THE FIRST BATH TUB
Adam Thompson, of Cincinnati, is credited with having the first bathtub known in America. During a business trip to England he was introduced to the English way of bathing. On his return to America in 1842 he decided to make a bathtub big enough to contain his entire body, and to be filled by a tank instead of by hand. He built a tank in the attic of his home, pumping water into it from the family pump. Pipes for hot and cold water led to the bathtub, the one for hot water coiled within the length of the chimney, through which hot air and smoke from the kitchen range passed.
The tub was seven feet. long and four feet wide and deep enough to hold the plumpest of persons. It was built of mahogany and lined with sheet lead. On the first Christmas Day after installation of the tub, Mr. Thompson gave a bathtub party, all the men present trying out the wonderful invention. This party was featured in many of the newspapers and created a sensation.
Members of the medical profession fought the idea with warnings that the practice was dangerous to the health, and state and city governing bodies passed laws prohibiting and discouraging the use of bathtubs. The state of Virginia passed a law taxing owners of bathtubs $30 a year. In Boston a law was passed which was in effort from 1845 to 1862, forbidding one to take a bath except on advice of a physician. The cities of Providence, Hartford, and Wilmington put a high water tax on buildings that contained bathtubs, and in Philadelphia a law was proposed making it unlawful to bath between November 1 and March15. This failed of passage by a margin of two votes.
Bread - to heal, to sustain, to share, to prosper for freedom and abundance.
What do you think of when you hear "bread"? Baked goods, money, Jesus' body, manna?
There are probably other images that word brings up for some. For me, these images express freedom, abundance and healing - its about producing and preserving life. Which is what my manna (or glyconutrionals) is all about.
See more at www.mannapages.com/matrix
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Monday, November 22, 2004
Irresistible Brussels Sprouts - Really
By Dana Carpender, Columnist
Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Autumn is leaf season, deer season, Halloween season, and Brussels sprouts season. Unfortunately, Brussels sprouts aren't thought of quite as fondly as the other three. I, too, once disliked Brussels sprouts, but have come to love them.
Like all of the cabbage family, Brussels sprouts are moderately low-carb and highly nutritious. A half-cup of Brussels sprouts contains 7 grams of carbohydrate with 2 grams of fiber, for a usable carb count of 5 grams. They also have 2 grams of protein - not a lot, but a decent amount for a green vegetable. They're a good source of potassium (247 milligrams) and vitamin A (561 International Units). They have respectable amounts of vitamin C and folate, too. Plus current research suggests vegetables in the cabbage group offer protection against certain forms of cancer - a nice plus.
I didn't even try Brussels sprouts until I was grown up; they weren't anything my mom served when I was a kid. I actually expected to like them. I figured that I liked cabbage, and Brussels sprouts were just "Barbie cabbages." I don't know if I got a bad batch, or cooked them wrong (if I recall correctly, I steamed them and served them with butter and salt), but they were disappointingly bitter. I didn't try Brussels sprouts again for years.
Then we went to visit our dear friends John and Judy Horwitz. They were preparing dinner when we got ," we replied. "You will!" they said, cheerily. And to our great surprise, they were right. We scarfed down the Brussels sprouts, and were sorry when they were gone!
How were they cooked? The Horwitzes responded: Just heat an inch or so of olive oil in a heavy-bottomed kettle or skillet, add a couple of pounds of fresh Brussels sprouts, stems trimmed, and "burn the heck out of them." Yep, fry them till they're dark brown all over. At the last moment, stir in four or five crushed cloves of garlic. Lift sprouts out with a slotted spoon, drain well, salt lightly, and prepare to be amazed! Every time I serve these at dinner parties, they draw raves - especially from people who were sure they didn't like Brussels sprouts! This is enough for six to eight people. Since the oil adds no carbs, the count remains the same as above.
Another great thing to do with these little bitty cabbages is to run them through the slicing blade of your food processor. The result seems like a whole new vegetable. I like to saute this "Brussels chiffonade" in butter, which yields a particularly sweet and nutty result. You can season it in various ways; my favorite recipe follows. My husband took a bite of these Orange Pecan Sprouts, pointed to his plate, and said, "You could make these again!"
ORANGE PECAN SPROUTS
From "15 Minute Low-Carb Recipes" (Fair Winds Press, 256 pages, $17.95) .
MAKES FOUR SERVINGS
1 pound Brussels sprouts
1/3 cup chopped pecans
3 tablespoons butter
3 tablespoons orange juice
1 teaspoon grated orange zest
Trim the stems of your Brussels sprouts, and remove any wilted outer leaves. Then run them through the slicing blade of your food processor.
In a large, heavy skillet over medium-high heat, start sauteing the pecans in the butter. After about 2 minutes, add the sliced Brussels sprouts, and saute the two together, stirring every few minutes, until the sprouts soften and have a few brown spots.
While they're sauteing, you can grate your orange zest, then squeeze your orange juice. (You can use bottled orange juice, but since you need the zest, too, fresh just makes sense.) When the sprouts are tender and flecked with brown, stir in the juice and zest, cook for just another minute, and serve.
Each serving has 12 grams of carbohydrate and 5 grams of fiber, for a usable carb count of 7 grams per serving, plus 4 grams of protein.
----
Dana Carpender is the author of "15-Minute Low-Carb Recipes" and "The Low-Carb Barbecue Book," and the editor of the biweekly online newsletter "Lowcarbezine!" You can contact her online at www.holdthetoast.com.
(C) 2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer. via ProQuest Information and Learning Company; All Rights Reserved
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Fat is good for your health
Healthy fats and oils. Your body needs fat.
This article at this link shows the health benefits of good fats. http://www.fatsforhealth.com/introduction/about.php
Don't Be Afraid of a Little Fat
Fat intake has become an obsession in this country; every day, it seems as if a new fat-free product hits the market, or an existing product is modified so that it has less fat than before. But some fat intake isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, a recent study shows that specific amounts of some fats appear to improve the absorption of nutrients into the bloodstream, which may help reduce the risk of certain diseases.
Researchers in Iowa studied a group of young men and women between the ages of 19 and 28 who ate salads topped with a dressing that contained 0, 6, or 28 grams of canola oil, respectively. Blood samples were taken hourly for up to 12 hours after each meal. Results showed that when the study participants consumed salads with the fat-free dressings, they absorbed virtually no beta-carotene, a powerful antioxidant. However, when they consumed salads with reduced-fat or full-fat dressings, they had higher absorption rates of beta-carotene, alpha-carotene and lycopene, all of which help fight conditions such as heart disease and cancer.
The lesson here? Some fat might not be as bad as you think; in fact, consumed in moderation, it may actually be good for you. Look for salad dressings and other foods that derive their fat content from olive oil or canola oil, both of which are high in monounsaturated fat. And if you insist on fat-free dressings, mix a few slices of avocado or cheese in your salad to help absorb nutrients.
References: Brown MJ, Ferruzzi MG, Nguyen ML, et al. Carotenoid bioavailability is higher from salads ingested with full-fat than with fat-reduced salad dressings as measured with electrochemical detection. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition August 2004;80(2):396-403.
Healthy fats and oils. Your body needs fat.
This article at this link shows the health benefits of good fats. http://www.fatsforhealth.com/introduction/about.php
Don't Be Afraid of a Little Fat
Fat intake has become an obsession in this country; every day, it seems as if a new fat-free product hits the market, or an existing product is modified so that it has less fat than before. But some fat intake isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, a recent study shows that specific amounts of some fats appear to improve the absorption of nutrients into the bloodstream, which may help reduce the risk of certain diseases.
Researchers in Iowa studied a group of young men and women between the ages of 19 and 28 who ate salads topped with a dressing that contained 0, 6, or 28 grams of canola oil, respectively. Blood samples were taken hourly for up to 12 hours after each meal. Results showed that when the study participants consumed salads with the fat-free dressings, they absorbed virtually no beta-carotene, a powerful antioxidant. However, when they consumed salads with reduced-fat or full-fat dressings, they had higher absorption rates of beta-carotene, alpha-carotene and lycopene, all of which help fight conditions such as heart disease and cancer.
The lesson here? Some fat might not be as bad as you think; in fact, consumed in moderation, it may actually be good for you. Look for salad dressings and other foods that derive their fat content from olive oil or canola oil, both of which are high in monounsaturated fat. And if you insist on fat-free dressings, mix a few slices of avocado or cheese in your salad to help absorb nutrients.
References: Brown MJ, Ferruzzi MG, Nguyen ML, et al. Carotenoid bioavailability is higher from salads ingested with full-fat than with fat-reduced salad dressings as measured with electrochemical detection. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition August 2004;80(2):396-403.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
I Can't Afford Good Nutrition
If you think you can't afford good nutrition, think again! The truth is, you can't afford to be without good nutritional supplements. Most people are already spending at least 15 cents an hour, 24 hours a day (15 cents x 24 hours x 28 days = $100.80 every month) to insure their car and/or their house, which are replaceable. Don't you think that investing 15 cents an hour ($3.60 a day) into your personal health and longevity is immeasurably more important? Aren't you worth at least that much? Isn't everyone's health worth that much?
Many people have substituted good nutrition for drugs because their medical insurance covers the cost of going to the doctor and a percentage of the prescription drugs and nutrition isn't covered. Unfortunately, medical insurance doesn't cover the time and productivity lost at work and they don't reimburse you for your pain and suffering. To top it all off, the prescription drugs often have severe side effects that can cause temporary and, in some cases, permanent problems that are worse than the original symptoms! Did you know that more than 100,000 people each year die as a result of taking properly prescribed medications?
This statistic is according to a recent article appearing in The Journal of American Medical Association. The author, Bruce Pomeranz, M.D., Ph.D., reviewed 39 different studies of adverse drug reactions in hospitals, and came up with some alarming conclusions. According to Pomeranz's research, he estimates that 2,216,000 hospital patients experienced serious adverse drug reactions (side effects) and 106,000 died from these reactions in 1994 alone. This astounding number accounted for 4.6% of all recorded deaths in the U.S. in that year. This makes drug reaction deaths the fourth leading cause of death in the country.
According to the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health, "90% of health problems can be dealt with at home, bypassing the cost of a visit to the doctor." A healthy diet with glyconutritional and phytochemical supplements can go a long way to ensure that you never get sick to begin with. Not only do you avoid the pain and suffering, you also avoid the risks of having adverse reactions to drugs!
Let's analyze what your health already costs you. First, most of us have to pay for our health insurance in one form or another. For those living in the United States, we typically pay a reduced rate through our employer. When you see a doctor, you pay a fee for the office visit plus a percentage or "co-pay" for the drugs the doctor prescribes. A single visit to the doctor can end up costing you more than $100 after you include the costs of the office visit and prescriptions. Suppose you make $10.00 an hour working and as a result of being sick, you miss 3 days of work. If you were working 8 hours per day, you would have just lost another $240. So the total cost of getting sick for only a few days could easily cost you more than $300, not to mention the loss in productivity for you or your employer! Imagine how much this could cost you if you had a long-term sickness - the costs can be unbearable!
What if improving your health increased your life span by just one year? What is that worth to you? At least one year's income! What if you lived 10-20 years longer? What is that worth to you? It's very easy to quantify the costs of good nutrition, but it's much more difficult to quantify the benefits of being healthy. None of us know how long we have to live or what diseases we may be preventing by making choices that will benefit our overall health.
Many people waste $3-5 a day on just drinks and snacks. Eliminate or reduce the harmful "foods" that are especially DANGEROUS, such as sodas, chips, candy, pastries, (sugar is more harmful than smoking), snacks, fried foods, packaged breakfast cereals, etc. Anything that has been processed robs your health. Rather than waste your money on these kinds of food, why not invest your money in better health? The little investment you make now could end up saving you hundreds if not thousands of dollars down the road!
I have found in my travels, that it is NOT the fact that someone can't afford WELLNESS, it's really about priorities in their life. People seem to find ways to purchase the things they really want.
You really can't afford not to invest in yourself....REMEMBER the saying:
"PAY ME NOW - OR PAY ME LATER"! It even works in Healthcare.
If you think you can't afford good nutrition, think again! The truth is, you can't afford to be without good nutritional supplements. Most people are already spending at least 15 cents an hour, 24 hours a day (15 cents x 24 hours x 28 days = $100.80 every month) to insure their car and/or their house, which are replaceable. Don't you think that investing 15 cents an hour ($3.60 a day) into your personal health and longevity is immeasurably more important? Aren't you worth at least that much? Isn't everyone's health worth that much?
Many people have substituted good nutrition for drugs because their medical insurance covers the cost of going to the doctor and a percentage of the prescription drugs and nutrition isn't covered. Unfortunately, medical insurance doesn't cover the time and productivity lost at work and they don't reimburse you for your pain and suffering. To top it all off, the prescription drugs often have severe side effects that can cause temporary and, in some cases, permanent problems that are worse than the original symptoms! Did you know that more than 100,000 people each year die as a result of taking properly prescribed medications?
This statistic is according to a recent article appearing in The Journal of American Medical Association. The author, Bruce Pomeranz, M.D., Ph.D., reviewed 39 different studies of adverse drug reactions in hospitals, and came up with some alarming conclusions. According to Pomeranz's research, he estimates that 2,216,000 hospital patients experienced serious adverse drug reactions (side effects) and 106,000 died from these reactions in 1994 alone. This astounding number accounted for 4.6% of all recorded deaths in the U.S. in that year. This makes drug reaction deaths the fourth leading cause of death in the country.
According to the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health, "90% of health problems can be dealt with at home, bypassing the cost of a visit to the doctor." A healthy diet with glyconutritional and phytochemical supplements can go a long way to ensure that you never get sick to begin with. Not only do you avoid the pain and suffering, you also avoid the risks of having adverse reactions to drugs!
Let's analyze what your health already costs you. First, most of us have to pay for our health insurance in one form or another. For those living in the United States, we typically pay a reduced rate through our employer. When you see a doctor, you pay a fee for the office visit plus a percentage or "co-pay" for the drugs the doctor prescribes. A single visit to the doctor can end up costing you more than $100 after you include the costs of the office visit and prescriptions. Suppose you make $10.00 an hour working and as a result of being sick, you miss 3 days of work. If you were working 8 hours per day, you would have just lost another $240. So the total cost of getting sick for only a few days could easily cost you more than $300, not to mention the loss in productivity for you or your employer! Imagine how much this could cost you if you had a long-term sickness - the costs can be unbearable!
What if improving your health increased your life span by just one year? What is that worth to you? At least one year's income! What if you lived 10-20 years longer? What is that worth to you? It's very easy to quantify the costs of good nutrition, but it's much more difficult to quantify the benefits of being healthy. None of us know how long we have to live or what diseases we may be preventing by making choices that will benefit our overall health.
Many people waste $3-5 a day on just drinks and snacks. Eliminate or reduce the harmful "foods" that are especially DANGEROUS, such as sodas, chips, candy, pastries, (sugar is more harmful than smoking), snacks, fried foods, packaged breakfast cereals, etc. Anything that has been processed robs your health. Rather than waste your money on these kinds of food, why not invest your money in better health? The little investment you make now could end up saving you hundreds if not thousands of dollars down the road!
I have found in my travels, that it is NOT the fact that someone can't afford WELLNESS, it's really about priorities in their life. People seem to find ways to purchase the things they really want.
You really can't afford not to invest in yourself....REMEMBER the saying:
"PAY ME NOW - OR PAY ME LATER"! It even works in Healthcare.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Cookies. Most everyone loves cookies.
But they are fast burning and create more fat than slow-burning foods.
Slow burning foods have a low glycemic rating (a low insulin response). See what glycemic indexing is at www.glycemicinstitute.com. Making healthy choices of low glycemic carbs is better than no carbs. You still need your fruits and vegetables and they count as carbs, but there are health issues to eliminating them from your diet. This is important information for diebetics as well.
You can get a weight management program that considers the glycemic indexing of foods at www.mannapages.com/matrix
Search for GlycoLean - order online.
Health Tip: A Slow Burn
Source: HealthDay (HealthDayNews)
-- Before you pop that cookie in your mouth, take a moment to consider how long it will take to burn off those extra calories.
If you eat two cookies -- about 150 calories -- and you weigh about 140 pounds, you'll have to walk more than an hour at a pace of 2 miles an hour to burn off those cookies, according to the Mayo Clinic.
Speed up the pace to 3.5 mph, and you'll still have to walk for 45 minutes.
By comparison, eating a 40-calorie peach will take just 10 minutes of brisk walking to work off.
Copyright © 2004 ScoutNews LLC. All rights reserved.
But they are fast burning and create more fat than slow-burning foods.
Slow burning foods have a low glycemic rating (a low insulin response). See what glycemic indexing is at www.glycemicinstitute.com. Making healthy choices of low glycemic carbs is better than no carbs. You still need your fruits and vegetables and they count as carbs, but there are health issues to eliminating them from your diet. This is important information for diebetics as well.
You can get a weight management program that considers the glycemic indexing of foods at www.mannapages.com/matrix
Search for GlycoLean - order online.
Health Tip: A Slow Burn
Source: HealthDay (HealthDayNews)
-- Before you pop that cookie in your mouth, take a moment to consider how long it will take to burn off those extra calories.
If you eat two cookies -- about 150 calories -- and you weigh about 140 pounds, you'll have to walk more than an hour at a pace of 2 miles an hour to burn off those cookies, according to the Mayo Clinic.
Speed up the pace to 3.5 mph, and you'll still have to walk for 45 minutes.
By comparison, eating a 40-calorie peach will take just 10 minutes of brisk walking to work off.
Copyright © 2004 ScoutNews LLC. All rights reserved.
Fewer Fruits, Veggies Eaten Out
Source: United Press International SAINT LOUIS, Mo.
(United Press International via COMTEX)
-- Families who frequently dine out are less likely to eat enough fruits and vegetables, St. Louis University researchers have found.
"The more often parents eat out, the lower their intake of fruits and vegetables," Amanda Harrod, a researcher at Saint Louis University School of Public Health, said at the American Public Health Association conference this week.
Harrod studied young families in southeastern Missouri and found 73 percent of the parents don't consume five or more fruits and vegetables each day, the amount recommended to combat heart disease and cancer.
Parents who frequently eat out are also less likely to have fruits and vegetables available at home because, they say, the foods don't taste good.
The research, funded by the National Cancer Institute for Parents as Teachers National Center Inc., concluded public health officials need to consider what families are eating at restaurants if they're going to find ways to improve families' diets.
Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
We need about a dozen servings of fruits and vegetables to be in the low risk group for cancer. (thats not the 'no risk' group - that's the 'low risk' group). Carciforous vegetables are the best for cancer fighting properties. Get your vegetables in a natural supplement. www.mannapages.com/matrix See 'order' and 'search' Phytonutrients (Phytaloe).
Source: United Press International SAINT LOUIS, Mo.
(United Press International via COMTEX)
-- Families who frequently dine out are less likely to eat enough fruits and vegetables, St. Louis University researchers have found.
"The more often parents eat out, the lower their intake of fruits and vegetables," Amanda Harrod, a researcher at Saint Louis University School of Public Health, said at the American Public Health Association conference this week.
Harrod studied young families in southeastern Missouri and found 73 percent of the parents don't consume five or more fruits and vegetables each day, the amount recommended to combat heart disease and cancer.
Parents who frequently eat out are also less likely to have fruits and vegetables available at home because, they say, the foods don't taste good.
The research, funded by the National Cancer Institute for Parents as Teachers National Center Inc., concluded public health officials need to consider what families are eating at restaurants if they're going to find ways to improve families' diets.
Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
We need about a dozen servings of fruits and vegetables to be in the low risk group for cancer. (thats not the 'no risk' group - that's the 'low risk' group). Carciforous vegetables are the best for cancer fighting properties. Get your vegetables in a natural supplement. www.mannapages.com/matrix See 'order' and 'search' Phytonutrients (Phytaloe).
Friday, November 12, 2004
Recommended Water Intake
Here is the recommended amounts of water you should be drinking. After several years of hydration studies, which included the optimum amount of water to ingest and the schedule for ingestion, a specific protocol was developed to optimize the effects of the Wellness Filter® water. Water temperature (iced versus room temperature) was left to individual taste. This protocol is a simple four (4) step program. It is summarized as follows:
Drink approximately 10 to 12 ounces of freshly prepared water immediately upon rising.
Drink 10 to 12 ounces approximately thirty (30) minutes before each meal and use the water sparingly with the meal.
Drink 2 to 3 ten-ounce glasses between meals.
Drink one 10 ounce glass approximately 2 hours after the last meal of the day.
Here is the recommended amounts of water you should be drinking. After several years of hydration studies, which included the optimum amount of water to ingest and the schedule for ingestion, a specific protocol was developed to optimize the effects of the Wellness Filter® water. Water temperature (iced versus room temperature) was left to individual taste. This protocol is a simple four (4) step program. It is summarized as follows:
Drink approximately 10 to 12 ounces of freshly prepared water immediately upon rising.
Drink 10 to 12 ounces approximately thirty (30) minutes before each meal and use the water sparingly with the meal.
Drink 2 to 3 ten-ounce glasses between meals.
Drink one 10 ounce glass approximately 2 hours after the last meal of the day.
Melatonin Helps Asthmatics Sleep More Soundly
TUESDAY, Nov. 2, 2002 (HealthDayNews) -- Treatment with melatonin -- a hormone believed to play an important role in the sleep cycle -- improves slumber for people with asthma, says a Brazilian study in the November issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
The study authors, led by Dr. Pedro F. C. de Bruin, of the Department of Medicine at Universidade Federal do Cear in Fortaleza, found improved sleep quality in the treated women as measured with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. They noted, however, that even when asthma is well-controlled, drugs such as oral steroids used to control the disease can disrupt sleep.The study included 22 women with mild to moderate asthma.
They were divided into two groups. One group of 12 took melatonin, a hormone secreted by the human pineal gland, for four weeks while the other group of 10 took a placebo.
The women in the melatonin group had greatly improved sleep quality, compared to the women who took the placebo. Neither group showed changes in asthma symptoms, daily peak expiratory flow rate, or in their use of asthma medication.
There were no adverse effects reported by the women who took melatonin, the study authors said. But the researchers concluded that, while melatonin can improve the sleep of asthmatics, further studies looking at long-term effects of using the hormone were needed before they could safely recommend its use for all asthmatics.
More information
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has more about asthma http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/faqs.htm
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2004/11/02/hscout522021.html
Melatonin is the main ingredient in Mannatech’s Mannatonin. It’s a great product for anyone who has trouble sleeping through the night. Our immune system works on repair and maintenance during deep sleep. If we don’t sleep well, we don’t repair and our health suffers. The levels of melatonin decrease with age, so the older we get, the harder it is to stay asleep and sleep deeply. - to order go to www.mannapages.com/matrix (US only, for information on what's available in Canada contact me through same web-site).
TUESDAY, Nov. 2, 2002 (HealthDayNews) -- Treatment with melatonin -- a hormone believed to play an important role in the sleep cycle -- improves slumber for people with asthma, says a Brazilian study in the November issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
The study authors, led by Dr. Pedro F. C. de Bruin, of the Department of Medicine at Universidade Federal do Cear in Fortaleza, found improved sleep quality in the treated women as measured with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. They noted, however, that even when asthma is well-controlled, drugs such as oral steroids used to control the disease can disrupt sleep.The study included 22 women with mild to moderate asthma.
They were divided into two groups. One group of 12 took melatonin, a hormone secreted by the human pineal gland, for four weeks while the other group of 10 took a placebo.
The women in the melatonin group had greatly improved sleep quality, compared to the women who took the placebo. Neither group showed changes in asthma symptoms, daily peak expiratory flow rate, or in their use of asthma medication.
There were no adverse effects reported by the women who took melatonin, the study authors said. But the researchers concluded that, while melatonin can improve the sleep of asthmatics, further studies looking at long-term effects of using the hormone were needed before they could safely recommend its use for all asthmatics.
More information
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has more about asthma http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/faqs.htm
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2004/11/02/hscout522021.html
Melatonin is the main ingredient in Mannatech’s Mannatonin. It’s a great product for anyone who has trouble sleeping through the night. Our immune system works on repair and maintenance during deep sleep. If we don’t sleep well, we don’t repair and our health suffers. The levels of melatonin decrease with age, so the older we get, the harder it is to stay asleep and sleep deeply. - to order go to www.mannapages.com/matrix (US only, for information on what's available in Canada contact me through same web-site).
The TimeLine of the Development of Glycoscience and Glyconutrition
· 1880s - Characterization of monosaccharides by Emil Fischer.
· 1952 - Fresh, not aged, Aloe gel heals radiation burns on rabbits (Clarence C. Lushbaugh, Cancer 1953 vol. 6).
· 1970 - 500 glycobiology papers published.
· 1976 - Research paper identifies the 8 sugars found in biological glycoproteins and glycolipids.
· 1980 - 1500 glycobiology papers published.
· 1990 - 4000 glycobiology papers published.
· 1990 - Journal of Glycobiology started by Oxford University.
· 1990 - "Capitalizing on Carbohydrates" by John Hodgson in BioTechnology Vol 8 Feb. 1990 109 discussing cell surfaces containing carbohydrates involved in intercellular communication and essential for immune function.
· 1992 - Active component in Aloe gel is stabilized.
· 1994 - Mannatech established as a glyconutritional company.http://www.glycoinformation.info/nobel.html & http://www.nobel.se/medicine/index.html
· 1995 - Nature: cell surface sugars necessary for recognition and immune function.
· 1996 - Mannatech files patent application for composition and use of Ambrotose, a glyconutritional supplement.
· 1996 - Harper's Biochemistry, Murray et al.: chapter on glycoproteins focuses on the 8 necessary sugars used in glycoproteins and glycolipids for cellular communication. http://www.makemeyounger.com/HarpersBiochemistry.pdf
· 1996 - Mannatech begins marketing Ambrotose, a glyconutritional supplement.
· 1998 - Acta Anatomica: special March issue on glycoscience; emphasizes that information content of biological sugar combinations exceeds that of the DNA code.
· 1998 - South Africa issues world's first patent for a glyconutritional formula to Mannatech.
· 1998 - Healthy humans given radiologically labeled galactose, mannose and glucose incorporate all three directly into glycoproteins, proving that the body uses the different sugars as nutrients directly from the diet, instead of manufacturing them all from glucose alone.
· 2000 - 8000 glycobiology papers published.
· 2000 - Launch in March of GlycoScience.com website.
· 2000 - Newton Graphic Science Magazine: the science of cellular messaging.
· 2001 - Science: March 23 issue features "Carbohydrates and Glycobiology"; reviews structural and functional uses of 8 critical sugars in cellular physiology.
· 2001 - Physicians Desk Reference (PDR ) for Non-Prescription Drugs and Dietary Supplements: lists for the first time Mannatech's Ambrotose (glyconutrient complex), Plus (precursors for hormone health, and containing Ambrotose), and Phytaloe (freeze-dried fruits and vegetables, and containing Ambrotose). 2001 - Singapore, New Zealand, and Australia issue patents for a glyconutritional formula to Mannatech.
· 2001 - NIH grants consortium $34 million to study cell-cell communication interactions.
· 2002 - Australian Journal of Chemistry 55(2): Carbohydrates Special Issue.
· 2002 - The Scientist 16:9 April 29 "Glycobiology Goes to the Ball."
· 2002 - Yahoo lists 15,000 entries for the glyconutrient "mannose."
· 2002 - France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom issue patents for a glyconutritional formula to Mannatech.
· 2002 - Scientific American: July "Sweet Medicine: Building Better Drugs from Sugars."
· 2002 - New Scientist Archive: October story quotes JHU biochemist emphasizing glycobiology as the future of immunology, neurology, developmental biology, and disease research.
· 2002 - CAM: Volume 2, Issue 5 - December 2002 "Arthritis - Using the New Glyconutritionals."
· 2003 - M.I.T. Technology Review: February: "Glycomics" identified as "One of 10 Emerging Technologies That Will Change the World."
· 2003 - Yahoo lists 63,000 entries for the glyconutrient "mannose." 2003 - Mexico and Hong Kong issue patents for a glyconutritional formula to Mannatech. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=mannose
- to order your glyconutritionals, go to www.mannapages.com/matrix - click on products / shop and order! You can contact me through that web-site.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Interest in Probiotics Increases around the World
Mannatech recently, released the product, GI Pro™ in the US and Canada. This is a very useful product for many people. As you read through the following article, notice the various health conditions that are supported by adequate intestinal flora in the gut. GI Pro has excellent ingredients. You can read about them by going to www.mannatech.com/matrix and clicking on ‘Products/Shop’ where you can view the products and place an order. Contact me through that web-site if you would like some more information.
By Jane Brody, The New York Times September 21, 2004
From a cellular perspective, you might think the human body was mostly human. But you'd be wrong. It is actually mostly bacterial. The typical adult body harbors about 100 trillion bacterial cells from at least 500 species - 10 times the number of human cells. And that's not counting viruses and fungi. Most of these bacterial organisms are what medicine calls "friendly," or at least harmless. Friendly bacteria, or probiotics, serve a host of biological functions important to the survival of the animal they populate. Some aid in digestion, some compete with harmful bacteria and keep them in check, some stimulate the immune system. And they may have other roles not yet known.
Researchers here and abroad are looking at probiotics as a promising answer to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance and abuse. To date, studies have indicated that ingested probiotics can play an important role in preventing or controlling food and skin allergies in children, bacterial vaginosis and premature labor in pregnant women, inflammatory bowel disease, recurrent ear and bladder infections, dental caries, chronic diarrhea and traveler's diarrhea. They may even help lower cholesterol in the blood and, by degrading carcinogens, thwart the development of certain cancers.
The health potential of probiotics has been known for about 100 years, but their value has largely gone unrecognized by Western health professionals. But interest in probiotics has exploded in the last several years in the face of surging bacterial resistance to many potent drugs, consumers' demand for natural remedies and accumulating evidence that some probiotic organisms prevent or treat certain challenging medical conditions. Probiotics, derived from the Greek phrase "for life," are defined by the World Health Organization as "live microorganisms which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host." There are three crucial concepts in this definition - "live," "microorganisms" and "health benefits."
Contrary to advertisements for some products, foods themselves are not probiotics, although some, like fermented milk, can be prepared to contain enough beneficial bacteria to promote health. Unfortunately, according to one prominent scientist in the field, Dr. Gregor Reid of the University of Western Ontario, many foods and supplements are now being sold as probiotics are worthless. All too often, he said, the organisms in them are present in too small a quantity to be beneficial. Or the products contain species not yet shown in rigorous studies to benefit health.
It has become increasingly apparent that the absence of bacteria in the intestines is unhealthy. For example, laboratory animals raised to be germ-free are often sickly, with seriously underdeveloped immune systems and vulnerable intestinal tracts. Such a circumstance would render an infant susceptible to allergies and life-threatening infections.
One of the best-documented benefits of probiotics has been preventing eczema in babies with an inherited tendency to develop allergies. For example, in a carefully designed study, researchers in Finland administered the probiotic Lactobacillus GG to pregnant women and to their babies who were considered at high risk for developing allergies for six months after birth. By the time the children were 2, the probiotic cut the incidence of eczema in half.
The human digestive tract is sterile at birth but rapidly acquires organisms. The first ones to become established dominate the system. Nowadays, many infants are first colonized by organisms acquired in the hospital, rather than the beneficial Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria that predominated when babies were born at home. Breast-feeding introduces beneficial bacteria, which may account for the lower incidence of allergies in breast-fed babies.
In another benefit to babies, Reid, a microbiologist, and his obstetrical colleague Dr. Alan Bocking have reviewed the ability of probiotics to prevent premature labor and delivery arising from bacterial vaginosis. These infections, which often cause no symptoms or are misdiagnosed as yeast infections, can invade the membranes around the fetus and stimulate premature labor.
For adults as well as children, some studies have suggested that regular consumption of probiotics can reduce the chance of contracting travelers' diarrhea and limit the formation of cholesterol, though not to the level of statin drugs.
In Japan, many people regularly consume a probiotic drink called Yakult, which has been shown to reduce the recurrence of bladder infections. Another product, VSL-3, which contains eight different probiotic organisms and is sold in Italy, may help keep Crohn's disease, a serious inflammatory bowel disorder, in remission.
At the moment, however, the hype about probiotics and the explosion of untested products in the United States have outstripped the science. Products must resist stomach acid yet dissolve readily in the intestines. They must also be protected from air and moisture to remain viable. If a probiotic product is formed into chewable tablets, the application of heat will destroy some organisms, so the manufacturer has to put enough in to have enough left.
Many consumers rely on yogurt with active cultures as their source of probiotics, but the organism most often used in these fermented milk products, Lactobacillus acidophilus, is not the primary bacterium naturally found in the gut, Reid said. Lactobacillus reuteri is a natural inhabitant of the gastrointestinal tract and is an excellent probiotic. The organism was originally derived from breast milk and is available in capsule form at pharmacies and health food stores. Early studies indicate that this organism can speed a child's recovery from diarrheal disease and is safe for use in HIV patients, Reid said.
Currently, in Reid's opinion, "you get what you pay for, and in most cases you're not getting very much." Once again, caveat emptor.
Mannatech recently, released the product, GI Pro™ in the US and Canada. This is a very useful product for many people. As you read through the following article, notice the various health conditions that are supported by adequate intestinal flora in the gut. GI Pro has excellent ingredients. You can read about them by going to www.mannatech.com/matrix and clicking on ‘Products/Shop’ where you can view the products and place an order. Contact me through that web-site if you would like some more information.
By Jane Brody, The New York Times September 21, 2004
From a cellular perspective, you might think the human body was mostly human. But you'd be wrong. It is actually mostly bacterial. The typical adult body harbors about 100 trillion bacterial cells from at least 500 species - 10 times the number of human cells. And that's not counting viruses and fungi. Most of these bacterial organisms are what medicine calls "friendly," or at least harmless. Friendly bacteria, or probiotics, serve a host of biological functions important to the survival of the animal they populate. Some aid in digestion, some compete with harmful bacteria and keep them in check, some stimulate the immune system. And they may have other roles not yet known.
Researchers here and abroad are looking at probiotics as a promising answer to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance and abuse. To date, studies have indicated that ingested probiotics can play an important role in preventing or controlling food and skin allergies in children, bacterial vaginosis and premature labor in pregnant women, inflammatory bowel disease, recurrent ear and bladder infections, dental caries, chronic diarrhea and traveler's diarrhea. They may even help lower cholesterol in the blood and, by degrading carcinogens, thwart the development of certain cancers.
The health potential of probiotics has been known for about 100 years, but their value has largely gone unrecognized by Western health professionals. But interest in probiotics has exploded in the last several years in the face of surging bacterial resistance to many potent drugs, consumers' demand for natural remedies and accumulating evidence that some probiotic organisms prevent or treat certain challenging medical conditions. Probiotics, derived from the Greek phrase "for life," are defined by the World Health Organization as "live microorganisms which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host." There are three crucial concepts in this definition - "live," "microorganisms" and "health benefits."
Contrary to advertisements for some products, foods themselves are not probiotics, although some, like fermented milk, can be prepared to contain enough beneficial bacteria to promote health. Unfortunately, according to one prominent scientist in the field, Dr. Gregor Reid of the University of Western Ontario, many foods and supplements are now being sold as probiotics are worthless. All too often, he said, the organisms in them are present in too small a quantity to be beneficial. Or the products contain species not yet shown in rigorous studies to benefit health.
It has become increasingly apparent that the absence of bacteria in the intestines is unhealthy. For example, laboratory animals raised to be germ-free are often sickly, with seriously underdeveloped immune systems and vulnerable intestinal tracts. Such a circumstance would render an infant susceptible to allergies and life-threatening infections.
One of the best-documented benefits of probiotics has been preventing eczema in babies with an inherited tendency to develop allergies. For example, in a carefully designed study, researchers in Finland administered the probiotic Lactobacillus GG to pregnant women and to their babies who were considered at high risk for developing allergies for six months after birth. By the time the children were 2, the probiotic cut the incidence of eczema in half.
The human digestive tract is sterile at birth but rapidly acquires organisms. The first ones to become established dominate the system. Nowadays, many infants are first colonized by organisms acquired in the hospital, rather than the beneficial Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria that predominated when babies were born at home. Breast-feeding introduces beneficial bacteria, which may account for the lower incidence of allergies in breast-fed babies.
In another benefit to babies, Reid, a microbiologist, and his obstetrical colleague Dr. Alan Bocking have reviewed the ability of probiotics to prevent premature labor and delivery arising from bacterial vaginosis. These infections, which often cause no symptoms or are misdiagnosed as yeast infections, can invade the membranes around the fetus and stimulate premature labor.
For adults as well as children, some studies have suggested that regular consumption of probiotics can reduce the chance of contracting travelers' diarrhea and limit the formation of cholesterol, though not to the level of statin drugs.
In Japan, many people regularly consume a probiotic drink called Yakult, which has been shown to reduce the recurrence of bladder infections. Another product, VSL-3, which contains eight different probiotic organisms and is sold in Italy, may help keep Crohn's disease, a serious inflammatory bowel disorder, in remission.
At the moment, however, the hype about probiotics and the explosion of untested products in the United States have outstripped the science. Products must resist stomach acid yet dissolve readily in the intestines. They must also be protected from air and moisture to remain viable. If a probiotic product is formed into chewable tablets, the application of heat will destroy some organisms, so the manufacturer has to put enough in to have enough left.
Many consumers rely on yogurt with active cultures as their source of probiotics, but the organism most often used in these fermented milk products, Lactobacillus acidophilus, is not the primary bacterium naturally found in the gut, Reid said. Lactobacillus reuteri is a natural inhabitant of the gastrointestinal tract and is an excellent probiotic. The organism was originally derived from breast milk and is available in capsule form at pharmacies and health food stores. Early studies indicate that this organism can speed a child's recovery from diarrheal disease and is safe for use in HIV patients, Reid said.
Currently, in Reid's opinion, "you get what you pay for, and in most cases you're not getting very much." Once again, caveat emptor.
How Long does it Take to Digest Food?
A handy guide to solve the problem of supplement directions which state ‘Take between meals’ or, ’Take on an empty stomach’:
It typically takes the stomach the following lengths of time...
4 hours to break down fats and proteins (meat, eggs, dairy)
2 hours to break down starches (rice, potatoes, pasta)
1 hour to break down vegetables (salad, cooked or raw vegetables)
1/2 hour to break down fruit.
A handy guide to solve the problem of supplement directions which state ‘Take between meals’ or, ’Take on an empty stomach’:
It typically takes the stomach the following lengths of time...
4 hours to break down fats and proteins (meat, eggs, dairy)
2 hours to break down starches (rice, potatoes, pasta)
1 hour to break down vegetables (salad, cooked or raw vegetables)
1/2 hour to break down fruit.
Star-Telegram.com | 03/26/2004 | �Out of the box and off the wall�
Posted on Fri, Mar. 26, 2004
‘Out of the box and off the wall’
By MARK WRIGHT
News-Mirror Writer
PUBLISHED MARCH 25: One of the first things that Dr. Reg McDaniel tries to make clear is that he is not trying to push a product or tout a miracle cure. He’ll say that right before he shows you a desk drawer full of dramatic before and after photos of the people he says he’s helped.
No, he would tell you, he didn’t devote the last 19 years to researching a radical alternative to conventional medicine just to pitch the newest snake-oil remedy.
In other words, McDaniel, who is the medical director for MannaRelief Ministries, an Arlington-based nonprofit company, doesn’t intend to sound like he’s making a sales pitch when espousing what he believes are the amazing and groundbreaking benefits of taking supplements that contain certain glyconutrients.
It’s just that McDaniel, 68, who lives in Mansfield, can’t contain his excitement when reciting the seemingly phonebook-sized list of patients who he claims his nutritional approach to health care has allowed to overcome debilitating disorders or even return from the brink of death to lead normal lives.
“Their malignancies faded away,” McDaniel said, describing some patients that his early research focused on.
Among those who have made dramatic turnarounds are elementary schoolchildren in Dallas who went from flunking fourth grade to acing standardized tests and patients in advanced stages of AIDS who went from being bed-ridden with unrelenting symptoms to again being productive members of the work force.
Of course, there’s also the story of the Las Vegas casino manager who was in the grips of streptococcal toxic shock syndrome and whose family was getting a head start on arranging his funeral. He took a heavy dose of glyconutrients and is now fine.
If you have enough time to listen, McDaniel could list a hundred or perhaps a thousand other people who were suffering from a variety of ailments and are apparently now better because of taking products containing certain plant sugars and other micronutrients that are missing from the modern diet.
“I’m here to tell you we haven’t recovered or sobered up from all the benefits that adding this to the diet caused,” McDaniel said.
Out of the box
A businessman and a researcher came to McDaniel’s office at Dallas Medical Center in August 1985, asking him to conduct research on eight AIDS patients whose symptoms had dramatically subsided.
McDaniel, who about that time became a consultant for Carrington Labs in Irving, said he and his team of researchers learned that the patients had been drinking a beverage that contained aloe vera leaf gel. What the doctors eventually concluded was that a sugar extracted from the leaves was helping to rebuild the patients’ immune systems.
He said that the aloe vera sugars were used in cellular synthesis. In other words, the sugar is basically a raw material used by the body in the “general defense and repair” of cells, McDaniel said.
The addition of the aloe vera sugars helped the cells of the body more effectively to perform their functions. And, by performing better, the cells of the immune system could more strongly combat infection and disease, McDaniel said.
McDaniel said he tried to get Food and Drug Administration approval for products containing micronutrients extracted from aloe vera leaves, vine-ripened tomatoes and other sources.
“We identified brakes and clutches missing from the modern diet,” said McDaniel, who compares the nutrients that most people lack from their diets to certain car parts being absent from a General Motors assembly line.
But the FDA did not approve the proposed medicines. McDaniel said it was because the products showed no toxicity at even high doses and their benefits were not being pitched as having just a few specific remedies for only one condition. Instead, McDaniel’s research team was touting having multiple therapeutic effects for many different medical conditions. “That’s out of the box and off the wall,” McDaniel said.
No inhaler necessary
Stephen Mackel of Manchester, England, is a proponent of McDaniel’s approach. The avid runner, who says he used to suffer from severe asthma, brags that he recently ran the London Marathon and that he no longer has to rely on inhalers with heavy doses of medication to control his condition.
He credits the glyconutrient supplements he began taking more than three years ago with his improved health. The products have names that sound like they came straight off a chemist’s Periodic Table of Elements: Ambertose and Phytaloe. The products are expensive dietary supplements sold by Coppell-based Mannatech, a company for which McDaniel spent eight years as medical director.
“The products do not and cannot be acclaimed to heal or cure any disease or condition, they simply give the body what it needs to run itself what God [intended] to have our bodies coming in as fuel in the first place,” Mackel said Tuesday in an e-mail.
But a microbiology professor at Tarrant County College Northeast Campus said she does not advocate the use of nutritional supplements, which don’t require FDA approval in order to be sold over the counter, to treat diseases or medical conditions. Many distributors of supplements, she said, are purely trying to make a buck.
“I think people have to be very careful when they use any of these products,” said assistant professor Debbie Scheiwe.
However, McDaniel claims that he isn’t trying to cure medical conditions — at least not through the direct intervention against symptoms that traditional medicines take. Instead, he said, the glyconutrients don’t fight the bugs themselves but rather bolster the body’s ability to fight disease and maintain health. And in some cases, he said, the supplements could allow many drugs to have a stronger effect at lower doses.
“When we get sick, our medicines treat symptoms, but our body gets us over the flu,” said McDaniel, whose MannaRelief Ministries works to provide glyconutrient products to financially disadvantaged children.
In the February 2003 edition of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Technology Review, glycomics — research aimed at using glyconutrients in medicines — was detailed in an article titled “10 Emerging Technologies That Will Change the World.”
McDaniel said his research was once frowned upon as medical heresy but that he is enjoying the wider acceptance that his work is starting to receive.
“I kind of like it, if you know what I mean,” McDaniel said. “It’s fun to be right.”
Posted on Fri, Mar. 26, 2004
‘Out of the box and off the wall’
By MARK WRIGHT
News-Mirror Writer
PUBLISHED MARCH 25: One of the first things that Dr. Reg McDaniel tries to make clear is that he is not trying to push a product or tout a miracle cure. He’ll say that right before he shows you a desk drawer full of dramatic before and after photos of the people he says he’s helped.
No, he would tell you, he didn’t devote the last 19 years to researching a radical alternative to conventional medicine just to pitch the newest snake-oil remedy.
In other words, McDaniel, who is the medical director for MannaRelief Ministries, an Arlington-based nonprofit company, doesn’t intend to sound like he’s making a sales pitch when espousing what he believes are the amazing and groundbreaking benefits of taking supplements that contain certain glyconutrients.
It’s just that McDaniel, 68, who lives in Mansfield, can’t contain his excitement when reciting the seemingly phonebook-sized list of patients who he claims his nutritional approach to health care has allowed to overcome debilitating disorders or even return from the brink of death to lead normal lives.
“Their malignancies faded away,” McDaniel said, describing some patients that his early research focused on.
Among those who have made dramatic turnarounds are elementary schoolchildren in Dallas who went from flunking fourth grade to acing standardized tests and patients in advanced stages of AIDS who went from being bed-ridden with unrelenting symptoms to again being productive members of the work force.
Of course, there’s also the story of the Las Vegas casino manager who was in the grips of streptococcal toxic shock syndrome and whose family was getting a head start on arranging his funeral. He took a heavy dose of glyconutrients and is now fine.
If you have enough time to listen, McDaniel could list a hundred or perhaps a thousand other people who were suffering from a variety of ailments and are apparently now better because of taking products containing certain plant sugars and other micronutrients that are missing from the modern diet.
“I’m here to tell you we haven’t recovered or sobered up from all the benefits that adding this to the diet caused,” McDaniel said.
Out of the box
A businessman and a researcher came to McDaniel’s office at Dallas Medical Center in August 1985, asking him to conduct research on eight AIDS patients whose symptoms had dramatically subsided.
McDaniel, who about that time became a consultant for Carrington Labs in Irving, said he and his team of researchers learned that the patients had been drinking a beverage that contained aloe vera leaf gel. What the doctors eventually concluded was that a sugar extracted from the leaves was helping to rebuild the patients’ immune systems.
He said that the aloe vera sugars were used in cellular synthesis. In other words, the sugar is basically a raw material used by the body in the “general defense and repair” of cells, McDaniel said.
The addition of the aloe vera sugars helped the cells of the body more effectively to perform their functions. And, by performing better, the cells of the immune system could more strongly combat infection and disease, McDaniel said.
McDaniel said he tried to get Food and Drug Administration approval for products containing micronutrients extracted from aloe vera leaves, vine-ripened tomatoes and other sources.
“We identified brakes and clutches missing from the modern diet,” said McDaniel, who compares the nutrients that most people lack from their diets to certain car parts being absent from a General Motors assembly line.
But the FDA did not approve the proposed medicines. McDaniel said it was because the products showed no toxicity at even high doses and their benefits were not being pitched as having just a few specific remedies for only one condition. Instead, McDaniel’s research team was touting having multiple therapeutic effects for many different medical conditions. “That’s out of the box and off the wall,” McDaniel said.
No inhaler necessary
Stephen Mackel of Manchester, England, is a proponent of McDaniel’s approach. The avid runner, who says he used to suffer from severe asthma, brags that he recently ran the London Marathon and that he no longer has to rely on inhalers with heavy doses of medication to control his condition.
He credits the glyconutrient supplements he began taking more than three years ago with his improved health. The products have names that sound like they came straight off a chemist’s Periodic Table of Elements: Ambertose and Phytaloe. The products are expensive dietary supplements sold by Coppell-based Mannatech, a company for which McDaniel spent eight years as medical director.
“The products do not and cannot be acclaimed to heal or cure any disease or condition, they simply give the body what it needs to run itself what God [intended] to have our bodies coming in as fuel in the first place,” Mackel said Tuesday in an e-mail.
But a microbiology professor at Tarrant County College Northeast Campus said she does not advocate the use of nutritional supplements, which don’t require FDA approval in order to be sold over the counter, to treat diseases or medical conditions. Many distributors of supplements, she said, are purely trying to make a buck.
“I think people have to be very careful when they use any of these products,” said assistant professor Debbie Scheiwe.
However, McDaniel claims that he isn’t trying to cure medical conditions — at least not through the direct intervention against symptoms that traditional medicines take. Instead, he said, the glyconutrients don’t fight the bugs themselves but rather bolster the body’s ability to fight disease and maintain health. And in some cases, he said, the supplements could allow many drugs to have a stronger effect at lower doses.
“When we get sick, our medicines treat symptoms, but our body gets us over the flu,” said McDaniel, whose MannaRelief Ministries works to provide glyconutrient products to financially disadvantaged children.
In the February 2003 edition of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Technology Review, glycomics — research aimed at using glyconutrients in medicines — was detailed in an article titled “10 Emerging Technologies That Will Change the World.”
McDaniel said his research was once frowned upon as medical heresy but that he is enjoying the wider acceptance that his work is starting to receive.
“I kind of like it, if you know what I mean,” McDaniel said. “It’s fun to be right.”
Regulating Vitamins
Regulating Vitamins
Posted Sept. 1, 2003
By Kelly Patricia O Meara
The age-old, surefire call to regulate is being trumpeted once more in the interest of "public safety." This time it is to keep the public safe from those infamous killers - vitamin pills. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) has introduced legislation that effectively would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to remove from the market any dietary supplement it chooses, including vitamins E and C. Opponents of the bill say the senator may be deficient in his understanding of natural supplements and has overestimated the daily allowable dose of federal regulatory intervention that Americans will swallow.
Durbin's Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003 (S 722), cosponsored by Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), is said to result from the growing number of deaths allegedly associated with the use of dietary products containing the natural supplement ephedra, including that of Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler on Feb. 17. While fatal use by a few high-profile athletes has focused attention on dietary supplements containing natural stimulants, Durbin says it was the death of his 16-year-old constituent Sean Riggins, who died from an ephedra-induced heart attack on Sept. 3, 2002, that pushed the senator to fight for a federal prohibition of the supplement and to get ephedra banned in Illinois, the only state in the nation to take such a step.
What Durbin says he hopes to do, in the name of public safety, is to require manufacturers of dietary supplements to prove the product is safe before marketing it. The Durbin bill would expand the FDA's authority to require exotic proof of safety from any dietary-supplement maker if the agency has received so much as a single report of an adverse reaction (AR). If the manufacturers fail during hideously expensive tests to prove that the product is safe, the commissioner of the FDA can remove it from the market.
The legislation would require manufacturers of dietary supplements to report to the FDA, within 15 days, any and all serious adverse health events by anyone using their products, something critics say is almost impossible to do as a matter of simple practicality. Even so, the Durbin claims about dangers seem nothing if not wildly exaggerated. Although the Illinois senator claims "scientific reports have linked ephedrine and similar dietary supplements to 117 deaths and more than 17,000 other health-related problems," in 2001 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received just 10 adverse-event reports from manufacturers for all dietary-supplement products combined. Durbin's take on the disconnect between HHS and other alleged scientific reports is that "the voluntary-reporting system under current law is clearly not working."
What is interesting about the legislation is that, even though the senator spotlights ephedra and other "stimulant" products to excite interest in his case for added federal regulation on natural supplements, the word "ephedra" does not appear anywhere in the eight-page bill. Critics say this is because the senator wants to impose on manufacturers of natural dietary supplements the same exorbitant costs as have been imposed on drug manufacturers to make prescription medicines prohibitively expensive for so many Americans. Apparently Durbin thinks that is the only way the public can be protected.
Consider some of the drug products long regulated by the FDA - drugs that already must be "proved safe" before being brought to market. Take for example the chemical stimulant Ritalin, which is taken by tens of millions of school-age children every day. According to the FDA, between 1990 and 1997 there were 160 deaths associated with methylphenidate (Ritalin) and 569 hospitalizations, 36 of which were life-threatening. And it is widely accepted that the FDA formally receives less than 1 percent of suspected serious ARs.
Furthermore, the adverse side effects of the natural ephedra and the pharmaceutical Ritalin, both popular stimulants, are all but identical. Yet neither Durbin nor any other federal lawmaker has called for the removal of Ritalin from the market. Consider these warnings of potential adverse reactions. Ephedra: nervousness, dizziness, tremor, alterations in blood pressure or heart rate, headache, gastrointestinal distress, chest pain, myocardial infarction, stroke, seizures, psychosis and death. Ritalin: nervousness, dizziness, irregular or fast heartbeat, chest pains, high blood pressure, severe headache, palpitations, angina, cardiac arrhythmia, abdominal pain, unusual bleeding, tics, blurred vision, insomnia, toxic psychosis, death.
Advocates of natural medicines say the antidepressant Prozac, made by pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, is another interesting case Durbin may want to review before putting all his "public-safety" eggs in the FDA basket. As of September 1993 there had been nearly 30,000 AR reports associated with Prozac filed with the drug agency, including side effects such as delirium, hallucinations, convulsions, violent hostility and psychosis, plus 1,885 suicide attempts and 1,734 deaths - 1,089 by suicide. And according to Thomas G. Whittle and Richard Wieland, critics who obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act, "both Eli Lilly and officials of the FDA were aware that at least 27 deaths had been linked to the use of Prozac prior to the drug being released on the market."
These figures are 10 years old, and yet the FDA has not pulled Prozac from the market. Despite tens of thousands of AR reports detailing adverse reactions, the federal agency tasked with overseeing the public safety of drugs has not required Eli Lilly to "prove" that Prozac is safe. In fact, according to Whittle and Wieland, "a 1986 FDA safety review [of Prozac] ... discovered that Eli Lilly had failed to report information about the onset of psychotic episodes in people during Prozac's testing." And still the FDA took no action against the drugmaker.
But, when it comes to natural dietary supplements, here is Durbin doing his part to protect the public by setting a standard that critics say is far above that for pharmaceuticals. "It is impossible," Durbin says, "for anyone to calculate exactly how many people have had their lives ended or their health ruined by ephedra during the months since I first raised the issue, but whether it was 500 or five, it was too many. We can lead the country in protecting our kids by imposing reasonable safety restrictions on these dangerous drugs; this experience with ephedra should convince everyone the law should be changed in order to protect the American consumer."
Given the enormous number of AR reports filed about Ritalin and Prozac, to name just two pharmaceuticals, critics wonder aloud why, given the senator's concern about public safety, he has submitted no legislation to ban the use of those products, especially since Ritalin and ephedra both are stimulants and there is virtually no difference between the adverse reactions reported with their use. Apparently the guiding Durbin principle that says, "whether it was 500 or five, it was too many," doesn't apply when it comes to highly profitable drugs pushed by the pharmaceutical giants, according to holistic practitioners who prefer natural remedies.
Julian Whitaker, a medical doctor who is founder and director of the Whitaker Wellness Institute in Newport Beach, Calif., tells Insight that "this legislation isn't about safety at all. It's about loss of control that the FDA has experienced over the last seven or eight years when it comes to regulation of the nutritional-supplement industry with passage of the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). It basically said the FDA no longer could rule arbitrarily on the nutritional-supplement industry by denying publication of truthful information on supplements. The 1994 law gave the nutritional-supplement industry a safe harbor that kept its products from being designated as drugs subject to prohibitively expensive regulation, and the industry has a safety record that reportedly is the best of any consumer-product company in the United States. This is especially important when you realize there are 5,000 deaths attributed to aspirin every year, 30,000 deaths known to be caused by over-the-counter drugs and 240,000 deaths from prescription pharmaceutical drugs used correctly."
Whitaker, the author of nine books on nutrition, is just getting warmed up. "We don't know the deaths that come from vitamins, particularly ephedra, were the result of abuse," he says. "When over-the-counter drugs are responsible for deaths no one cares even to write about it, but if a baseball player dies from a heat stroke and he's got ephedra in his system they blame the ephedra. Suppose, though, that he had Sudafed, Tylenol or alcohol in his bloodstream. Are they going to take those products off the market? Look at it this way: We have millions of people suffering from alcohol-related health problems because of alcohol abuse. Is Congress going to take alcohol off the market?"
David Seckman, executive director of the National Nutritional Foods Association, the oldest and largest trade association in the United States representing natural products, including retailers, manufacturers and wholesalers, tells Insight, "This legislation is a bad idea and there are some provisions that we're very concerned about. It mandates that manufacturers submit adverse-reaction reports for supplements, and it defines products like stimulants that won't be allowed to be used as supplements. Naturally the bill explicitly excludes things like caffeine from the list. This is because, if you look at the definition of what a stimulant is, you learn that it is anything that increases the heart rate - which is just about anything. The commissioner of the FDA, after just one adverse-reaction report, would have the discretion to make the manufacturer of the targeted product prove it is safe before it again can be marketed."
Seckman says, "Our concern is that we're talking about products that have been used safely and effectively for thousands of years that now can be pulled from the market because of just one report. People will be able to call in with an adverse reaction to multivitamins and the commissioner will have the authority to make the manufacturer prove that multivitamins are safe. Under the 1994 DSHEA, supplements were classified as foods and under a totally different category than drugs. Drugs require premarket approval and are granted a patent. You're not going to be able to do that with vitamin C and other such natural products. It's just going to put the commissioner in a precarious situation to make determinations about the safety of natural products."
As Seckman notes, "Under the current law the FDA already has the ability to ban any product that it finds is not safe. Our contention is that if the FDA commissioner finds a product that is unsafe, and can prove it, then that product should be banned. We don't think the congressional intent was or is that every time there is an issue with a supplement we need Congress to decide whether vitamin C or any other natural supplement should be banned. The language is already there. Look at garlic, for instance. Should you have to prove that garlic is safe before you put it on the market? This is a possibility under the proposed legislation. And you always are going to find people who have adverse reactions to something they take, even things like vitamin C and garlic. We don't think this legislation is wise."
Len Horowitz, an internationally known public-health authority and author of more than a dozen books, including Emerging Viruses and Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare, isn't buying the public-safety mantra. "This isn't a public-safety issue," Horowitz explains. "It may be disguised as one, but it has nothing to do with public safety. Everything is tremendously regulated to the detriment of society, and I believe that the pharmaceutical industrialists have their hand in every aspect of the regulations and legislation."
Horowitz continues, "You know, people are overdosing on coffee every day, but you don't see Congress regulating Starbucks. This argument has to be understood within the context of the fear mentality generated by the media on behalf of the pharmaceuticals who don't want to tell you that the third leading cause of death in the U.S. is drug-induced, physician-prescribed, hospital-prescribed medications. You don't see the intensity over that, but you do see it over and over again when someone overdoses on ephedra."
He asks, "Are supplements dangerous? What isn't dangerous? Water is dangerous. Try hyperventilating for five minutes and you'll pass out. That's dangerous. This is about an induction of phobia - a fear that is disproportionate to the actual size of the threat. Saying that one case or even 100 cases of people overdosing from too many vitamins, [that] amounts to trying to induce a phobia to push legislation - dreaming up justification for insane regulations."
Opponents argue that the numbers don't come anywhere near showing a need for what they regard as legislative overkill. Especially when one considers that, according to the FDA, adverse reactions to dietary supplements represent less than one-half of 1 percent of all substance-adverse events. Of course, Sens. Durbin, Clinton, Schumer and Feinstein disagree.
Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight.
Regulating Vitamins
Posted Sept. 1, 2003
By Kelly Patricia O Meara
The age-old, surefire call to regulate is being trumpeted once more in the interest of "public safety." This time it is to keep the public safe from those infamous killers - vitamin pills. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) has introduced legislation that effectively would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to remove from the market any dietary supplement it chooses, including vitamins E and C. Opponents of the bill say the senator may be deficient in his understanding of natural supplements and has overestimated the daily allowable dose of federal regulatory intervention that Americans will swallow.
Durbin's Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003 (S 722), cosponsored by Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), is said to result from the growing number of deaths allegedly associated with the use of dietary products containing the natural supplement ephedra, including that of Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler on Feb. 17. While fatal use by a few high-profile athletes has focused attention on dietary supplements containing natural stimulants, Durbin says it was the death of his 16-year-old constituent Sean Riggins, who died from an ephedra-induced heart attack on Sept. 3, 2002, that pushed the senator to fight for a federal prohibition of the supplement and to get ephedra banned in Illinois, the only state in the nation to take such a step.
What Durbin says he hopes to do, in the name of public safety, is to require manufacturers of dietary supplements to prove the product is safe before marketing it. The Durbin bill would expand the FDA's authority to require exotic proof of safety from any dietary-supplement maker if the agency has received so much as a single report of an adverse reaction (AR). If the manufacturers fail during hideously expensive tests to prove that the product is safe, the commissioner of the FDA can remove it from the market.
The legislation would require manufacturers of dietary supplements to report to the FDA, within 15 days, any and all serious adverse health events by anyone using their products, something critics say is almost impossible to do as a matter of simple practicality. Even so, the Durbin claims about dangers seem nothing if not wildly exaggerated. Although the Illinois senator claims "scientific reports have linked ephedrine and similar dietary supplements to 117 deaths and more than 17,000 other health-related problems," in 2001 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received just 10 adverse-event reports from manufacturers for all dietary-supplement products combined. Durbin's take on the disconnect between HHS and other alleged scientific reports is that "the voluntary-reporting system under current law is clearly not working."
What is interesting about the legislation is that, even though the senator spotlights ephedra and other "stimulant" products to excite interest in his case for added federal regulation on natural supplements, the word "ephedra" does not appear anywhere in the eight-page bill. Critics say this is because the senator wants to impose on manufacturers of natural dietary supplements the same exorbitant costs as have been imposed on drug manufacturers to make prescription medicines prohibitively expensive for so many Americans. Apparently Durbin thinks that is the only way the public can be protected.
Consider some of the drug products long regulated by the FDA - drugs that already must be "proved safe" before being brought to market. Take for example the chemical stimulant Ritalin, which is taken by tens of millions of school-age children every day. According to the FDA, between 1990 and 1997 there were 160 deaths associated with methylphenidate (Ritalin) and 569 hospitalizations, 36 of which were life-threatening. And it is widely accepted that the FDA formally receives less than 1 percent of suspected serious ARs.
Furthermore, the adverse side effects of the natural ephedra and the pharmaceutical Ritalin, both popular stimulants, are all but identical. Yet neither Durbin nor any other federal lawmaker has called for the removal of Ritalin from the market. Consider these warnings of potential adverse reactions. Ephedra: nervousness, dizziness, tremor, alterations in blood pressure or heart rate, headache, gastrointestinal distress, chest pain, myocardial infarction, stroke, seizures, psychosis and death. Ritalin: nervousness, dizziness, irregular or fast heartbeat, chest pains, high blood pressure, severe headache, palpitations, angina, cardiac arrhythmia, abdominal pain, unusual bleeding, tics, blurred vision, insomnia, toxic psychosis, death.
Advocates of natural medicines say the antidepressant Prozac, made by pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, is another interesting case Durbin may want to review before putting all his "public-safety" eggs in the FDA basket. As of September 1993 there had been nearly 30,000 AR reports associated with Prozac filed with the drug agency, including side effects such as delirium, hallucinations, convulsions, violent hostility and psychosis, plus 1,885 suicide attempts and 1,734 deaths - 1,089 by suicide. And according to Thomas G. Whittle and Richard Wieland, critics who obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act, "both Eli Lilly and officials of the FDA were aware that at least 27 deaths had been linked to the use of Prozac prior to the drug being released on the market."
These figures are 10 years old, and yet the FDA has not pulled Prozac from the market. Despite tens of thousands of AR reports detailing adverse reactions, the federal agency tasked with overseeing the public safety of drugs has not required Eli Lilly to "prove" that Prozac is safe. In fact, according to Whittle and Wieland, "a 1986 FDA safety review [of Prozac] ... discovered that Eli Lilly had failed to report information about the onset of psychotic episodes in people during Prozac's testing." And still the FDA took no action against the drugmaker.
But, when it comes to natural dietary supplements, here is Durbin doing his part to protect the public by setting a standard that critics say is far above that for pharmaceuticals. "It is impossible," Durbin says, "for anyone to calculate exactly how many people have had their lives ended or their health ruined by ephedra during the months since I first raised the issue, but whether it was 500 or five, it was too many. We can lead the country in protecting our kids by imposing reasonable safety restrictions on these dangerous drugs; this experience with ephedra should convince everyone the law should be changed in order to protect the American consumer."
Given the enormous number of AR reports filed about Ritalin and Prozac, to name just two pharmaceuticals, critics wonder aloud why, given the senator's concern about public safety, he has submitted no legislation to ban the use of those products, especially since Ritalin and ephedra both are stimulants and there is virtually no difference between the adverse reactions reported with their use. Apparently the guiding Durbin principle that says, "whether it was 500 or five, it was too many," doesn't apply when it comes to highly profitable drugs pushed by the pharmaceutical giants, according to holistic practitioners who prefer natural remedies.
Julian Whitaker, a medical doctor who is founder and director of the Whitaker Wellness Institute in Newport Beach, Calif., tells Insight that "this legislation isn't about safety at all. It's about loss of control that the FDA has experienced over the last seven or eight years when it comes to regulation of the nutritional-supplement industry with passage of the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). It basically said the FDA no longer could rule arbitrarily on the nutritional-supplement industry by denying publication of truthful information on supplements. The 1994 law gave the nutritional-supplement industry a safe harbor that kept its products from being designated as drugs subject to prohibitively expensive regulation, and the industry has a safety record that reportedly is the best of any consumer-product company in the United States. This is especially important when you realize there are 5,000 deaths attributed to aspirin every year, 30,000 deaths known to be caused by over-the-counter drugs and 240,000 deaths from prescription pharmaceutical drugs used correctly."
Whitaker, the author of nine books on nutrition, is just getting warmed up. "We don't know the deaths that come from vitamins, particularly ephedra, were the result of abuse," he says. "When over-the-counter drugs are responsible for deaths no one cares even to write about it, but if a baseball player dies from a heat stroke and he's got ephedra in his system they blame the ephedra. Suppose, though, that he had Sudafed, Tylenol or alcohol in his bloodstream. Are they going to take those products off the market? Look at it this way: We have millions of people suffering from alcohol-related health problems because of alcohol abuse. Is Congress going to take alcohol off the market?"
David Seckman, executive director of the National Nutritional Foods Association, the oldest and largest trade association in the United States representing natural products, including retailers, manufacturers and wholesalers, tells Insight, "This legislation is a bad idea and there are some provisions that we're very concerned about. It mandates that manufacturers submit adverse-reaction reports for supplements, and it defines products like stimulants that won't be allowed to be used as supplements. Naturally the bill explicitly excludes things like caffeine from the list. This is because, if you look at the definition of what a stimulant is, you learn that it is anything that increases the heart rate - which is just about anything. The commissioner of the FDA, after just one adverse-reaction report, would have the discretion to make the manufacturer of the targeted product prove it is safe before it again can be marketed."
Seckman says, "Our concern is that we're talking about products that have been used safely and effectively for thousands of years that now can be pulled from the market because of just one report. People will be able to call in with an adverse reaction to multivitamins and the commissioner will have the authority to make the manufacturer prove that multivitamins are safe. Under the 1994 DSHEA, supplements were classified as foods and under a totally different category than drugs. Drugs require premarket approval and are granted a patent. You're not going to be able to do that with vitamin C and other such natural products. It's just going to put the commissioner in a precarious situation to make determinations about the safety of natural products."
As Seckman notes, "Under the current law the FDA already has the ability to ban any product that it finds is not safe. Our contention is that if the FDA commissioner finds a product that is unsafe, and can prove it, then that product should be banned. We don't think the congressional intent was or is that every time there is an issue with a supplement we need Congress to decide whether vitamin C or any other natural supplement should be banned. The language is already there. Look at garlic, for instance. Should you have to prove that garlic is safe before you put it on the market? This is a possibility under the proposed legislation. And you always are going to find people who have adverse reactions to something they take, even things like vitamin C and garlic. We don't think this legislation is wise."
Len Horowitz, an internationally known public-health authority and author of more than a dozen books, including Emerging Viruses and Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare, isn't buying the public-safety mantra. "This isn't a public-safety issue," Horowitz explains. "It may be disguised as one, but it has nothing to do with public safety. Everything is tremendously regulated to the detriment of society, and I believe that the pharmaceutical industrialists have their hand in every aspect of the regulations and legislation."
Horowitz continues, "You know, people are overdosing on coffee every day, but you don't see Congress regulating Starbucks. This argument has to be understood within the context of the fear mentality generated by the media on behalf of the pharmaceuticals who don't want to tell you that the third leading cause of death in the U.S. is drug-induced, physician-prescribed, hospital-prescribed medications. You don't see the intensity over that, but you do see it over and over again when someone overdoses on ephedra."
He asks, "Are supplements dangerous? What isn't dangerous? Water is dangerous. Try hyperventilating for five minutes and you'll pass out. That's dangerous. This is about an induction of phobia - a fear that is disproportionate to the actual size of the threat. Saying that one case or even 100 cases of people overdosing from too many vitamins, [that] amounts to trying to induce a phobia to push legislation - dreaming up justification for insane regulations."
Opponents argue that the numbers don't come anywhere near showing a need for what they regard as legislative overkill. Especially when one considers that, according to the FDA, adverse reactions to dietary supplements represent less than one-half of 1 percent of all substance-adverse events. Of course, Sens. Durbin, Clinton, Schumer and Feinstein disagree.
Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
5. DRUGS NOT EFFECTIVE FOR MANY PEOPLE!
By Steve Connor, Science Editor08 December 2003
A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.
Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.
It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by £2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £7.2bn. GSK announced last week that it had 20 or more new drugs under development that could each earn the company up to $1bn (£600m) a year.
Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients.Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients.
Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said.
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody.
"Some industry analysts said Dr Roses's comments were reminiscent of the 1991 gaffe by Gerald Ratner, the jewellery boss, who famously said that his high street shops are successful because they sold "total crap". But others believe Dr Roses deserves credit for being honest about a little-publicised fact known to the drugs industry for many years.
"Roses is a smart guy and what he is saying will surprise the public but not his colleagues," said one industry scientist. "He is a pioneer of a new culture within the drugs business based on using genes to test for who can benefit from a particular drug."
Dr Roses has a formidable reputation in the field of "pharmacogenomics" - the application of human genetics to drug development - and his comments can be seen as an attempt to make the industry realise that its future rests on being able to target drugs to a smaller number of patients with specific genes.
The idea is to identify "responders" - people who benefit from the drug - with a simple and cheap genetic test that can be used to eliminate those non-responders who might benefit from another drug.
This goes against a marketing culture within the industry that has relied on selling as many drugs as possible to the widest number of patients - a culture that has made GSK one of the most profitable pharmaceuticals companies, but which has also meant that most of its drugs are at best useless, and even possibly dangerous, for many patients.
Dr Roses said doctors treating patients routinely applied the trial-and-error approach which says that if one drug does not work there is always another one. "I think everybody has it in their experience that multiple drugs have been used for their headache or multiple drugs have been used for their backache or whatever.
"It's in their experience, but they don't quite understand why. The reason why is because they have different susceptibilities to the effect of that drug and that's genetic," he said."
Neither those who pay for medical care nor patients want drugs to be prescribed that do not benefit the recipient. Pharmacogenetics has the promise of removing much of the uncertainty."
Response rates
Therapeutic area: drug efficacy rate in per cent
Alzheimer's: 30
Analgesics (Cox-2): 80
Asthma: 60
Cardiac Arrythmias: 60
Depression (SSRI): 62
Diabetes: 57
Hepatits C (HCV): 47
Incontinence: 40
Migraine (acute): 52
Migraine (prophylaxis) 50
Oncology: 25
Rheumatoid arthritis 50
Schizophrenia: 60 Also in Science/Medical
By Steve Connor, Science Editor08 December 2003
A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.
Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.
It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by £2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £7.2bn. GSK announced last week that it had 20 or more new drugs under development that could each earn the company up to $1bn (£600m) a year.
Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients.Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients.
Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said.
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody.
"Some industry analysts said Dr Roses's comments were reminiscent of the 1991 gaffe by Gerald Ratner, the jewellery boss, who famously said that his high street shops are successful because they sold "total crap". But others believe Dr Roses deserves credit for being honest about a little-publicised fact known to the drugs industry for many years.
"Roses is a smart guy and what he is saying will surprise the public but not his colleagues," said one industry scientist. "He is a pioneer of a new culture within the drugs business based on using genes to test for who can benefit from a particular drug."
Dr Roses has a formidable reputation in the field of "pharmacogenomics" - the application of human genetics to drug development - and his comments can be seen as an attempt to make the industry realise that its future rests on being able to target drugs to a smaller number of patients with specific genes.
The idea is to identify "responders" - people who benefit from the drug - with a simple and cheap genetic test that can be used to eliminate those non-responders who might benefit from another drug.
This goes against a marketing culture within the industry that has relied on selling as many drugs as possible to the widest number of patients - a culture that has made GSK one of the most profitable pharmaceuticals companies, but which has also meant that most of its drugs are at best useless, and even possibly dangerous, for many patients.
Dr Roses said doctors treating patients routinely applied the trial-and-error approach which says that if one drug does not work there is always another one. "I think everybody has it in their experience that multiple drugs have been used for their headache or multiple drugs have been used for their backache or whatever.
"It's in their experience, but they don't quite understand why. The reason why is because they have different susceptibilities to the effect of that drug and that's genetic," he said."
Neither those who pay for medical care nor patients want drugs to be prescribed that do not benefit the recipient. Pharmacogenetics has the promise of removing much of the uncertainty."
Response rates
Therapeutic area: drug efficacy rate in per cent
Alzheimer's: 30
Analgesics (Cox-2): 80
Asthma: 60
Cardiac Arrythmias: 60
Depression (SSRI): 62
Diabetes: 57
Hepatits C (HCV): 47
Incontinence: 40
Migraine (acute): 52
Migraine (prophylaxis) 50
Oncology: 25
Rheumatoid arthritis 50
Schizophrenia: 60 Also in Science/Medical
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Mercury-Free Flu Shots Also Scarce
Source: United Press International
SAN JOSE, Calif. (United Press International via COMTEX) -- Standard flu shots are scarce these days, but finding vaccines that don't contain a controversial mercury-based ingredient are also in short supply.
Monday's San Jose Mercury-News said many health experts agree there is not enough flu vaccine without the preservative thimerosal and that might force some eligible patients to endure a dose of mercury this year.
Some parents and health activists believe thimerosal can cause autism and other health problems that have symptoms similar to mercury toxicity. They say those parents face the dilemma of protecting their children from the flu, but, at the same time, exposing their systems to a potent toxin.
Flu vaccines are one of the few drugs that still contain thimerosal because the compound works well in cleaning and preserving multi-dose vaccine vials.
Most health officials say the health risks from foregoing vaccinations outweigh the potential damage caused by mercury.
Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
Source: United Press International
SAN JOSE, Calif. (United Press International via COMTEX) -- Standard flu shots are scarce these days, but finding vaccines that don't contain a controversial mercury-based ingredient are also in short supply.
Monday's San Jose Mercury-News said many health experts agree there is not enough flu vaccine without the preservative thimerosal and that might force some eligible patients to endure a dose of mercury this year.
Some parents and health activists believe thimerosal can cause autism and other health problems that have symptoms similar to mercury toxicity. They say those parents face the dilemma of protecting their children from the flu, but, at the same time, exposing their systems to a potent toxin.
Flu vaccines are one of the few drugs that still contain thimerosal because the compound works well in cleaning and preserving multi-dose vaccine vials.
Most health officials say the health risks from foregoing vaccinations outweigh the potential damage caused by mercury.
Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
Monday, November 01, 2004
The brain is a miraculous machine... very complex. Too often psychiatrists don't actually look at the brain, though they attempt treat it with drugs and behavioural modification therapy. A heart specialist wants to look at the heart with whatever tools he has at his disposal before he prescribes treatment or surgery.
Dr. Amen at the Amen Clinic is doing incredible work - though I don't agree with drug therapy. (I think there are answers in nature to promote our body's healing ability - synthetic drugs treat only symptoms and have side effects.)
The Amen Clinic
Dr. Amen at the Amen Clinic is doing incredible work - though I don't agree with drug therapy. (I think there are answers in nature to promote our body's healing ability - synthetic drugs treat only symptoms and have side effects.)
The Amen Clinic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)