ve been shot, stabbed or run over, or suffer a heart attack or stroke, then modern Western medicine is without parallel for fixing you. In those cases, get to a hospital without fail. Otherwise, here are the10 drugs you might be better off avoiding. In no particular order:

We’re pleased to be able to help WDDTY out here. Again, since this is not the first time WDDTY have made this claim.

  • Tetanus antitoxin cures tetanus.
  • Antimalarials cure malaria.
  • Chemotherapy cures liquid tumours especially in children.
  • Antivenins cure venomous bites.

But why exclude antibiotics? Not only are they the best known and least ambiguous example of drugs that cure, but WDDTY also disputes their utility. The exclusion of this class of drugs seems to be capricious and specifically designed to assert that, excluding the vast number of illnesses they can cure, doctors can’t cure anything. Of course, unlike quacks, doctors don’t claim to cure disease unless they actually can, but n the end this reminds us of something:

But ultimately this is a categorical fallacy. Think for a moment: what is the definition of a chronic disease? It’s one that cannot presently be cured. A hundred years ago, syphilis was a chronic disease. Now it’s not. So WDDTY are taking a class of diseases defined by the fact that medicine cannot currently cure them, and asserting that, shockingly, medicine cannot cure them.

Is maintenance and management of symptoms necessarily a bad thing? Ask a type I diabetic or an asthmatic. 

Are there better alternative solutions to “virtually every chronic health problem”? No. Minchin’s Law applies: these things are alternative because they have not been demonstrated to be better. In most cases they haven’t been demonstrated to be as good. Many of them don’t work at all, and several are actively harmful.

71 Statins

These can cause cancer and definitely cause muscle weakness.

So they might, but the benefit outweighs the risks according to large studies.

A meta analysis of randomised controlled trials found:

Conclusion In patients without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors, statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events.

WDDTY has a long-standing agenda against statins, leading to its promotion of the idea that cholesterol is OK as long as it’s the “good” kind, but this is mainly arguing backwards from ideological opposition to statins. As always, the NHS has more nuanced and more accurate information.

72 Prozac and other antidepressants

These can cause rebound anxiety, suicide and addiction, and have been sold to us on a faulty premise—there is no brain chemical imbalance to fix.

This is pure propaganda. Antidepressants and antipsychotics have a role in the management of acute disease, and trying to tough it out without them can and does lead to suicide.

Epidemiological analysis shows that SSRIs reduce suicide rates. There is a specific problem with use in children, but it’s uncertain whether this balances out or not – however, this does not undermine the conclusion that:

[T]he strongly positive results of the TADS study indicate that medication treatment is vital for effective treatment of adolescent depression. With the confusing results of studies to date, fluoxetine is a good first choice for antidepressant treatment of adolescents. However, there may be reasons that clinicians choose to start other antidepressants instead. For instance, adolescents with a good prior response to another antidepressant, who are currently on another antidepressant with good response, or who have a history of poor response to fluoxetine, would probably be started or stay on another antidepressant.

In other words, follow the data not the dogma.

73 Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-blocking drugs

Meant to replace painkilling COX-2 inhibitor drugs, they’ve been linked to tuberculosis and cancer.

Having “been linked to cancer” is a standard WDDTY weasel phrase. Yes, there is a plausible link between TNF inhibitor|TNF inhibitorsW and cancer. This applies to both synthetic drugs and natural TNF inhibitors such as curcuminW, catechins and canabinoids.

As with any effective treatment, it’s a question of risks versus benefits.

74 Atypical antipsychotics

These next-generation drugs, classed as the ‘new’ antipsychotics, include olanzapine (Zyprexa), quetiapine (Seroquel) and risperidone (Risperdal). Studies show they’re no better than the older variety, and may cause Alzheimer’s disease and hasten mental decline in the elderly. They also cause sexual dysfunction and depression, and so make any psychiatric condition worse.44

Reference 44: Clin Neuropharmacol. 2005 May-Jun;28(3):111-4. Use of ziprasidone in parkinsonian patients with psychosis. Gómez-Esteban JC, Zarranz JJ, Velasco F, Lezcano E, Lachen MC, Rouco I, Barcena J, Boyero S, Ciordia R, Allue I.

A source at last! So what does it say?

Twelve patients with Parkinson disease and psychosis were included in an open-label 12-week trial of ziprasidone. Two patients withdrew from the treatment because of adverse effects. The remaining 10 patients reported a significant improvement in psychiatric symptoms. Altogether, there was no deterioration of motor symptoms (UPDRS III score: basal 40.4 +/- 11.1, first month 41.1 +/- 10.8; final visit, 37.7 +/- 13.3). Two patients (20%) suffered a slight deterioration in motor symptoms and another patient suffered deterioration of gait. No analytic alterations or serious adverse effects that could limit the use of ziprasidone were observed. Although controlled trials are needed, the findings suggest that ziprasidone may be effective in parkinsonian patients with psychosis.

Is it just me, or does that say pretty much the opposite of what WDDTY claim? Be in no doubt: ziprasidoneW is an atypical antidepressant, the fifth such to be licensed by the FDA.

This is unusually dishonest even by WDDTY’s standards: the paper supports the use of the drug in Parkinson’s sufferers, but this is spun as a recommendation against it.

75 Anticholinergic drugs

These have a long list of side effects, including dementia.

This is not specific to anticholinergicW drugs, but to anticholinergics generally, including plants of the solanacae family, henbane and mandrake.

They also have a long list of beneficial effects. They suppress muscle spasms, for example, so are often used in gastritis and ulcerative colitis. But the major source of adverse reactions appears to be in recreational drug users, not least because medical use tends not to be long-term. One of the better known anticholinergics is butylscopolamineW, marketed under trade names such as Buscopan, which is used to control stomach cramps. It tends to be used episodically and not chronically.

76 Bisphosphonates

These osteoporosis drugs can halt bone loss, but they’ve also been linked to high rates of atrial fibrillation, a heart-rhythm disorder that can lead to stroke.45

Reference 45: N Engl J Med, 2007; 356: 1809–22: Once-Yearly Zoledronic Acid for Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis, Black et. al.

RESULTS: Treatment with zoledronic acid reduced the risk of morphometric vertebral fracture by 70% during a 3-year period, as compared with placebo (3.3% in the zoledronic-acid group vs. 10.9% in the placebo group; relative risk, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24 to 0.38) and reduced the risk of hip fracture by 41% (1.4% in the zoledronic-acid group vs. 2.5% in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83). Nonvertebral fractures, clinical fractures, and clinical vertebral fractures were reduced by 25%, 33%, and 77%, respectively (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Zoledronic acid was also associated with a significant improvement in bone mineral density and bone metabolism markers. Adverse events, including change in renal function, were similar in the two study groups. However, serious atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently in the zoledronic acid group (in 50 vs. 20 patients, P<0.001).

The question then would be: are you better off suffering a hip fracture due to untreated osteoporosis, or atrial fibrillation, which may or may not result in a stroke?

WDDTY claims to be all about informed choice, but by giving only a tiny subset of the information, they actively impede a properly informed choice. It’s about as much use as advising everybody never to leave the house in case they get knocked over crossing the road.

77Aspirin

It’s the ultimate just-in-case lifestyle drug, taken to ward off heart disease and stroke, but it actually increases the risk of stroke sevenfold.46 It can also cause serious gastrointestinal bleeding. Other NSAIDs now carry warnings regarding their cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risks—and guess what? They haven’t been proven to reduce inflammation.

Reference 46: Lancet Neurol, 2007; 6: 487–93 Change in incidence and aetiology of intracerebral haemorrhage in Oxfordshire, UK, between 1981 and 2006: a population-based study. Lovelock CE, Molyneux AJ, Rothwell PM; Oxford Vascular Study.

This is a long-term study of stroke risk which finds that in the over-75s long term use of antithrombotics (aspirin) is associated with an increase in stroke incidence. This is most likely to be based on a population with higher dosages, as the prophylactic dose recommendation has reduced over time.

Reliable sources support low dose aspirin as a prophylactic against heart disease and stroke, unreliable sources promote more aspirin (mainly out of date) or none (WDDTY and other natural-woo promoters).

The Mayo Clinic has a useful reference. One interesting point that WDDTY didn’t make is that if you’re already taking aspirin daily, stopping can cause a rebound effect and actually trigger a stroke. Let’s hope nobody suffers a stroke after following WDDTY’s advice and sues them.

The important thing to remember is that a paediatric dose confers most of the benefit, but most of the risk studies refer to an adult dose, two to four times as great. As always discuss it with your doctor, not some anti-medicine crank.

78 HRT and the Pill

Their cancer connections are finally indisputable, even though drug companies keep fighting the evidence.

We already covered HRT. The pill? WDDTY really are becoming more reactionary over time.

Here’s what Cancer Research UK say about the Pill:

  • There’s a small increase in risk of breast cancer, which reduces when you stop taking the pill and returns to normal by 10 years after you stop taking it.
  • There’s an association with cervical cancer, likely to be down to the fact that cervical cancer is rarely seen in women whoa re not sexually active.
  • There’s a reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer, and the longer you take the pill the lower the risk gets.
  • There’s a reduction in cancer of the uterus which lasts for around 15 years after you stop taking the pill.
  • There may also be a reduction in bowel cancer.

Oh, and you tend not to get pregnant.

Your doctor knows all this, it’s safe to take your doctor’s advice rather than the ideological nonsense form WDDTY.

79 Antiepileptic drugs

These can lead to suicide and also cause potentially fatal liver failure. Many of the newer ones like Keppra (levetiracetam), Topamax (topiramate) and Sabril (vigabatrin) increase the risk of depression and suicide or self-harm threefold.47

Reference 47: Neurology. 2010 Jul 27;75(4):335-40. Use of antiepileptic drugs in epilepsy and the risk of self-harm or suicidal behavior. Andersohn F, Schade R, Willich SN, Garbe E.

Once again, WDDTY misrepresents the source. Here’s what it actually says:

Newer AEDs with a rather high frequency of depressive symptoms in clinical trials may also increase the risk of self-harm or suicidal behavior in clinical practice. For the most commonly used other groups of AEDs, no increase in risk was observed.

So: older AEDs do not increase the risk of suicide. Newer ones might, so doctors should be on the lookout for symptoms of depression. Which may well be partly due to the well documented tendency of practitioners to be more conservative and report more adverse reactions in new drugs than for well understood ones, where they know that symptoms are unlikely to be directly related.  Nothing to see here, move along please…

It’s hard to express how inappropriate it is to issue a blanket warning against antiepileptic drugs based on a misrepresentation of early studies on an entirely new class of drug that’s only recently entered clinical practice.

80 Zetia and other second-generation cholesterol-lowering drugs

Not only do these drugs not work, but they’re also hard on the liver.

We totally understand: cholesterol is natural so trying to control it is evil. Heart attacks are natural too, as is dying by the age of 40.

NICE don’t endorse ezetimibeW other than in cases where statins are not well tolerated, or as an adjunct to statins where cholesterol remains stubbornly high. It’s a relatively new class of drug and the evidence base is changing fairly quickly. Your doctor should be reading up on this, so it’s worth discussing the findings of ENHANCE and, when published, IMPROVE-IT with your doctor. As always, the advice form your doctor is likely to be evidence-based not ideology-based like WDDTY.

Cholesterol levels are a proxy marker and the jury is still out on whether reducing cholesterol levels is a valid end in itself; however, the outcome of statin trials does indicate a significant reduction in cardiac events so it does seem likely.


Errata and corrections:

  • Thanks to Andrew Crysell for spotting a schoolboy howler in the first section, fixed on 27/12/2013

Heartburn drugs increase risk of nerve damage, anaemia

heartburn bollocksWhat WDDTY said:

Heartburn drugs increase risk of nerve damage, anaemia

What the source said:

Previous and current gastric acid inhibitor use was significantly associated with the presence of vitamin B12 deficiency. These findings should be considered when balancing the risks and benefits of using these medications.

The source additionally shows that:

  • 12% of people with Vitamin B12 deficiency are taking PPIs (i.e. most are not)
  • 7.3% of people without Vitamin B12 deficiency are taking PPIs
  • 4.2% of people with vitamin B12 deficiency are taking H2RAs
  • 3.2% of people without vitamin B12 deficiency are taking H2RAs

Here’s how WDDTY interpreted this:

Heartburn and acid reflux medications are causing B12 deficiency, which can lead to nerve damage, anaemia and dementia. The medications, known as PPIs (protein pump inhibitors), increase the risk of vitamin deficiency by 65 per cent in those who take them longer than two years, say researchers at the Kaiser Permanente research division. Similar risks have been seen in those who take higher-strength drugs but for shorter periods. PPIs are among the most common pharmaceuticals; in the US alone, around 157 million prescriptions for the drugs are written every year. The researchers discovered the B12 deficiency risk when they analysed the records of 25,956 people with the deficiency and compared them to 184,199 people with normal levels of B12. Twelve per cent of those with a deficiency had been taken a PPI for at least two years compared to 7 per cent in the healthy group. (Source: JAMA, 2013; 310: 2435-42)

Sadly space did not permit the following quotes from the investigators:

These findings do not recommend against acid suppression for persons with clear indications for treatment, but clinicians should exercise appropriate vigilance when prescribing these medications and use the lowest possible effective dose.

At a minimum, the use of these medications identifies a population at higher risk of B12 deficiency, independent of additional risk factors. (emphasis added)

Here are some of the problems with WDDTY’s slant:

  • The study only covers courses of 2 years or more. The absence of the words “long-term” from the WDDTY headline is scaremongering.
  • The study does not show a link between PPIs and H2RAs and dementia, anaemia or nerve damage. This is a potential secondary effect of Vitamin B12 deficiency. The implied direct link is scaremongering.
  • The study results clearly show that if all PPI and H2RA mediated B12 deficiency stopped overnight, the overall effect on B12 deficiency levels would be barely noticeable.
  • As an observational study, no causal link is established (though it is entirely plausible and quite likely to be at least contributory).

So, WDDTY’s hysterical anti-medicine agenda leads it to turn “long-term use of certain classes of drugs for acid reflux may increase your risk of vitamin B12 deficiency” to “HEARTBURN MEDICINE CAUSES DEMENTIA“.

Now put yourself in the position of someone who has short-term acid reflux, perhaps as a result of pregnancy. Would the difference between these two statements be significant to you? You can see how an Ob-Gyn news journal covers the story here.

Who’s most at risk of dementia? Perhaps the following might have been considered relevant, taken from Ob Gyn News:

The association between vitamin B12 deficiency and the use of acid inhibitors was strongest among patients younger than 30 years of age and diminished with increasing age.

And why don’t doctors tell you this? Oh wait, they did. One of the researchers was part-sponsored by “big pharma”, even though the findings are clearly not to big pharma’s advantage.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The right vibes: music therapy

The right vibes
An article from vol. 24 no. 5 (August 2013) gives a staggeringly credulous overview of the inflated claims made for music therapy by those who allow their imagination to run riot.

The article itself is a game of two halves, Bryan. It starts out by establishing, at tedious length, the entirely uncontroversial fact that music can make people happier and take their mind off pain, and then switches to all manner of speculative hyperbole drawn primarily from the self-published opinions of those who are (over)selling patented music interventions.

When you read that “new research shows that music offers a powerful therapy after stroke, heart disease—and even cancer”, are you likely to understand that the effect in cancer is that playing music makes patients feel a bit less miserable? Because that is about the limit of it. It’s a soft “quality of life” outcome: even the often shockingly poor sources cited don’t make the claim that music has any material effect on the progression of cancer.

The article has many good examples of wishful thinking, some obvious cases of confirmation bias, a hilarious reference to the bonkers “morphic resonance” conjectures of Rupert Sheldrake, and several examples of using valid results to support wildly speculative arguments.

Continue reading The right vibes: music therapy

Older but not healthier

Older but not healthier
Older but not healthier: Ignore the government’s advice about to what eat if you want live to a ripe old age is an article in the November 2013 issue of WDDTY.

It is written by Robert Verkerk, founder of the Alliance for Natural health, a supplement industry pressure group based in the UK.

It advises readers to ignore government advice on nutrition and take instead the advice of a pressure group. Is this a sound approach?

Older but not healthier: 

Ignore the government’s advice about to what eat if you want live to a ripe old age

Robert Verkerk, founder, ANH Europe

National statistics give us a clue of our predicted lifespan on this planet. Most men and women in the UK are expected to live more than 80 years, but relatively few make it beyond 90. That may be better than we were doing 50 years ago, but recent statistics suggest lifespans might be shortening again.

This is true, and is indeed thought to be mainly due to the effects of diet and an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. Some contend that those who grew up during and shortly after the war, with rationing, have better health as a result.

But mortality statistics show us just one side of the coin. Possibly the more relevant issue is how long we remain healthy and disease-free. As a society more of us are living longer, but with chronic illness.

This is true up to a point: chronic illnesses such as arthritis are age-related and not really preventable at present, whereas type II diabetes is largely caused by lifestyle. The best advice is to eat healthily and exercise moderately. Give or take the occasional fancy bit of dressing-up, this has been the advice for a long time.

Heart disease and diabetes, two of the big killers, are now developing among children, and few of us make it to 70 without cancer, heart disease, diabetes or dementia. This raises the question: How much control do we have over our destiny?

These are two disjoint statements. Childhood obesity is a significant problem, but is separate from the question of, say, cancer, where it’s widely recognised that improved early diagnosis is a significant driver for increased diagnosis. This is not universally thought to be a good thing: Margaret McCartney’s The Patient Paradox details some of the issues with screening for cancer.

The evidence suggests that while it may be more difficult to dramatically alter our lifespan, we can easily reduce our risk of disease and improve our quality of life. Although Big Pharma and modern medicine have yet to come up with a silver bullet that helps us prevent disease to any significant degree, the science is clear on one factor: our choice of diet and lifestyle is the single strongest determinant—genetics apart—of the health quality we experience during our lives.

Let’s unpack that.

  • The evidence suggests that while it may be more difficult to dramatically alter our lifespan, we can easily reduce our risk of disease and improve our quality of life

Yes, we can reduce risks of some diseases and improve quality of life, mainly by eating less and exercising more. But “easily” is a questionable claim, and still the greatest determinant is income. So you could just as well say that we can “easily” reduce our risk of disease and improve our quality of life by becoming richer.

  • Although Big Pharma and modern medicine have yet to come up with a silver bullet that helps us prevent disease to any significant degree

This is rubbish. Leaving aside the subtext of demonising “Big Pharma”, the elimination and prevention of infectious disease, the ability to treat bacterial and other acquired infections, and improved survival from trauma, have all had a major impact on life expectancy. Nobody has died of smallpox, or even contracted it, since the 1970s. The last large poliomyelitis outbreaks in the West were half a century ago. Vaccines have done vastly more to prevent disease than diet ever has or can.

  •  the science is clear on one factor: our choice of diet and lifestyle is the single strongest determinant—genetics apart—of the health quality we experience during our lives

Debatable. The WHO lists three main determinants of health:

  • the social and economic environment,
  • the physical environment, and
  • the person’s individual characteristics and behaviours

The order in which these are placed is a judgement call, but health outcomes are very strongly correlated with income both within and across populations. Put simply, the rich can afford better choices more easily than the poor, and that is directly relevant to this article.

Given the wealth of evidence on this point, you’d think that governments would be bending over backwards to ensure we make the best possible choices to help reduce the future burden on our already overtaxed healthcare system, but they simply pay lip service to the notion. And sometimes their advice is in conflict with the latest scientific views.

They do. And if the advice sometimes lags the latest scientific views, that is because the latest scientific views are not necessarily the consensus scientific views. Most early findings are wrong, constantly following the early findings is a recipe for constantly see-sawing between potentially contradictory poles.

So government advice tends to be small-c conservative. Following the consensus, not the bleeding edge, is prudent.

Guidance on nutrition, for example, can be found in the form of the ‘eatwell plate’ on the NHS Choices website. But nearly 60 per cent of the food recommended—from starchy carbs, milk and dairy to “foods and drinks high in fat and/or sugar”—is unnecessary to health and largely responsible for the current type 2 diabetes and obesity epidemics.

The eatwell plate is designed by dieticians (the trained and regulated health professionals) not nutritionists (who are unregulated and often untrained, and may believe in copromancy). It’s not intended to be the minimum or optimum for health, it’s designed to be an achievable goal that improves on the unhealthy choices that might otherwise be the default.

It is not the be-all and end-all of advice on diet, it is a reasonable, pragmatic guide. And it’s not presented as anything else. There is no real evidence that the composition of the eatwell plate is responsible for the prevalence of diabetes; the small segment for sugary junk is there because people actually like it and want to eat it, so it proposes a maximum that such foods should form as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle.

In other words, you are letting the best (specifically, your narrow vision of “best”) be the enemy of the good.

Yet the industries that make these foods are by far the dominant ones in the food industry, with the ‘Big 10’— Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Danone, Kellogg, Mars, Mondelez International (formerly Kraft Foods), General Mills and Associated British Foods, amidst a sea of 1.5 billion food producers worldwide—controlling around 70 per cent of our food choices.

This packs two fallacies into one: appeal to motives and poisoning the well.  These companies are indeed large and influential, something of which ANH are plainly jealous (see below) but there’s no evidence that their influence guides the health advice produced by the NHS.

It is true that in the matter of promoting abject nonsense in sciencey-sounding language, the likes of Danone acknowledge no master. But since precisely the same rhetoric is used by the supplement industry, as represented by ANH, this is a bit of a pot and kettle situation.

These companies exert their influence in many ways, but lobbying and advertising are two of the most important. They also function under several guises: as themselves through their trade associations; or sometimes via third parties, ranging from celebrities to ‘patient groups’ that supposedly represent the interests of those suffering from a wide range of diseases or conditions like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and cancer.

Bait and switch. They do indeed exert influence, and this is felt in policies. Try to introduce a rule limiting portion sizes of fizzy drinks, and you’ll get an astroturf campaign by return.

But there’s no credible evidence that they use pernicious influence to skew advice given by Alzheimer’s’ patient groups and the like.

The use of celebrity endorsements is of course a staple of the promotion of quackery, too, as we saw with the recent “homeopathy works for me” campaign which aims to use pictures of flowers and butterflies painted onto the bodies of female celebrities, as an alternative to all that tiresome evidence that homeopaths can’t provide.

Most scientists and skeptics would be more than happy to see celebrity endorsement removed from the field of health advice.

There are undoubtedly many behind-closed-doors meetings that few of us ever get to hear about, while the more public interactions are between the large trade associations and both unelected and elected representatives of government—officials and MPs and MEPs, respectively.

Yes, for example the meetings that Prince Charles has had, where he lobbied for alternatives to medicine. And we know that his meetings affected the material published by the NHS, because someone inside the NHS blew the whistle. There’s no evidence that the bogeymen listed above have been doing the same in respect of dietary advice.

One simple rule applies in lobbying: the influence exerted is directly proportional to the size of the company represented. That’s why in the food and natural-health areas, Europe-wide associations like the Association of the European Self-Medication Industry (AESGP), FoodDrinkEurope, the International Life Sciences Institute and Food Supplement Europe, which represent both Big Pharma and Big Food, wield the lion’s share of influence. Smaller associations and groups such as the European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Businesses (UEAPME), ourselves (Alliance for Natural Health Europe) and the European Benefyt Foundation need to work very hard to even be heard.

So ANH are jealous of the influence of larger lobbies and want the same ability to push their agenda. The alternative – reducing lobbying activity – does not seem to be suggested. Why would it be bad for all special interest groups to be excluded, rather than for the special interest groups you like to get a larger slice of the action? This is not explained.

Many who become aware of this reality feel disempowered. But there are two simple things we can do.

First, we can reduce our dependence on products made by these companies. Put simply, that means avoiding processed foods whenever you can. The size and might of these corporations is maintained only if we support them via our wallets.

Fine if you have adequate disposable income. But WDDTY’s core demographic will already be avoiding “processed foods”. Note, though, that “processed food” is a bit like “toxin”, a word that sounds bad and is easy to pin on the things you don’t like, but meaningless in practice. Bread is a “processed food”. Flour is a “processed food”. It’s hard to see how anything other than uncured meat, raw milk and eggs, and fruit, would qualify as being anything other than “processed foods”.

There’s good evidence that processing can be entirely desirable. Pasteurisation of milk is controversial only with extremists. Preservatives mean that meat is much less likely to contain bacteria such as e.coli or salmonella. Obviously these are entirely natural but most people regard them as undesirable nonetheless.

So without needing to write letters to your MP or bearing a placard in an anti-globalization rally, you can make different choices over the way you feed yourself and your loved ones. One of the easiest ways of doing this is to ‘go local’, or choose wisely when you are doing your weekly shop. Try to buy organic fruit and vegetables as much as you can.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but for urban dwellers there is not much in the way of local produce to be had, and evidence of the superiority of organic produce is sadly lacking.

You can subscribe to an organic-box scheme and have your weekly supply of organic fruit, veg and other produce delivered to your door. And for those of a non-vegetarian persuasion, you can buy locally sourced meats at your local butcher.

Or, you know, don’t. If you’re on a limited income you are almost certainly better off buying fresh fruit and vegetables from your local supermarket, than spending the equivalent sum on a reduced quantity of the more expensive organic produce you recommend.

While you may pay a premium for such foods, many find the net cost is no higher mainly because wastage is reduced and the many temptations in supermarket aisles are avoided.

This is simply wishful thinking. Organic produce is more expensive, and organic produce from farmers’ markets is generally more expensive than the equivalent organic produce from supermarkets.

For those yet to experience the pleasure of becoming independent of the Big Ten, you have almost nothing to lose and so much to gain—not least of all, a healthy long life.

Translation: buy produce from our members not their members, it will make you live longer (terms and conditions apply, value of investments may go down as well as up, objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear, we reserve the right to substitute opinion for evidence as we see fit).

What Doctors Don't Tell You
Why don’t doctors tell you that eating organic food will make you live longer?

Because there’s no real evidence it does.

Enhanced by Zemanta

WDDTY on post-traumatic stress

WDDTY search results for PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).

The following list is taken from a search of WDDTY.com and has not yet been filtered or validated. Corrections gratefully received via our contact form.

  1. Don’t sleep on a problem or traumatic experience – it only makes it worse If you have a traumatic experience, don’t sleep on it – it only makes it worse. Instead, stay awake for at least six hou… more » e-news
  2. Shorts … more » Short Takes
  3. Tapping trauma away Thought Field Therapy, the energy medicine that relies on tapping acupoints, is now being used to heal victims of severe… more » Cover Story
  4. Hypnotherapy Historically associated with magic, superstition and witchcraft, hypnosis is now taken seriously as a therapy for a vari… more » Therapy Review
  5. Tapping into healing Promising studies show that correcting our ‘thought field’ also corrects our biochemistry more » Cover Story
  6. The great depression deception Drug companies have made fortunes on the ‘chemical imbalance’ theory and the sale of their SSRIs—but new evidence is sho… more » Cover Story
  7. Stress may cause diseases in later life Many of the diseases we associate with ageing – such as heart disease, cancer, dementia and stroke – may be the result o… more » Cover Story
  8. 20 ways to keep the doctor at bay In celebration of 20 years of What Doctors Don’t Tell You, here’s 20 of our favourite—and lesser known—‘apples’ to keep… more » Cover Story
  9. Music to heal you New research shows that music offers a powerful therapy after stroke, heart disease—and even cancer Sound appears to be… more » Condition

Electrosmog

“The symptoms described by ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’ sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to electromagnetic fields can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’ is unrelated to the presence of electromagnetic fields (systematic review of provocation tests for “electromagnetic hypersensitivity”)

The November 2013 issue of WDDTY has a lengthy advertorial for “electrosmog” products (and some pretty hefty advertising, too, much of which will end up before the ASA).

Unhealthy rays Starting with this issue, we are launching a monthly column on the effects of ‘dirty’ electricity on health and how to protect yourself against it

Paydirt for quacks. A condition that is treated (justly) as psychosomatic, so the quacks can “treat” it by playing along with the delusion and yield the inevitable improvement when the delusional cause is “reduced”.

I can see why that would be a great source of advertising revenue for you. Continue reading Electrosmog