Is cholesterol reduction a good thing? Many doctors and health authorities would answer an unequivocal 'yes' to this question, but what does the evidence show. Previously on this site I have shared evidence which strongly suggests that cholesterol reduction, per se, is not necessarily good for our health, and may even be hazardous. Last week's blog post reported on drugs that, although effective for cholesterol, have singularly failed to improve health and may even have hastened some people's demise.

This information is not new. Evidence dating back more than 20 years revealed precisely the same thing. Take for instance this study that was published in the British Medical Journal. It assessed the impact of dietary and drug interventions to reduce cholesterol on the overall risk of death, as well as death from specific causes, in men. Average treatment time was about 5 years.

According to Science Times[1], the Tuesday science section in the New York Times, scientific retractions are on the rise because of a "dysfunctional scientific climate" that has created a "winner-take-all game with perverse incentives that lead scientists to cut corners and, in some cases, commit acts of misconduct."

But elsewhere, audacious, falsified research stands unretracted - including the work of authors who actually went to prison for fraud!

Richard Borison, MD, former psychiatry chief at the Augusta Veterans Affairs medical center and Medical College of Georgia, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for a $10 million clinical trial fraud[2] but his 1996 US Seroquel® Study Group research is unretracted.[3] In fact, it is cited in 173 works and medical textbooks, misleading future medical professionals.[4]

Scott Reuben, MD, the "Bernie Madoff" of medicine who published research on clinical trials that never existed, was sentenced to six months in prison in 2010.[5] But his "research" on popular pain killers like Celebrex and Lyrica is unretracted.[6] If going to prison for research fraud is not enough reason for retraction, what is?

A trial using electricity to shrink the hearts of patients with heart failure is about to start in Liverpool.

It will involve electrically stimulating one of the nerves leading to the heart, which it is hoped could shrink the heart and improve life expectancy.

This is the first trial of the technique in humans, after it was shown to keep rats and dogs alive for longer.

This first patient will be operated on in the next few days.

The heart pumps blood around the body, and when it fails to do this properly people can become tired and out of breath far more quickly. For some patients it feels like running a marathon when they are only sitting in an armchair.

In this article a key question is brought to the forefront, namely, is eating wheat and gluten free enough to obtain optimal health? The mass market has done quite a good job of accommodating the gluten & wheat free movement by providing an increasingly wide number of good tasting and seeming nutritious "whole grain" products.

But are whole grains like rice, or other common wheat substitute flours like potato, really as good for us as we think?

The question can be answered in a number of ways, and it is important to keep things in perspective. As idealists, we might ask ourselves: "What is the perfect diet?" But as realists there is always a sliding scale of lesser evils that we exchange for the experience of enjoying our foods and obtaining the comfort they readily provide.

Take a grain of sea salt as you read this exposé, as it is intended to illuminate how in some cases eliminating wheat and gluten will not be enough to overcome nagging inflammatory problems like osteoarthritis, or maybe more serious treatment refractory and idiopathic health conditions.

Lectins: Invisible Thorns

In a previous article this author discussed the "invisible thorn" found within all wheat products, including sprouted wheat bread and wheat grass, known as wheat lectin (technical name: Wheat Germ Agglutinin (WGA)). This intrinsically inflammatory and endocrine disruptive substance was thoroughly reviewed (via MEDLINE) and identified to have a broad range of potentially health disruptive effects:

1) WGA may be Pro-inflammatory

2) WGA may be Immunotoxic

3) WGA may be Neurotoxic

4) WGA may be Cytotoxic

5) WGA may interfere with Gene Expression

6) WGA may disrupt Endocrine Function

7) WGA may be Cardiotoxic

8) WGA may adversely effect Gastrointestinal Function

9) WGA exhibits similarities with certain Viruses

[View a more elaborate analysis of WGA's modes of toxicity, including citations]

Through meditation, Dutchman Wim Hof has proven his ability to control his involuntary functions, including his immune system.

Since direct-to-consumer drug advertising debuted in the late 1990s, the number of people on prescription drugs for life has ballooned.

Why has Big Pharma failed to produce new antibiotics for deadly infections like MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), VRE (vancomycin-resistant enterococci), C. Difficile and Acinetobacter baumannii even as they leap from hospital to community settings? Because there is no money in it.

Pharma executives "have shown less interest in medicines like antibiotics that actually cure disease than in those that only treat symptoms," writes Melody Petersen, author of Our Daily Meds. "Most blockbusters are pills for conditions such as anxiety, high cholesterol or constipation that must be taken daily, often for months or years. They are designed for rich Americans who can afford to buy them." Nor are medicines for tropical diseases like malaria, which kills a child every 30 seconds, a priority, notes Petersen. They also lack ka-ching.

The largest state legislature in the U.S. recently passed a bill mandating infant fluoride warnings on all water bills in fluoridated communities. On March 15, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 253-23 in favor of the bill.

Thanks to a 13-2 recommendation from the House Resources, Recreation, and Development committee, there was no debate over the bill on the House floor. The bill will now go to the Senate. According to the text of the billⁱ , the warning would read:

"Your public water supply is fluoridated. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under the age of 6 months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance of dental fluorosis. Consult your child's health care provider for more information."

Low fat. Gluten free. All natural. Organic. Cage-free. Contains: peanuts.

The latest buzz words or health crazes plastered on food products give us a reason to purchase. Savvy advertisers dream up enticing packaging. Or maybe it's just a handwritten "local" sign put up at the co-op. While the sea of labels can be confusing, they also alert us to what may or may not be in our food. And we have every right to know.

So when we're standing in the grocery store ready to buy, why don't we know which foods contain genetically engineered ingredients? Good question. All it takes is a label. And that's where the story gets interesting.

The H. 722 bill (also known as the Vermont Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) would require labeling of genetically engineered food products sold in Vermont and would give us, Vermont consumers, the ability to make more informed food-purchasing decisions. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) already requires food manufacturers to list ingredients, nutrition facts and common allergens. Why make an exception for genetically modified ingredients?

Recently, Vermonters filled the Statehouse to show their support for the bill and share their stories with the House Agriculture Committee where the bill currently sits. Health concerns, food in-tolerances and environmental considerations are just a couple of reasons consumers might want to know if the food they buy is genetically modified. VPIRG, NOFA Vermont and Rural Vermont have joined forces to advocate for the passage of the bill and garner public support through the Vermont Right to Know GMOs project.

We all know that diabetes is big business. The trillion dollar question is: "big business for whom?"

This week (April 2012), 1^st Quarter net profit financial statements were released in business publications worldwide. Among the company net profit earnings reported were some of the biggest manufacturers of diabetes and diabetes-related medications.

This blog is written by a health professional and not a business savvy individual. It, therefore, does not claim accuracy nor is this list anywhere close to complete. But, it should get us thinking. Here are the reports from just five of the major couple of dozen or so pharmaceutical companies:

Stress and obesity have a strong link in our society. In order to combat the obesity epidemic effectively we need to recognize the connection and handle the underlying stressors. A group of hormones that are released when we are stressed are called glucocorticoids. These glucocorticoids remain in the blood for a significant time after the stressor is removed. Put a person under chronic stress and they will have constantly high amounts of glucocorticoids in their blood.

The glucocorticoids initiate the release of corticotrophin-releasing factor (CRF) which is a key player in our stress response. They also increase our cravings for sugary foods and they also act directly on increasing abdominal fat storage (Dallman, 2003). Dallman in her study concluded that "We believe people eat comfort food in an attempt to reduce the activity in the chronic-stress response network with its attendant anxiety." This is due to the decreased CRF, catecholamines, and hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal activity found in depressed people that overeat (Dallman, 2003). To understand these links more let us take a step back and look at what is going on in our bodies.