Just a note (yes, another one) on meds

Not to beat a dead horse, but, let’s talk about meds for a minute.

Came across an article that states that commonly used, acid-reducing drugs, have some not so good side-effects, including increased risk of bone fractures and interference with digestive flora. Specifically, “[t]he widely used family of acid-reducing drugs … includ[ing] Prilosec, Nexium and Protonix increases the risk of bone fractures by about 25 percent and can more than double the risk of contracting the troublesome bacterium Clostridium difficile.” Acid-reducing drugs increase risk of bone fractures, Newsday (May 10, 2010). Perhaps even more disturbing is that these drugs “have also been shown to increase the risk of pneumonia.”

(Of course, there is a ridiculous disclaimer in the article. For some reason, the article doesn’t place the blame directly on the drugs, but instead, the blame goes to what the drugs do. “The increased risk is not thought to be caused by the drugs themselves, but by the sharply reduced levels of acid in the stomach and intestinal tract, which make the organs a more hospitable environment for infectious agents like C. difficile and which can impair the uptake of the calcium required for strong bones.”

That’s like saying the bullet doesn’t hurt you: it’s the hole in your body left by the bullet that allows the blood to escape…)

Anyway, here’s the point of my bringing this all up. Whenever you mess around with the body, and try to fix one particular issue with any type of powerful medication, inevitably, you mess up other areas. Everything is connected, and time and again, we miss the side-effects of medications with respect to the amazing systems and overall functioning of our bodies and all the intricate, and complicated, connections between such systems and functions. Hence, the push for more holistic, natural approaches.

Now, think about this in the context of the unbelievably potent, psychotropic drugs used on our children in connection with the treatment of such disorders as ADHD. Remember, these drugs are used even though no one is completely sure what causes such disorders, and no one is completed sure how such drugs actually work!

We’re dealing with a developing, human brain here, and the drugs are supposed to be affecting very specific chemicals in our brains. If we can’t get heartburn and our stomachs right....

And they worry about vitamins . . .

There has been a movement afoot by the medical and pharmaceutical industries calling for the strict regulation of the manufacture and sale of vitamins and supplements. The justification offered by the med/pharm industries is that consumers should be assured that what is on the label of such vitamins and supplements is exactly what is in such vitamins and supplements -- nothing more and nothing less. In addition, the med\pharm industry wants to make sure that any health claims on the vitamin and supplement labels are true. And, finally, there is always med\pharm talk about the safety of such vitamins and supplements.

Now, I agree. Vitamins and supplements, like every other product on the market, should be safe, contain what they purport to contain, and do what they purport to do. That's just decency, honesty, and common sense. Likewise, I am sure that in the vitamin and supplement industry, some manufacturers are good, honest companies selling good, honest products, while some companies may not be quite so good or quite so honest -- just like every other industry on this planet. For the most part, whenever we make a purchase, the best we can do is do our research, check reputations, lay our money down and hope that we get that for which we have paid.

But, I have to ask, what is really prompting the push for such regulations, and exactly how effective would such regulation be anyway?

Regarding the first question, let's, for the moment, assume that the altruistic justifications given by the med/pharm industries are true. Is it possible that something else is motivating such a push? Sure. Money.

If vitamins and supplements became subject to regulation, the testing, studies and manufacture of such vitamins and supplements would become prohibitively expensive. Many companies would be forced out of business -- less competition for the drugs made by the pharmaceutical companies and pushed by the medical industry.

Of the companies that remain, the costs of such vitamins and supplements would skyrocket, thereby becoming less attractive than the alternative med/pharm drugs.

Finally, it may actually become cost effective and/or profitable for the med/pharm industry to get in on the vitamin and supplement market big time. With an infrastructure already steeped in regulation, big advertising dollars, and a worldwide distribution network, it may not cost as much for the pharmaceuticals to produce vitamins and supplements, and with the combination of the government's imprimatur supporting such vitamin and supplement content and effectiveness and the inflated costs of such vitamins and supplements, don't you think that "pharmaceutical grade" vitamins and supplements would be a big hit?

Regarding the second question, exactly how effective would such regulation be? Well, with respect to labeling, I'd like everyone to read "Food Politics" by Marion Nestle. You'll discover how the various lobbies in the food industry work the government, its regulator, and its regulations to the point where you can't really tell what's in the box or its healthiness, despite the label!

And, if you follow this blog, I don't need to point out how many "FDA Approved" medicines hurt and even kill people.

But, even on a more basic level, does regulation keep bad stuff out of medicines? Did anyone catch the Johnson & Johnson major recall of children's and infants' Tylenol, Motrin, Zyrtec and Benadryl? See "Medicines for kids recalled," Newsday at A17 (Sunday, May 2, 2010). Seems that the products were recalled
"in consultation with the FDA after discovering manufacturing deficiencies that could affect the quality, purity or potency of the medicines. The FDA said some of the products many not meet required quality standards.... Some of the products affected by the recall may contain a higher concentration of active ingredient than specified; others contain inactive ingredients that may not meet internal testing requirements; and others may contain tiny particles, the FDA said."

What those "tiny particles" are was not disclosed in the article.

Now, I point this out not only to show that even with regulations, bad stuff can get in, but also note, it apparently was the MANUFACTURER that issued the recall -- NOT the government agency that's supposed to regulate the industry.

Feeling a Bit Philosophical Today

Well, the Boston Marathon is a month away, and I'm deep into the hardest training weeks. I'm following the program pretty closely, but I find myself worrying about my performance.

Truly, not surprising. I can ruin almost anything by worrying about the outcome instead of focusing on the doing. In sports, they call it "choking," and I've done more than my share of that.

So, I'm doing it again. How fast will I run this? Can I break 3 hours (ha, ha, ha)? Did I do enough training? What else can I do before the race? What if it's windy? What should I be eating? Should I get to the gym more? What if I screw this up?

While contemplating this, as well as general life questions -- including taking the Center to the next level, Robert and Katherine's college careers, home renovation plans and the stock market, I found myself wishing that I knew exactly what to do. I wanted to know the future and make the perfect plan.

Then, it hit me.

All of Life is NOT the Outcome -- It's the Process.

I know, I know. You've heard it before. Yes, I've heard it before. Life's a Journey. Enjoy the challenge. It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game (now, I think that does not refer to playing fair -- I think it refers to reveling in the challenge presented and enjoying the experience regardless of the results.)

It's very Zen like.

But, like everything else, you don't actually hear good advice until you're ready to hear that advice.

This simple thought all makes sense, by definition. If you think about "life," it's what we do everyday, from now until ... the outcome (which is the same for everybody . . .). And, what we do is always changing, since our circumstances are continually changing.

We should enjoy it, the change, the movement, the uncertainty, for that is our "life."

I met a gentleman the other day. It was a chance encounter, but we had many interests, beliefs and circumstances in common. I believe we can help each other move forward in this world, although I really don't know if our paths will cross again.

But the encounter gave me hope for, among other things, the plans I have for the future expansion of the Center.

Life's like that, if you keep your eyes open.

I'll be ready for Boston. It'll be what it should be for me -- an extraordinary experience. And, if I surprise myself? All the better.

Fish Oil Affects Your Mental State

Here's a "new" fact that apparently everyone who works in the field of nutrition has known for decades: What you eat not only affects you physically, it also affects you mentally.

"Fish oil pills may be able to save some young people with signs of mental illness from descending into schizophrenia, according to a preliminary but first-of-its-kind study. [Not really -- fish oil's effects on mood and mental state have been addressed before. In particular, fish oil has been found to help with depression and bi-polar]. The Austrian study [of course, not a US study] of 81 patients comes from leaders in the field of youth mental health and adds to evidence suggesting the right intervention might prevent severe mental illness. Though it sounds incredibly simple, fish oil fits one hypothesis for what causes schizophrenia, a possible difference in how the body handles fatty acids." The study's findings appear in February's Archives of General Psychiatry.

For years, we were told that our son's "problems" had absolutely nothing to do with what he was eating. There simply was no connection with the food we ate and our mental health.

Of course, physically, what you ate had a tremendous impact -- your strength, your weight, your physical well-being -- there was never a question about the effect food had on your body from the neck down. But, that all stopped at the top of your neck. Robert's doctors told us, with no reservation whatsoever, that diet and supplements had, and would have, no impact or connection to Robert's mind.

Oh well, guess what? We found out they were all so very wrong so many years ago. Now, the scientific world is catching up to the nutritionists and natural practitioners. (There also was a recent study that addressed the effects of a Mediterranean diet on mood -- I think I discussed that in one of my earlier blogs . . . )

Why is it taking so long? Where's the money in prescribing fish oil? Who is going to spend the money it takes to perform an acceptable study, lobby for its publication, and spread the word?

Never forget, drugs make money. And, just in case you're wondering, here's what the article had to say about drug treatments for schizophrenia:

"About 2.4 million Americans have schizophrenia, a disorder treated with antipsychotic medication. Studies have tried antipsychotics in selected young people, but with troubling side effects. Results have been mixed.

For the new study, researchers identified 81 people, ages 13 to 25, with warning signs of psychosis. The people in the study had sought professional help and most were referred by psychiatrists at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

Researchers randomly assigned 41 of the patients to take four fish oil pills a day for three months. The daily dose of 1,200 milligrams was about what many people take to get the protective benefits of fish oil for the heart and costs less than 40 cents a day. The rest of the patients received dummy pills.

After one year of monitoring, 2 of 41 patients in the fish oil group, about 5 percent, had become psychotic, completely out of touch with reality. In the placebo group, 11 of 40, about 28 percent, became psychotic."

Probiotics -- Do Doctors Get It?

Tina, my wife and the Spark Nutrition counselor, is working with a parent whose child has noticeable issues. Let's call this child, "Mary." Part of the regiment she recommended for Mary includes the use of a daily probiotic.

Why would Tina recommend such a thing? Well, first of all, Mary has stomach issues. The probiotic would help with stomach issues.

Also, Mary is prone to colds. Recent research has demonstrated that individuals taking probiotics actually are less prone to colds and flu, and, should they get a cold or flu, their symptoms are less severe and they recover faster.

For these two reasons, alone, the probiotics are important and useful. This is why the addition of probiotics to manufactured food has become such a big selling point.

Finally, there is research connecting possible gut issues, immune system deficiences, and issues ranging anywhere from ADD to ASD. Probiotics are used nearly universally by those treating these disorders through, among other things, diet and nutrition interventions.

But, Mary recently stopped taking probiotics.

Was it because the parent saw no benefit? No.

Was it because Mary had a bad reaction to the probiotic? No.

Was it because there was some issue in the administration of the probiotic? No.

Why? Because Mary's parent was told by the pediatrician that Mary's "red blood count was normal," and therefore Mary "didn't need a probiotic."

What does the red blood count have to do with probitics? Hell if we know. Any consideration of the other reasons a probiotic was suggested? Can't imagine there was. Why tell parents to stop giving their child something that couldn't hurt them and could, and probably was, helping? Can only guess that it was because it wasn't a doctor prescribed "medicine."

We try to help, but how do you overcome the socialization that makes people listen to whatever a doctor says, even if the doctor is discussing a subject about which he has no idea?

Autism and Diet -- Expert Panel Calls for Further Research

Don't be misled. I came across an article of some importance to those with children with ASD. However, the title of this article, as well as the opening paragraph, are extremely misleading and discouraging. It should be just the opposite.

I am referring to "Evidence lacking for special diets in autism," by Carlak Johnson of The Associated Press.

Mr Johnson reports that, "[a]n expert panel says there's no rigorous evidence that digestive problems are more common in children with autism compared to other children, or that special diets work, contrary to claims by celebrities and vaccine naysayers."

While this is technically a true reading of the panel's report published in the January issue of Pediatrics, the title of the article and the manner in which it is written, paint a very distorted view of the diets that many parents and professionals have found to help children with ASD, the connection between digestive issues and autism, and of course, those who employ such diets and believe there is a connection.

In truth, the article should have been entitled, "Experts call for more research concerning diet and autism."

The first paragraph should have read, "An expert panel has found that more research is needed to determine whether digestive problems are more common in children with autism. The panel also called for more research concerning the effectiveness of special diets now employed by the many concerned parents and professionals who work with children with ASD."

I mean, really, what message is Mr. Johnson trying to send when he compares "an expert panel" that "says there's no rigorous evidence" to the "claims by celebrities and vaccine naysayers"?

And, isn't it odd the way the second part of that sentence reads? It sounds like it says that the panel determined that "special diets" don't work. But, what it really says is that "celebrities and vaccine naysayers" belief that there is "rigorous evidence" supporting the use of special diets is incorrect.

Note the difference: the expert panel never, ever said that special diets don't work. It only said that there is a lack of "rigorous evidence" concerning the effectiveness of such diets, and the panel called for more research on this issue!

Words really do matter.

In fact, a careful reading of the actual report paints a very different picture. In a nutshell, the panel recognizes that (i) ASD children do suffer from gastrointestinal issues - some studies noting the prevalence of such issues to be as high as "70% or higher" in that population; (ii) there is evidence that these children have a more prevalent occurrence of food sensitivities and food allergies; and (iii) it is very important that these issues be treated since they may be the cause of many of the behavioral problems these children exhibit. The reason the study was undertaken in the first place was to determine whether there was an "evidence-based" diagnostic and treatment regime for gastrointestinal problems presented by ASD children!

And, while not finding well-structured studies that demonstrate that special diets help these children, the panel acknowledged the anecdotal evidence supporting such diets and called for more research in this area.

Specifically, the report found the following pertinent points:

1. The panel acknowledged that more research is needed on the prevalence of gastrointestinal issues and ASD: "The prevalence of gastrointestinal abnormalities in individuals with ASDs is incompletely understood" with "the reported prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in children with ASDs has ranged from 9% to 70% or higher." Furthermore, while "[m]ost of these studies had 1 or more methodologic limitations . . . the preponderance of data were consistent with the likelihood of a high prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders associated with ASDs."

2. A specific gastrointestinal issue, i.e., "autistic enterocolitis" has not been indisputably established. The report does not state that "autistic enterocolitis" does not exist. Instead, it merely states that the study that "suggested" its existence is flawed, and therefore, in the panel's opinion, the existence of "autistic enterocolitis" has not been established.

3. At least one study found that 43% of children with ASDs have a problem with "altered intestinal permeability." However, the panel believes the "[e]vidence for abnormal gastrointestinal permeability in individuals with ASDs is limited," and that "[p]rospective studies should be performed to determine the role of abnormal permeability in neuropsychiatric manifestations of ASDs."

4. Nutritional deficiencies are presented by ASD children. "Nutritional deficiencies have been reported in patients with ASDs, which is not surprising because of the narrow food preferences of many affected individuals and/or purported therapeutic diets that might be nutritionally inadequate. In a study of 36 children with ASDs, regardless of unrestricted or restricted diet, essential amino acid deficiencies consistent with poor protein nutrition occurred more frequently than in age- and gender-matched controls."

5. There is evidence that at least some ASD children do respond to dietary interventions. However, the panel believes that more data is needed before dietary modifications can be routinely recommended. "Anecdotal reports have suggested that there may be a subgroup of individuals with ASDs who respond to dietary intervention. Additional data are needed before pediatricians and other professionals can recommend specific dietary modifications. Dietary modifications such as removal of milk for symptoms of lactose intolerance may be approached empirically, as with any other pediatric patient with consistent symptoms. The data on the value of specific diets being effective in the treatment of individuals with ASDs are difficult to assess. Many dietary modifications are believed to have a beneficial outcome, although placebo effects are likely to be high in this setting. The few studies in the literature are difficult to interpret without adequate control groups.

"Many parents and care providers have observed and reported improvements in problem behaviors with nutritional or medical interventions. Some of these therapies are based on purely observational reports; many are based on studies that may have reached erroneous conclusions because of recruitment bias, lack of validated or standardized outcomes, or inadequate controls. . . . Anecdotal reports that restricted diets may ameliorate symptoms of ASDs in some children have not been supported or refuted in the scientific literature, but these data do not address the possibility that there exists a subgroup of individuals who may respond to such diets."

6. While not endorsing a "gluten-free" or "casein-free" ("GFCF") diet, the panel does recognize that in at least one study, parents of ASD children who undertook these special diets "reported positive subjective clinical changes while their child was on the GFCF diet." Moreover, the panel does not explicitly discourage the use of such diets.

"Few studies have examined the effects of a casein-free diet, a gluten-free diet, or combined GFCF diet on the behavior of individuals with ASDs. To our knowledge, only 1 double-blind placebo controlled study has been published to date. In this double-blind crossover trial of GFCF or typical diet in 15 children with ASDs, there were no differences in measures of severity of ASD symptoms, communication, social responsiveness, and urinary peptide levels after 12 weeks. Nevertheless, after being informed of the results, 9 parents wanted to continue the diet and reported positive subjective clinical changes while their child was on the GFCF diet. . . . Parents need information to help plan a balanced diet within the restrictions imposed by the chosen diet. Given the real hardships associated with implementation of a strict GFCF diet, additional studies are needed to assess risk factors and possible markers that identify individuals who might benefit from these diets."

7. The panel recognized that immune problems have been reported in ASD children, and that research exists that suggest such problems may impact neurodevelopment. However, the panel notes that a direct relationship between immune dysfunction and ASD needs to be proven.

"There has been research to suggest that immune responses can influence neurodevelopment and that significant immunologic alterations may play a key pathogenic role in some individuals with ASDs. We are now able to accurately define immune status in individuals with ASDs. Well-defined studies are needed using larger sample sets and age- and geographically matched controls, with extensive immune analysis, to determine the precise relationship of immune dysfunction to clinical symptoms."

8. Moreover, there are preliminary findings that suggest a relationship between gastrointestinal inflammation and gastrointestinal symptoms associated with ASDs. Additional investigation into such a relationship is needed. "A few studies have suggested a relationship between gastrointestinal inflammation and gastrointestinal symptoms associated with ASDs. The gastrointestinal tract is the largest immune organ in the body, containing up to 80% of Ig-producing cells in the body. . . . These studies suggest an underlying chronic inflammatory process in some individuals with ASDs and co-occurring gastrointestinal disturbances. . . . These findings should be considered preliminary and will require confirmation."

9. Gut flora, health and disease are significantly related. Additional research concerning the relationship between gut flora and ASDs must be performed. "The microbiological ecosystem of the gut is complex and poorly understood but likely plays a significant role in both health and disease. Few researchers, however, have attempted to critically examine the relationship of gut microflora to ASDs. Future studies will require molecular approaches aimed at identification and quantification of microbial species. If an association is identified, it may lead to novel treatment trials."

In summary, the panel noted, [a]ccrual of new knowledge will advance our approach to the management of ASDs and co-occurring medical conditions. Recognition that problem behaviors might indicate an underlying medical condition will facilitate diagnosis and treatment and ultimately improve the quality of life for many persons with ASDs. This expert panel has addressed considerations in the diagnostic evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms in individuals with ASDs that may lead to effective treatment options, with the hope that patients will have better access to enlightened care."

"Enlightened care." I like the sound of that.

More "Good" News About Cell Phones . . .

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the problems with electromagnetic radiation (like that generated by high voltage towers, cell phones and microwave ovens) at some point in these blogs. Seems that there is research that demonstrates that electromagnetic radiation ("EMR") makes the blood brain barrier more permeable than it was meant to be. While none of these studies talked about autism, one must remember the theory that toxins that enter the brain may have some relationship to autism spectrum disorder. It's not too much of a stretch to think that if the blood brain barrier has been compromised, potential substances and/or toxins that might never have reached the brain are now getting in and causing damage.

Recently, there was a study out of Europe that found that constant exposure to cell phones adversely affects bone density.

Now, the state of Maine is considering requiring that cell phones carry warnings that they might cause brain cancer. In an article entitled Maine to consider cell phone cancer warning, Glenn Adams reports that

"A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer. . . .

The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no U.S. states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco. . . .

Maine Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, said numerous studies point to the cancer risk, and she has persuaded legislative leaders to allow her proposal to come up for discussion during the 2010 session that begins in January, a session usually reserved for emergency and governors' bills. . . .

While there's been no long-term studies on cell phones and cancer, some scientists suggest erring on the side of caution.

Last year, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, sent a memo to about 3,000 faculty and staff members warning of risks based on early, unpublished data [what did this research say, and why is it unpublished??]. He said that children should use the phones only for emergencies because their brains were still developing and that adults should keep the phone away from the head and use a speakerphone or a wireless headset.

Herberman, who says scientific conclusions often take too long, is one of numerous doctors and researchers who have endorsed an August report by retired electronics engineer L. Lloyd Morgan. The report highlights a study that found significantly increased risk of brain tumors from 10 or more years of cell phone or cordless phone use.

Also, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, notes that many countries have issued warnings and that the European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for governmental action to address concerns over health risks from mobile phone use.

But the National Cancer Institute said studies thus far have turned up mixed and inconsistent results [which obviously means that some studies do show that cell phones cause harm], noting that cell phones did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s.

'Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer [again, by definition, that means that some research HAS shown a link between cellular telephone use and cancer], scientists still caution that further surveillance is needed before conclusions can be drawn,' according to the Cancer Institute's Web site."

This is pretty scary stuff. There is obviously research that shows a link between cell phones/cordless phones and cancer -- by the way, why haven't we heard about any of this? -- and even the scientist and researchers are worried.

And, we wonder why so many children are diagnosed with ASD today. It's not just the diagnostic criteria. We, as a society, have created this problem over the past three decades. It's the way we eat, what we eat, the chemicals, pesticides and toxins to which we expose ourselves. It's the way we live and raise our children.

Isn't it obvious? We really need to put our children's development, safety, and happiness before convenience, efficacy and economics.