The history of medicine has more skeletons in its closet than causalities from all wars combined. All deadly medical "innovations" begin with good intentions, conceived and promoted on seemingly logical, reasonable, and scientific principles. Only after millions of deaths does it become obvious that the logic was wrong, the reasoning - opportunistic, and the science - pure quackery. If it could have happened before, it can still happen today. And it does...

You may recall that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was all the rage until the summer of 2002. Then, in a flash - after 15 million women were told to stop it - the rage turned into outrage: HRT had been found to increase the risk of breast cancer by 26%, heart attack by 29%, stroke by 41% [1], and ovarian cancer by 58%[2].

- Oh, boy!

- Yes, a classical case of wishful thinking turning into a Faustian bargain...

But the initial reasoning in favor of hormone replacement therapy seemed well-intentioned and bulletproof:

This method of qualitative analysis is called deductive reasoning, made famous by the immortal character of Sherlock Holmes. Deductive reasoning uses a core assumption - low hormones cause aging and diseases - to arrive at the end result - replacing lost hormones [with patch or pill containing estrogen and progesterone - ed.] will defer aging and prevent disease.

Deductive reasoning works well only when the core assumptions are correct. In this case the core assumption (that low hormones are villains) was wrong, and so were the results - more deaths and disease, not less. The investigators had also reported that there were "no clear benefits for those taking estrogen plus progestin on any of the quality of life measures"[3], that "older women taking combination hormone therapy had twice the rate of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease."[4], and that women over fifty had "two-fold higher" [5] risk of developing venous thrombosis. Venous thrombosis is the precursor to pulmonary embolism - the blockage of return blood flow to the lungs by wayward blood clots.

As expected, the renouncement of HRT was a huge success - by 2003, breast cancer rates alone were down 7%, and have kept dropping ever since. And, ironically, for the first time in many years the life expectancy of American women nudged up as well - a stern lesson to those would-be Gods so eager to challenge Mother Nature.

This catastrophic outcome of hormone replacement therapy brings up a troublesome question: If well-meaning doctors, top-flight researchers, meticulous pharmacists, inquisitive media, and stringent government overseers - irony implied and intended - could get it so wrong on HRT, can they get it wrong again on another, even grander-scale health improvement scheme?

By the end of this page, I'll prove to you beyond reasonable doubt that they can. I will also explain why. Obviously, the scheme in question is omnipresent dietary fiber. This time around, though, it isn't just middle-aged postmenopausal women who are hooked "on fiber." It's almost all Americans, of both genders and of all ages.

Strange but true: the brain is shaped by bacteria in the digestive tract

People may advise you to listen to your gut instincts: now research suggests that your gut may have more impact on your thoughts than you ever realized. Scientists from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the Genome Institute of Singapore led by Sven Pettersson recently reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that normal gut flora, the bacteria that inhabit our intestines, have a significant impact on brain development and subsequent adult behavior.

We human beings may think of ourselves as a highly evolved species of conscious individuals, but we are all far less human than most of us appreciate. Scientists have long recognized that the bacterial cells inhabiting our skin and gut outnumber human cells by ten-to-one. Indeed, Princeton University scientist Bonnie Bassler compared the approximately 30,000 human genes found in the average human to the more than 3 million bacterial genes inhabiting us, concluding that we are at most one percent human. We are only beginning to understand the sort of impact our bacterial passengers have on our daily lives.

Moreover, these bacteria have been implicated in the development of neurological and behavioral disorders. For example, gut bacteria may have an influence on the body's use of vitamin B6, which in turn has profound effects on the health of nerve and muscle cells. They modulate immune tolerance and, because of this, they may have an influence on autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis. They have been shown to influence anxiety-related behavior, although there is controversy regarding whether gut bacteria exacerbate or ameliorate stress related anxiety responses. In autism and other pervasive developmental disorders, there are reports that the specific bacterial species present in the gut are altered and that gastrointestinal problems exacerbate behavioral symptoms. A newly developed biochemical test for autism is based, in part, upon the end products of bacterial metabolism.

In last 4 yrs, 1,725 persons have died in clinical trials; weak law compounds risks

New Delhi, India: For the first time since 2010 when six tribal girls from Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh involved in the clinical trials of anti-cervical cancer HPV vaccine died, the government has admitted that 1,725 persons have lost their lives to drug trials in the last four years.

The number of deaths has risen from 132 in 2007 and 288 in 2008 to 637 in 2009 and 668 last year, indicating the complete ineffectiveness of regulatory controls over the $400 million sector. Last year, the government gave compensation in just 22 cases out of the 668 that resulted in deaths due to "serious adverse events" during drug trials, Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad told Parliament this week.

Currently, 1,868 clinical trials are going on as per the Clinical Trial Registry of India maintained by the office of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI). Many of the drugs being tested are not even of specific relevance to the country and could have been tested anywhere. Equally shocking is the fact that the rules, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, entirely trust the trial investigator with the reason attributed for the death of a subject. This is resulting in gross under-reporting of actual deaths during clinical trials.

Washington - Three-dimensional movies might not be worth their high ticket price.

Moviegoers who watch 3-D films do not experience more intense emotional reactions or a greater sense of "being there" than those who watch 2-D movies, a new study finds. The 3-D versions also don't help you remember the movie better than 2-D versions.

The 3-D movies did, on the other hand, come with a risk of discomfort. Compared with 2-D movie watchers, 3-D movie-watchers were about three times more likely to have eyestrain, headache or trouble with vision, the study showed.

Some people may still prefer to see 3-D movies because they like the movie for other reasons, such as snazzy special effects, the researchers said.

But "all other things being equal, I would say you're increasing your chances of having some discomfort," said study researcher L. Mark Carrier, of California State University, Dominguez Hills, who studies the affects of technology on psychological processes.

Consumers should know "they're aren't going to be any benefits in terms of understanding the movie better or making the movie more meaningful, as far as we can tell," Carrier said.

Carrier presented his work here on Sunday (Aug. 7) at the America Psychological Association's annual meeting. The work has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The notion of genetic modification of foods and livestock is a contentious issue. The purposeful insertion or deletion of a gene into a plant or animal's genome to yield specific traits, such as herbicide resistance, nutritional composition, or size, prompted the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international effort to regulate the safety of foods, to issue guidelines concerning genetically-modified foods.

The committee is aware of the concept of unintended effects, i.e., effects that were not part of the original gene insertion or deletion design. In their report, last updated in 2009, they state that:

Unintended effects can result from the random insertion of DNA sequences into the plant genome, which may cause disruption or silencing of existing genes, activation of silent genes, or modifications in the expression of existing genes. Unintended effects may also result in the formation of new or changed patterns of metabolites. For example, the expression of enzymes at high levels may give rise to secondary biochemical effects or changes in the regulation of metabolic pathways and/or altered levels of metabolites.

They make the point that food crops generated using techniques without genetic modification are released into the food supply without safety testing:

Many Americans, including some vegetarians, still consume substantial amounts of dairy products - and government policies still promote them - despite scientific evidence that questions their health benefits and indicates their potential health risks.

Osteoporosis

Milk's main selling point is calcium, and milk-drinking is touted for building strong bones in children and preventing osteoporosis in older persons. However, clinical research shows that dairy products have little or no benefit for bones. A 2005 review published in Pediatrics showed that milk consumption does not improve bone integrity in children.[1] Similarly, the Harvard Nurses' Health Study, [2] which followed more than 72,000 women for 18 years, showed no protective effect of increased milk consumption on fracture risk. While calcium is important for bone health, studies show that increasing consumption beyond approximately 600 mg per day - amounts that are easily achieved without dairy products or calcium supplements - does not improve bone integrity.[2]

In studies of children and adults, exercise has been found to have a major effect on bone density.[3-5]

Bacon - The world's greatest & healthiest pleasure food.

Bacon is not unhealthy for us. It's not a superfood either. Or is it?

It depends on how you look at it. Bacon is not nutrient rich and is not loaded with antioxidants. But when a bacon lover enjoys bacon alone or with other foods then they are put in an incredibly happy place.

When you eat bacon you come alive. You feel great and don't think about all the stressors in the world. If you love bacon and eat it often then you should feel zero guilt when you consume it. Bacon is to be enjoyed as a compliment to other foods. The most common is eggs but we are known to wrap every damn food on the planet in bacon. Jim Gaffigan says...

To improve other foods they wrap it in bacon. If it weren't for bacon we wouldn't even know what a water chestnut is. Thank you bacon, sincerely water chestnut the third.

This is so true. Bacon does make other foods awesome. Liver is one of the most nutrient dense foods on the planet. Its not palatable to most but if you wrap it in a bunch of bacon then it becomes delicious.

On to the reasons...

Before we dive into a discussion of epidural analgesia I'd like to clarify my intention in writing this series in light of some of the comments on previous articles.

The purpose of this series on natural childbirth is to demonstrate that homebirth is as safe - if not safer - than hospital birth for low risk pregnancies, and that medical interventions commonly used in hospital births such as epidurals, induction with synthetic oxytocin and cesarean sections have risks and complications that are often not communicated to pregnant women.

Currently fewer than 1% of births happen at home in the U.S., and I believe this is largely due to misconceptions about its safety. My intention here is to correct those misconceptions.

The purpose of this series is not to condemn the use of these interventions in all circumstances. All of them have their place, and can be very helpful and even life-saving (for mothers and babies) when used appropriately. In fact, I said the following in bold text at the end of the first article in this series:

I want to be clear: no matter where birth takes place, complications may arise that require medical intervention and I am 100% in support of it in these cases.

There is still much we don't understand about birth, and even more we don't have direct control over. In some cases, despite a woman's best efforts to have a natural, undisturbed birth, complications arise that require medical attention (and transfer to a hospital if she started laboring at home). In these circumstances, I absolutely endorse taking advantage of whatever interventions may protect the health and safety of both the mother and baby. At the end of the day, that is far, far more important than the method by which the baby was born.

I also want to be clear that I am not judging women who choose to have hospital births, receive epidurals, induce with Pitocin or end up having a cesarean section. I respect the right of women to choose a method of childbirth that feels safe and comfortable for them.

My purpose, instead, is to tell the side of the story that women are often not told, and to raise awareness of the risks associated with these procedures so that when it comes time to make their own decision, women are adequately educated and informed to do so.

Every year, pharmaceutical companies spend billions to get doctors to prescribe drugs to children. Johnson & Johnson even distributes tons of Legos that advertise its latest anti-psychotic, which causes diabetes, weight gain, and even breasts in boys and girls who take it.

In the past decade, America's pharmaceutical industry has knowingly marketed dozens of dangerous drugs to millions of children, a group that executives apparently view as a lucrative, untapped market for their products. Most kids have no one to look out for their interests except anxious parents who put their trust in doctors. As it turns out, that trust is often misplaced. Big Pharma spends massive amounts to entertain physicians, send them on luxury vacations and ply them with an endless supply of free products. As a result, hundreds of thousands of American kids - some as young as three years old - have become dependent on amphetamines like Adderall and a pharmacopeia of other drugs that allegedly treat depression, insomnia, aggression and other mental health disorders.

The fact that none of these powerful mood-altering medications have been approved by the FDA to treat children under 10 has posed no obstacle to the industry's marketing masterminds. They've waved off objections by some some doctors who wonder how these complex drugs will affect the vulnerable brains and bodies of their young patients. Other experts have warned that children exposed to this multi-molecular barrage on their central nervous systems could potentially be at much higher risk of becoming adults who are addicted to chemicals, prescription and otherwise. But thanks to a billion-dollar advertising campaign, millions of kids across the nation are now taking pills to control a long litany of "behavioral problems."

Foods that have "gluten-free" on their label may actually contain significant amounts of gluten -- enough to cause gastrointestinal symptoms in those with celiac disease who have an intolerance to the wheat protein. That's because the US Food and Drug Administration never established a standard for the label, leaving it up to manufacturers to define what they mean by gluten-free.

Now, though, the agency is moving forward with a new standard that manufacturers will be required to meet before they can slap on the gluten-free label. Federal officials are proposing that cookies, bread, and other wheat products making this claim can contain no more that 20 parts per million of gluten, a level below which gluten can't be detected by standard lab tests.

It's the current standard in European Union countries and has been widely accepted by researchers as a safe level for those with celiac disease, which affects nearly 3 million Americans. Those with the condition suffer damage to their small intestine when their immune system attacks healthy tissue whenever it detects gluten -- found in rye and barley as well as wheat.