Is Detoxification bullshit?

[Junghalli]

If we were to talk about say breast cancer, a purely biomedical approach would focus on surgery, taking out the cancerous cells and making sure the patient survives the surgery and cancer goes into remission. A holistic approach would also look at how to preserve as much breast tissue as possible, how to miminise scarring so that the person self-image is preserved, looking into cosmetic surgery and counselling so as to preserve a patient sexuality and etc etc etc.

When you put it that way it actually doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, it sounds like such a good idea it's now the standard mode of treament.

Oh, and you forgot the hairstyling consultation that is also often provided both for during chemo sessions and also afterward, as not everyone's hair grows back completely. Then there are the support groups and a bunch of other things that are now standard for almost any cancer treatment. Not everyone takes advantage of these, but they're out there and patients are encouraged to take advantage of whatever will help them.

[PainRack]

Wow, come to think of it, the doc I saw last January when I was so sick took quite thorough medical history. In fact, I had so many medical types take my history I threatened to put it on a tape, I was so tired of repeating myself.

Lol....... I used to wonder how a person will feel, having to repeat his history 4-6 times when entering a hospital alone. And due to the needs of each profession, you can't just place all the data on one sheet and have everyone refer to it, as you need to conduct your own specific assessment....

Oh, and you forgot the hairstyling consultation that is also often provided both for during chemo sessions and also afterward, as not everyone's hair grows back completely. Then there are the support groups and a bunch of other things that are now standard for almost any cancer treatment. Not everyone takes advantage of these, but they're out there and patients are encouraged to take advantage of whatever will help them.

Well, technically, those things aren't done by the doctors themselves but is part of the entire medical system, but you're right.

Holistic medicine isn't some special outpost of alternative medicine. Sure, there are many factors that hinder the introduction of holistic medicine in our society such as overwork and etc, but those are just problems waiting to be solved.

[kinnison]

There is a reason why doctors will miss this out. Scurvy as a disease has been almost entirely wiped out in modern society, hell, even in third world countries.

As such, doctors with no experience of this disease, and indeed, this stunningly rare disorder will not be able to make a differential diagnosis.

Reasonable, if it were true. However, various deficiency diseases such as scurvy, rickets/osteomalacia and beriberi are on the way back, at least in the UK - the reason is probably mostly social, in that the quality of food eaten by many people is utter garbage. The reason for that is debatable, but probably includes the decline of "domestic science" as a school subject and the explosive growth of fast food sales.

As an example, there are pockets of rickets in several towns in Northern England. The towns involved are mostly those that have a large proportion of people of Asian descent living there, and the probable reasons for the rickets are a diet low in vitamin D combined with dark skin and wearing of a great deal of clothing - more than those of native British descent wear. In other words, dietary and cultural habits unsuited to our climate.

On a different subject, twice now people have said "anecdote != data". That depends on the number and reliability of the anecdotes, but I won't debate it. However, there is another similar principle that is less often referred to by medical researchers in particular - "correlation does not imply causation".

In the particular case of hyperlipidaemia and heart disease, there is indeed a correlation - but it could easily be the case that both problems are caused by a third factor (for example excessive sugar consumption).

Extremes are often instructive. Familial hypercholesterolaemia does correlate to early onset of heart disease - but nothing like as strongly as does homocystinuria, which is caused by extemely high blood levels of homocysteine, in turn caused by a genetic defect. And there is just as strong a correlation, if not stronger (I don't have the material handy) between homocysteine levels in blood and heart disease as the one with lipid levels.

Both those problems in milder cases, apart from the obvious cases of metabolic abnormality, are probably caused by the same thing - a crappy diet, which tends to be both high in fat and low in nutrients.

The difference between cholesterol and homocysteine is this; cholesterol can be lowered by drugs but there are no corresponding drugs for homocysteine - a cocktail of B12, B6 and folic acid does quite well, however. Now what does anyone think a profession dominated by pharmaceutical manufacturers is going to emphasise - given that there is money to be made from statins but not from vitamins?

[Hillary]

As an example, there are pockets of rickets in several towns in Northern England. The towns involved are mostly those that have a large proportion of people of Asian descent living there, and the probable reasons for the rickets are a diet low in vitamin D combined with dark skin and wearing of a great deal of clothing - more than those of native British descent wear. In other words, dietary and cultural habits unsuited to our climate.

Except that scurvy occurs as a result of the lack of vitamin C, not vitamin D. Of course, a medically trained GP would know this.

Self owning of the highest quality imo.

[Hillary]

Ghetto edit. Don't try and argue that you hit the wrong key, as the dark skin and heavy clothing part was an obvious reference to gaining vitamin D through sunlight.

[brianeyci]

Now what does anyone think a profession dominated by pharmaceutical manufacturers is going to emphasise - given that there is money to be made from statins but not from vitamins?

You've made this charge twice now, that doctors take money from pharmaceutical manufacturers and allow it to compromise their medical judgment. Someone has already called you out on your bonus accusation, so unless you provide proof I suggest you don't make unfounded accusations again unless you want people to flame you.

I'm entirely sure that pharmaceutical companies would want people to buy expensive drugs. What I'm not sure is this bribery is statistically significant, or even effective on doctors, who make loads of money. Or even allowed, in the UK or US. Doctors do not make the drugs.

As for correlation does not imply causation, that is a gross misrepresentation of statistics and medical science. There are proper procedures in place to choose test subjects, and not all of these patients will have a diet so high in sugar that it would be statistically significant -- or do you think medical researchers are stupid and don't know how to conduct controlled experiments? I suspect it's because you don't understand probability or statistics at all, and probably don't understand how enough people when properly selected can be representative of an entire population.

[Beowulf]

As an example, there are pockets of rickets in several towns in Northern England. The towns involved are mostly those that have a large proportion of people of Asian descent living there, and the probable reasons for the rickets are a diet low in vitamin D combined with dark skin and wearing of a great deal of clothing - more than those of native British descent wear. In other words, dietary and cultural habits unsuited to our climate.

Except that scurvy occurs as a result of the lack of vitamin C, not vitamin D. Of course, a medically trained GP would know this.

Self owning of the highest quality imo.

Apparently you can't read though. He said "Rickets", not "Scurvy".

[Stuart]

As an example, there are pockets of rickets in several towns in Northern England. The towns involved are mostly those that have a large proportion of people of Asian descent living there, and the probable reasons for the rickets are a diet low in vitamin D combined with dark skin and wearing of a great deal of clothing - more than those of native British descent wear. In other words, dietary and cultural habits unsuited to our climate.

Now that's an interestingly slanted quotation. I took the trouble to hunt it down and the reference is to an article in the British newspaper "The Daily Mail" about an unidentified medical conference where doctors specifically identified the burka and the niquab as being the garments responsible for vitamin D deficiency and thus rickets. Also, that the problem isn't confined to "pockets in Northern England", its systemic to all areas and countries where the burka and niquab are enforced.

Note how Kinnison turns a specific identification into a generic "great deal of clothing". Also, "moslems" gets turned into "Asians".

One of the interesting things about quotations is that people often say a lot more about themselves than they realize when using them.

[Rye]

Heh, so a misquoted article from the fucking Daily Nazi Sympathiser of all places. Jesus, that's just about the least trustworthy evidence there is. That's approaching religious levels of hearsay of hearsay.

Kinnison, you lying little douche, HOW do UK GPs get bonuses for prescriptions? As I fucking live with a GP I know this is categorically not the case as prescriptions and GP salaries are paid for by the NHS, none of the money comes from the pharmaceuticals at all. Big pharm, as I said, aren't even allowed to give GPs any incentives beyond stuff like stationery.

[Broomstick]

Reasonable, if it were true. However, various deficiency diseases such as scurvy, rickets/osteomalacia and beriberi are on the way back, at least in the UK - the reason is probably mostly social, in that the quality of food eaten by many people is utter garbage.

Definiciency diseases never went away - there has always been a low-level occurance due to extreme poverty, drug use (addicts seldom eat well, and sometimes eat not at all), among the elderly, and the seriously ill. Even if doctor doesn't see these in training they are certainly educated about them, and doctors serving impoverished and/or elderly populations do see them.

As an example, there are pockets of rickets in several towns in Northern England. The towns involved are mostly those that have a large proportion of people of Asian descent living there, and the probable reasons for the rickets are a diet low in vitamin D combined with dark skin and wearing of a great deal of clothing - more than those of native British descent wear. In other words, dietary and cultural habits unsuited to our climate.

And for the past couple centuries in North America there has been a certain incidence of rickets among people of African descent living at more northern lattitudes - said problem being largely (although not entirely) eliminated by adding vitamin D to milk and milk products. Which, I might add, profits the pharmaceutical companies not at all, nor does it enrich doctors who might otherwise be treating ricketts (I guess they keep busy enough with other medical problems). Among those children who can't digest milk (unfortunately, a trait that frequently is inherited with dark skin) cheap supplements are readily available and such children are encouraged to spend a certain amount of time playing in direct sunlight without use of sunscreen.

That depends on the number and reliability of the anecdotes, but I won't debate it. However, there is another similar principle that is less often referred to by medical researchers in particular - "correlation does not imply causation".

Are you sure that's not "correlation does not prove causation"? Because correlation can lead to further investigation, which may or may not prove a link between phenomena.

In the particular case of hyperlipidaemia and heart disease, there is indeed a correlation - but it could easily be the case that both problems are caused by a third factor (for example excessive sugar consumption).

Extremes are often instructive. Familial hypercholesterolaemia does correlate to early onset of heart disease - but nothing like as strongly as does homocystinuria, which is caused by extemely high blood levels of homocysteine, in turn caused by a genetic defect. And there is just as strong a correlation, if not stronger (I don't have the material handy) between homocysteine levels in blood and heart disease as the one with lipid levels.

I wish you knew what the fuck you were talking about.

"Familial hypercholesterolemia" is not simply high cholesterol - it's cholesterol off the charts. I'm a little too familar with it, as my mother (and a number of other relatives) suffer from it. For an untreated person with just one copy of the faulty gene (actually, there's probably more than one mutation), a vial of their blood does not, over time, settle into the typical red cells topped by a layer of plasma - no, their blood settles into red cells and something very like foam or whipped cream, which may occupy up to half the vial. It's the fats and cholesterol settling out of their blood and can serve as a rough dianostic test in and of itself. Ironically, such individuals can have problems retaining weight and/or body fat because this is really an error of lipid metabolism. Their body doesn't process fats properly, so it often has trouble storing it. There is such an overload that the body tries to dump the excess cholesterol any way it can, including xanthomas. Xanthomas in the skin are visible as yellow growths. My mother has had several dug out of her body. People with her variety of this condition start having angine pains in their lates 20's or early 30's, and untreated typically die in their mid-40's of massive heart and circulatory problems.

This, by the way, is a typical manifestation of xanthomas. My mother's weren't so bad, but they were around her eyes and very visible, which is why she had them removed.



If you get a double-whammy of the gene you see 5 and 6 year olds with xanthomas, which in some cases grow big enough to be called tumors, and death in the untreated can occur as early as the teens.

This lump on the back of the leg is a large xanthoma on a 7 year old child homozygous for FHC. That is, basically, a lump of almost pure cholesterol sitting under the kid's skin.


This is NOT caused by a crappy diet, too much sugar, not enough exercise, lack of herbs, failure to consume homopathic remedies, or any other such bullshit. It's an inborn defect of lipid metabolism. It can cured not with a diet, or herbs, vitamins, crystals, high colonics, or another other variety of snake oil but with a liver transplant - a genetically normal liver provides the necessary and correctly functioning enzymes. Of course, a liver transplant is pretty fucking extreme, and brings its own chronic problems. Not to mention that waiting list issue.

FHC is very, very different from diet-induced high cholesterol. So shut the fuck up about it, you ignoramus. It does kill people. Whether "ordinary" high cholesterol is unhealthy or does or doesn't cause cardiovascular disease, the mechanism may well be entirely different than in FHC.

By the way - on a maximum dose of statins my mother's cholesterol is down to around 380-400. That's the best possible for her.

The difference between cholesterol and homocysteine is this; cholesterol can be lowered by drugs but there are no corresponding drugs for homocysteine - a cocktail of B12, B6 and folic acid does quite well, however.

First of all, while there is a correlation between homocysteine and cardiovascular disease, causation is not proven. Second, if your "cocktail" actually works then get someone to do a double-blind trial of it. The notion that there is no money in such "natural" cures is bullshit - otherwise no one would make generic vitamins or asprin or any other of those low-cost wonder drugs/substances. In fact, when it proven that asprin can help those with cardiovascular disease several companies started offering formulations in the accepted doses for those conditions, packaged and aimed at adults.

Now what does anyone think a profession dominated by pharmaceutical manufacturers is going to emphasise - given that there is
money to be made from statins but not from vitamins?

Do you mean to tell me that the companies filling up the vitamin aisles at my local stores are all going broke, doing it out of the goodness of their hearts?

[Hillary]

As an example, there are pockets of rickets in several towns in Northern England. The towns involved are mostly those that have a large proportion of people of Asian descent living there, and the probable reasons for the rickets are a diet low in vitamin D combined with dark skin and wearing of a great deal of clothing - more than those of native British descent wear. In other words, dietary and cultural habits unsuited to our climate.

Except that scurvy occurs as a result of the lack of vitamin C, not vitamin D. Of course, a medically trained GP would know this.

Self owning of the highest quality imo.

Apparently you can't read though. He said "Rickets", not "Scurvy".

:crawls away to die quietly in the corner:

[kinnison]

Broomstick:

As a matter of fact, I do know somewhat about FHC - having two relatives (my brother-in-law and niece) with the problem, albeit, as it turns out, the milder (heterozygous or one-copy?) form. His problem is mild enough that although he does have some xanthomas around the eyes in particular, it is controllable to a large extent (i.e. higher than normal rather than ridiculous) with yes, diet and yes, supplements. He has been on statins (several different varieties) and has discontinued them because he can't live with the side effects, severe enough that he couldn't work.

How my niece is going to turn out nobody knows; for the moment she is OK because she also obviously has the mild form, she isn't 18 yet, and she is extremely active and has a very good diet.

As I said, extremes are often instructive, although one has to be careful about what one concludes from them. Less extreme "extremes" are often more so.

As for the data about homocystinuria, as I expected to find when I rechecked the literature homozygous carriers of the gene(s) responsible are much worse health-wise than are heterozygous ones. Homozygotes, left untreated, apparently often die before puberty - and the literature also states that approximately half of sufferers mild or otherwise are helped by large doses of B6 and some of the rest are helped by betaine and/or folate.

Incidentally, it also appears that this particular disorder is multifactorial, in that defects in various enzymes can cause it to a greater or lesser degree.

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/disp ... ?id=236200. The NIH good enough for you?

Since the enzymes required are B6/folate dependent, it would seem logical that mildly depressed levels of these two nutrients (crap diet?) and/or larger than required amounts of methionine would raise homocysteine levels to some degree. Since it is obvious that homocysteine is a pretty nasty toxin to the circulatory system if in excess, this is another possible (weakly) causative chain between poor diet and heart disease.

Of course vitamin companies make money - but their markups aren't anything like those of drug companies, probably by an order of magnitude. And certainly not enough to support expensive randomised double-blind controlled trials from which they would get no benefit, as there is nothing whatsoever to stop the next company along selling the same product. Despite this, many of the better vitamin companies do in fact support fundamental research.

Stuart, I was very carefully being non-specific in my comment about Asians in Bradford (in particular); as I don't particularly want to be flamed for being a racist/religionist bigot.

The people in question are largely Pakistanis - strangely enough I believe Indians don't have the problem as much. Of course, it's Pakistanis that are Moslems, wear black from head to foot and are required to stay indoors much of the time if female. However, this thread is not about religion and culture at the moment. (Insert "ethnic" wherever needed.)

On the subject of "correlation" - I stand corrected, except that in formal logic "implies" is normally much stronger than in normal speech.

[Broomstick]

As a matter of fact, I do know somewhat about FHC - having two relatives (my brother-in-law and niece) with the problem, albeit, as it turns out, the milder (heterozygous or one-copy?) form. His problem is mild enough that although he does have some xanthomas around the eyes in particular, it is controllable to a large extent (i.e. higher than normal rather than ridiculous) with yes, diet and yes, supplements.

Then he does not have FHC.

On a completely cholesterol-free diet with a maximum dose of statins my mother's cholesterol hovers between 400-500. (Yes, that was tried) And she does have the heterozygous form!

There are other people with less than perfect enzymes for lipid processing who have high cholesterol or even xanthomas - but in those people they tend to show up in mid-life, not in the 20's (like for my mother). Merely because someone has high cholesterol with a genetic component does NOT mean they have FHC.

You can no more control FHC with diet and supplements than you can control Type 1 diabetes solely with diet and supplements. The body is missing a crucial chemical that must be artificially replaced.

How my niece is going to turn out nobody knows; for the moment she is OK because she also obviously has the mild form, she isn't 18 yet, and she is extremely active and has a very good diet.

Is she seeing a cardiologist?

If she does have FHC (which I seriously doubt) then good diet and exercise will enable her to better tolerate the inevitable medical procedures in her future. She will probably need coronary bypass in her 40's, and it will leave extensive scars because the doctors will have a terrible time finding vein grafts that aren't already clogged with deposits. She will probably have heart attacks in her 50's and 60's. She will be at high risk of stroke. Her feet and hands will go numb as the circulation is slowly cut off. Eventually, if the heart problems don't kill her, the cholesterol build up and resulting damage will slowly choke off the blood supply to her organs. That is currently the best case scenario with this disorder.

As I said, this is NOT a matter of a "crap diet", lack of exercise or any of that. It's not a matter of obesity - my mother is significantly underweight because her body doesn't process fats properly and has a great deal of trouble using them or storing them. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. This not a spectrum disorder, you either have it full blown or you don't have have it. Even for heterozygotes there are no "mild" cases.

As for the data about homocystinuria, as I expected to find when I rechecked the literature homozygous carriers of the gene(s) responsible are much worse health-wise than are heterozygous ones. Homozygotes, left untreated, apparently often die before puberty - and the literature also states that approximately half of sufferers mild or otherwise are helped by large doses of B6 and some of the rest are helped by betaine and/or folate.

None of those supplements cure the problem, only mitigate it. And it's a completely unfounded leap to go from a discrete, genetic disorder to linking "normal" heart disease with slightly elevated homocystine levels to a hypothesis that millions of people are heterozygous for this disorder. If they were, the homozygotes would also number in the million because of all the "carriers" getting married to each other and reproducing.

Incidentally, it also appears that this particular disorder is multifactorial, in that defects in various enzymes can cause it to a greater or lesser degree.

No, fuckhead. It's a discrete, single-gene disorder. The fact that other people might have slightly elevated homocystine levels does not mean this is a "multi-factorial" disorder with a spectrum of symptoms. It's not. You either have it (or carry it) or you don't.

Just as a fever can be triggered by multiple causes so does high cholesterol and elevated homocystine. You are engaging in the time-honored technique of snake-oil salesmen, attributing one root cause to all ills, treating all the same regardless of true cause of symptoms.

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/disp ... ?id=236200. The NIH good enough for you?

Sure, but it's talking solely about people with an identified genetic defect. It is, in no way, attributing all instances of elevated homocystine of any degree to this disorder, as you are.

Since the enzymes required are B6/folate dependent, it would seem logical that mildly depressed levels of these two nutrients (crap diet?) and/or larger than required amounts of methionine would raise homocysteine levels to some degree.

Have you any research to prove that in people who are not carriers of the defective gene that supplementation of B6 and folate has any effect on homocystine levels? Hm? I'm not talking about the nutritionally deficient, I'm talking about people with a healthy diet.

It's no different than people who claim diabetes is caused by too much sugar - it's not. Sure, sugar can aggravate diabetes, but it doesn't cause it. Cholesterol in the diet can aggravate FHC, but it doesn't cause it. Nor can you simply extrapolate from an identifiable ill/disordered population to a normal population.

Of course vitamin companies make money - but their markups aren't anything like those of drug companies, probably by an order of magnitude. And certainly not enough to support expensive randomised double-blind controlled trials from which they would get no benefit, as there is nothing whatsoever to stop the next company along selling the same product. Despite this, many of the better vitamin companies do in fact support fundamental research.

And you're contradicting yourself - they can't afford to do research, but they do research?

Contrary to rumor, medical research is not solely performed by pharmacuetical companies. Big pharma does a lot of research, true, partly because they have the money and partly because that's how they develop new products, but academic medical centers, public grants/agencies, and even individual doctors can and do engage in research.

[PainRack]

Reasonable, if it were true. However, various deficiency diseases such as scurvy, rickets/osteomalacia and beriberi are on the way back, at least in the UK - the reason is probably mostly social, in that the quality of food eaten by many people is utter garbage. The reason for that is debatable, but probably includes the decline of "domestic science" as a school subject and the explosive growth of fast food sales.

Bollocks. If anything, EU regulations and the increased use of enriched foods argues against this. When even junk food has been enriched with vitamins and minerals(albeit in the raw foods rather than during the manufacturing process, which will leach out more nutrients), its almost impossible for a person with a normal diet to suffer nutritional deficiency.

Even MacDonalds, if eaten with variety can provide sufficient nutrients to prevent malnutritional disease, although its certainly not healthy.

As an example, there are pockets of rickets in several towns in Northern England. The towns involved are mostly those that have a large proportion of people of Asian descent living there, and the probable reasons for the rickets are a diet low in vitamin D combined with dark skin and wearing of a great deal of clothing - more than those of native British descent wear. In other words, dietary and cultural habits unsuited to our climate.

Yet, Asians living in North China don't have this same problem. And that's with a diet that's usually low in dairy products, as opposed to the Western diet. Furthermore, pockets of rickets? Are you sure you're not referring to the last century, where blacks had a higher incidence of rickets?

Anyway, let me do your work for you.
Age-old children's disease back in force

The reasons for this resurgence appear to be common among all studies. They involve cases of cautious mothers who were doing everything they thought they should to keep their infants safe. Their children were breastfed exclusively and were covered up when exposed to sunlight using a combination of clothing and high-SPF sunscreens.

Unfortunately, breast milk (unlike infant formula) is not a good source of vitamin D and without adequate sun exposure, children are unable to make it themselves.

Although pediatricians know to give supplements in these cases, the pediatric society notes that many children in Canada do not have pediatricians.

This situation represents only half the problem. The other involves the nutritional status of the mothers.

If a pregnant woman is deficient in vitamin D, her child can be more susceptible to rickets after birth. A study published in May in the Journal of Nutrition reported that, in the U.S., "92.4 per cent of African-American babies and 66.1 per cent of white infants were found to have insufficient vitamin D at birth."

The obesity crisis has brought to light the lack of outdoor activity in both adults and children. Mix this with fears about hormones in milk, skin cancer from sun exposure and mercury in fish such as salmon that contain plenty of vitamin D – and a deficit is created.

Interestingly, the article also says why.

And let me guess...... you're going to argue that nutrionally deficient people need to take supplements, this despite the fact that nobody here argues against that fact. The only thing is, we know its easier and more importantly, FREE to simply just get it from a good varied diet and exercise.
Furthermore, I doubt anyone here has ever argued against nutritional supplements for pregnant and breast-feeding mothers and I certainly know doctors don't argue against this. After all, iron supplements, folic acid and vitamin b12 anyone?

Now that's an interestingly slanted quotation. I took the trouble to hunt it down and the reference is to an article in the British newspaper "The Daily Mail" about an unidentified medical conference where doctors specifically identified the burka and the niquab as being the garments responsible for vitamin D deficiency and thus rickets. Also, that the problem isn't confined to "pockets in Northern England", its systemic to all areas and countries where the burka and niquab are enforced.

Note how Kinnison turns a specific identification into a generic "great deal of clothing". Also, "moslems" gets turned into "Asians".

One of the interesting things about quotations is that people often say a lot more about themselves than they realize when using them.

So, is this article valid? Isn't the Daily Mail a tabloid paper?

In the particular case of hyperlipidaemia and heart disease, there is indeed a correlation - but it could easily be the case that both problems are caused by a third factor (for example excessive sugar consumption).

And why would the fact that fat depositing in blood vessels= arthereosclerosis be so hard to verify?

As for excessive sugar consumption, the very fact that only 0.5mg of sugar exists in the bloodstream at any time, UNLESS you're diabetic argues against that.

Extremes are often instructive. Familial hypercholesterolaemia does correlate to early onset of heart disease - but nothing like as strongly as does homocystinuria, which is caused by extemely high blood levels of homocysteine, in turn caused by a genetic defect. And there is just as strong a correlation, if not stronger (I don't have the material handy) between homocysteine levels in blood and heart disease as the one with lipid levels.

No shit. Except you keep ignoring that this ONLY supports the fact that hyperlipidemia is a cause for heart disease. A risk factor for athereosclerosis, which releases these factors IS high cholesterol.

Both those problems in milder cases, apart from the obvious cases of metabolic abnormality, are probably caused by the same thing - a crappy diet, which tends to be both high in fat and low in nutrients.

To take a sentence from Brianceyi,No shit sherlock. As for the second condition, you're wrong. Its caused by a defective gene.

Anyway, an article which nicely shows how wrong you're.
quack quack

Note these paragraph.

Dietary supplementation with folic acid can reduce elevated homocysteine levels in most patients. The usual therapeutic dose is 1 mg/day. When this is not effective, vitamins B6 and/or B12 can be added to the regimen, which should be continued permanently. Some doctors routinely recommend that patients known to have atherosclerosis take B-vitamin supplements without being tested to determine whether their homocysteine level is elevated

Elevated homocysteine levels can be caused by vitamin B12 deficiency due to impaired absorption of B12 caused by gastric atrophy (damage to the lining of the stomach). B12 deficiency leads to anemia and, if not corrected in time, will permanently damage the nervous system. Folic acid supplements will correct the anemia (which can serve as a warning sign before nerve damage develops), but they do not prevent the damage. For this reason, people over 50 who take folic acid supplements should also take at least 25 micrograms of vitamin B12 per day, a dose large enough to enable adequate amounts to be absorbed. Dr. Herbert believes that everyone over age 50 should take B12 supplements anyway, because gastric atrophy is common as people age. Products containing 100 mcg per pill are readily available.

Oh no, the evil doctors are prescribing vitamin supplements!

Since the enzymes required are B6/folate dependent, it would seem logical that mildly depressed levels of these two nutrients (crap diet?) and/or larger than required amounts of methionine would raise homocysteine levels to some degree. Since it is obvious that homocysteine is a pretty nasty toxin to the circulatory system if in excess, this is another possible (weakly) causative chain between poor diet and heart disease.

Except that the chain between poor diet and heart disease has already been proven. Its called fat and cholesterol.
Not to mention drinking a glass of red wine(the French) and etc etc etc.

Look, stop trying to belabour the obvious here. What are you trying to say? That people should take supplements if they need them? No shit.
That disease is actually caused by toxins? SHIT.
That the medical profession isn't curing people? Double bullshit.
Detoxification works? Triple bullshit.
There has been no correlation and evidence that organic juicing or any form of natural therapy has any benefits, other than the obvious ones which current nutritional therapy already cover. There's a reason why a dietician and a nutritionist are hired by a hospital.

Of course vitamin companies make money - but their markups aren't anything like those of drug companies, probably by an order of magnitude. And certainly not enough to support expensive randomised double-blind controlled trials from which they would get no benefit, as there is nothing whatsoever to stop the next company along selling the same product. Despite this, many of the better vitamin companies do in fact support fundamental research.

And the medical profession DO take note and DO follow up on these studies. Stop trying to insuinate that vitamins can give a cure and doctors don't do anything.

[Stuart]

Now that's an interestingly slanted quotation. I took the trouble to hunt it down and the reference is to an article in the British newspaper "The Daily Mail" about an unidentified medical conference where doctors specifically identified the burka and the niquab as being the garments responsible for vitamin D deficiency and thus rickets. Also, that the problem isn't confined to "pockets in Northern England", its systemic to all areas and countries where the burka and niquab are enforced. Note how Kinnison turns a specific identification into a generic "great deal of clothing". Also, "moslems" gets turned into "Asians". One of the interesting things about quotations is that people often say a lot more about themselves than they realize when using them.

So, is this article valid? Isn't the Daily Mail a tabloid paper?

Being a tabloid newspaper doesn't necessarily mean its wrong although the article's context (tabloid newspaper, unnamed sources, unnamed conference etc) all suggest that its unreliable at best. So, I looked a bit deeper and found that there is a surprising amount of information that suggests Burka and Niquab are actually quite serious health hazards.

For example This article, published in the Kuwait Medical Journal is interesting as much for its source as anything else.

I've long said that the Burka and Niquab should be banned in western societies on security grounds but it does appear there is an argument to be made for the same act on public health grounds as well. I'd say the case is at least as good as that for banning smoking in restaurants etc

[brianeyci]

In my book there should be a special chagrin reserved for forced health risks like smoking. A non-smoker should not be forced to smell smoke, and this is hard if every restaurant in walking distance has one smoker. Yes, people can be "forced" to wear heavy clothing due to their religion, but it's not exactly the same. The Burka and Niquab are not statistically significant public health risks in Western countries (at least most of the Muslims in Canada don't wear it), and even if they were they'd be in the same category as not enough exercise or shit diet, a self-inflicted risk. Ask those women behind the veil and they'd gladly agree to do it despite medical research. Smoking is self-inflicted too, but a major argument for banning smoking in restaurants, public places and work is risk to others and I can't imagine a separation as clear as, wear those clothes risk don't wear those clothes no risk.

And this whole sugar causes heart disease and vitamins can cure high cholesterol makes my head hurt. I wanted to say something about it but I knew Broomstick and Painrack would far better articulate it. If you think there's no money to be made you're wrong, and if your cocktail works take it down to the nearest major university that does medical research and they'd be happy to entertain you. It could be the next big thing like red wine, so don't pretend that there's no glory or money to be had in cheap remedies.

[PainRack]

And this whole sugar causes heart disease

Well, I'm not an endocrine specialist or cardiologist, but there are books written by M.Ds about how a high sugar diet may lead to CAD as a result of insulin. However, it doesn't change the fact that fat is still one of the causal factors of CAD.

and vitamins can cure high cholesterol makes my head hurt.

Technically, he's arguing that cholesterol isn't important, its an inflamnatory agent. Which isn't wrong, and yes, folic acid and B12 does lower the levels and there are studies ongoing now to see whether returning levels via drugs will reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.(Or at least, that's what quackwatch says. My googlefu is too weak to bother searching for more)

Its just that the implications simply doesn't exist. This subtle hint that doctors don't/won't prescribe supplements and will insist on expensive, deadly drugs is just silly. And he hasn't deliberately tried to overplay his hand by claiming miracle cures and etc..... yet:D

[kinnison]

Broomstick, I was told that my brother-in-law had been told he had FHC and that his daughter had inherited it. Told by his doctor, I might add. You're the one who is telling us all to believe your doctor!

It is quite possible that the doctor he was seeing was using a different definition and/or that he has a milder form, presumably caused by a different and less serious genetic defect. It is also true that it is inherited; several of his family have severe heart and circulatory problems.

He did have a blood level of about 480 to start with (the UK uses different units, I had to do a bit of searching and his was described as around 12.5 mmol/l) and it has now come down by means of rigorous diet restrictions and a couple of supplements to around 350. His doctor isn't too happy, but the statins mess him up so much he can't work and, as he has a family to support, he has decided not to take them.

Incidentally, the Americans here may not be aware that "Asian" in Britain is usually taken to mean South Asian i.e. India and Pakistan.

Excessive sugar and heart disease; well, there is a known problem, called Syndrome X or paradoxical hyperglycaemia, in which insulin and blood glucose are simultaneously raised. People with this problem often go on to develop type 2 diabetes later, and both problems are just about always caused by decades of excessive sugar comsumption. Human hormone and enzyme systems are not well adapted to large quantities of easily absorbed sugar, especially when it isn't burned off by exercise, and sooner or later it can cause these problems. This problem is also negatively correlated with blood chromium levels and positively correlated with chromium levels in urine, which may suggest something.

At any rate, it is well known that type 2 diabetes, and certainly syndrome X, are usually helped by dietary restriction, including exclusion of sugar-containing products and those containing easily-digested starch such as white bread. Strangely enough, a diet similar to the Atkins one works rather well. It is also known that both these problems are correlated with heart disease, and most doctors believe the relationship to be causal.

Doctors don't cure people? No, sometimes they don't - especially with chronic problems such as osteoarthritis, and the more honest ones will tell you so. For chronic problems such as this, "alternative" methods (did I mention that N.D. is now a more common medical qualification than M.D.? perhaps not) often work a great deal better - and usually don't make you ill in some other way in the process; an example might be glucosamine sulphate for arthritis as opposed to ibuprofen.

Pharma doesn't influence doctors? Hmmm... maybe there is some reason why the official figures for desirable cholesterol level go down every year? I do know for a fact that doctors in the UK get bonuses of some sort for vaccinations, cholesterol testing and so on. Now - if a doctor has your cholesterol tested, and an official source tells him it's too high, and you already have a decent diet, what is he going to do?

Pharma may not do the research, but they certainly pay for most of it.

Let's sum this up - the whole of this thread in fact. I am saying that doctors are so immersed in the culture of "a pill for every ill" and so dominated by the completely biased information available (4 years of pharmacology, a couple of weeks of nutrition, I believe) that not only do they usually not cure people and miss what's under their noses but, yes, they do harm people. And some of them don't give a damn, either. (Suppressing symptoms is NOT a cure, and neither is installing a mechanical replacement.)

Others here are saying that not only I, but everyone else in my profession, are unqualified quacks who sell completely useless snake oil.

Right, someone tell me something about this (someone is going to light the "anecdote" flame here); girl X (about 25) who, knowing that I work in the herbs and supplements business, asked me what to do about her psoriasis. I might add that she had already gone the rounds and been subjected to phototherapy, assorted highly toxic drugs and disgustingly smelly creams that stained her clothes, and none of all this crap worked. My suggestion, having ascertained that for weight control reasons she was avoiding fish (high in fat!), was cod liver oil - which, incidentally, she bought elsewhere.

Problem gone in 3 weeks as if she had never had it. Doctors had spent a year not curing the problem.

I was selling useless snake oil, of course. WRONG - on two counts.

This sort of stuff happens all the time - probably 3-4 times per day. As I have said before - all too often, we clear up the messes doctors leave. Some of my local ones even send me their patients to do it.

[Broomstick]

Broomstick, I was told that my brother-in-law had been told he had FHC and that his daughter had inherited it. Told by his doctor, I might add. You're the one who is telling us all to believe your doctor!

It is quite possible that the doctor he was seeing was using a different definition and/or that he has a milder form, presumably caused by a different and less serious genetic defect. It is also true that it is inherited; several of his family have severe heart and circulatory problems.

FHC does not have a "milder" form. There are inherited versions of cholesterol-moving enzymes that are less efficient than normal, but that does not make them FHC.

He did have a blood level of about 480 to start with (the UK uses different units, I had to do a bit of searching and his was described as around 12.5 mmol/l) and it has now come down by means of rigorous diet restrictions and a couple of supplements to around 350. His doctor isn't too happy, but the statins mess him up so much he can't work and, as he has a family to support, he has decided not to take them.

With levels that high, and an extremely restrictive diet, then it's possible he is heterozygous for FHC. I should also point out that that level of cholesterol is, in no way, acceptable and will lead to hardening of the arteries and progressive organ damage. Your supplements have in no way cured him.

Incidentally, the Americans here may not be aware that "Asian" in Britain is usually taken to mean South Asian i.e. India and Pakistan.

Actually, many of us regulars do know that. Contrary to rumor, Americans are capable of learning facts about other cultures and English dialects.

Excessive sugar and heart disease; well, there is a known problem, called Syndrome X or paradoxical hyperglycaemia, in which insulin and blood glucose are simultaneously raised.

In the US this is known as "metabolic syndrome"

The theories I've heard link it not so much to overconsumption of sugar as just plain being overweight, which one can achieve through too much fat. I think the main lesson here is moderation is best in just about everything.

did I mention that N.D. is now a more common medical qualification than M.D.?

Not in my country. What's an ND, doctor of naturopathy?

an example might be glucosamine sulphate for arthritis as opposed to ibuprofen.

Except there is no proof glucosamine is useful in treating arthritis even though clinical trials have been done. The results are inconsistent.

Pharma doesn't influence doctors? Hmmm... maybe there is some reason why the official figures for desirable cholesterol level go down every year?

Um... because high cholesterol is correlated with heart disease and early death, and levels that were once considered "safe" when people only lived about 50 or 60 years are now thought to be "unsafe" in a population that lives almost to 80? The damage caused is cumulative - the longer you live, the worse it gets. If we all dropped dead at 30 high cholesterol would rarely matter, but when the average life expectency rose it became much more important.

I do know for a fact that doctors in the UK get bonuses of some sort for vaccinations, cholesterol testing and so on.

In the US they do not. In fact, in the US doctors lose money on some vaccinations. Yet we still vaccinate people, and we still test for cholesterol.

Now - if a doctor has your cholesterol tested, and an official source tells him it's too high, and you already have a decent diet, what is he going to do?

So tell me what is inappropriate in using medication to lower excessive cholesterol when, as you point out, the patient's diet is already decent? My sister who inherited FHC is a vegetarian. She cooks almost all her family's food from scratch, avoiding added sugar, salt, etc. She works out 6 days a week. She takes statins. Her cholesterol is still over 350, which is completely not OK. She had her first invasive heart procedure at 48 - only 4 years later than our mother's first bypass surgery. What more do you propose she do? How are statins inappropriate in her case?

Pharma may not do the research, but they certainly pay for most of it.

Yes, because (at least in this country) the law requires them to perform and/or fund research on each and every product they produce. If they did not perform/support research on safety and efficacy they would not be able to stay in business in this country. It's like bitching that auto companies conduct most auto testing - of course they do, they are required to test their products prior to selling them to the public. Are you proposing that the world be safer if pharma did no testing?

It's not like all pharma testing is unethical, either - AZT was originally shelved as too dangerous and only brought out because, for a time, it was the only medication with any effect on HIV at all. It was pharma that demanded strict controls on dispensing retin A and thalidomide to fertile women. I'm not saying they're saints - they certainly aren't - but they aren't dens of unredeemable evil, either. 9 out of 10 promising new compounds never make it through testing - and that's the decision of pharma to shelve the compounds because of their testing. Who do you propose weed through the possibly useful compounds in this manner other than pharma?

(Suppressing symptoms is NOT a cure, and neither is installing a mechanical replacement.)

No, but when we don't have a cure treating symptoms and replacing bits may, in fact, be the best we have. Are you proposing that because we can't cure arthritis we should simply not treat it at all? Because we can't reverse damage we should leave people in wheelchairs rather than replace their hips and knees and enable them to walk again without pain?Does relief of suffering mean nothing to you?

It's like this - if I need just a little help to relax I'll sip chamomile tea. If I break my leg, I want a doctor and I don't mind an x-ray and a pain killer, thankyouverymuch. Eating a healthy diet is good for anyone, and a multi-vitamin is good insurance, but diet alone won't fix Type 1 diabetes, it won't fix FHC, it won't reverse decades of joint damage, it simply won't fix a lot of things.

Others here are saying that not only I, but everyone else in my profession, are unqualified quacks who sell completely useless snake oil.

Um... let's see... yes, you are an "unqualified quack" in the sense you are NOT medically trained to an acceptable level to diagnose and treat diseases. As for the completely useless snake oil... well, some herbal and other supplements have some use, but most operate by placebo effect either because they simply don't have the alledged effect in the first place, or because the amount of active ingredient in typical supplement dosages is too small to have any effect.

[Stuart]

Incidentally, the Americans here may not be aware that "Asian" in Britain is usually taken to mean South Asian i.e. India and Pakistan.

Utterly irrelevent. The original article and the sources from which it derived didn't specify "asians" (whether Indian, Pakistani Sri lankan, Myanmarese or anybody else). It specified Moslems regardless of race or geographical location. The determinant factor was the wearing of the burka and niquab not "lots of clothing". The fact is that you have been caught out and found guilty of distorting a quotation for your own political ends.

did I mention that N.D. is now a more common medical qualification than M.D.? perhaps not)

And rats are more common than humans. Your point is?????????????.

Not only I, but everyone else in my profession, are unqualified quacks who sell completely useless snake oil.

Yippeee. You got something right at last.

[brianeyci]

So let's see. You say I am (or others are) accusing you of being a quack, when you yourself admit you sell quack products to meet the bottom line. Then you accuse doctors of doing the same thing, even though the discipline and intelligence required to live through medical school is insane compared to the training required to open and operate a herbal remedy store. Not only that, but doctors are not involved directly in the sale of medicine, while you are. Hell, there's Chinese Traditional Medicine stores right across the street, and I have more respect for their qualifications than a small business owner who sells placebos, vitamins and body building food. At least Chinese Traditional Medicine practitioners must belong to a professional organization, and as far as I tell you can stock your store up with supplements and suggest remedies with no training at all if you wanted. Nobody saying that your profession is not necessary, but you're the one complaining about doctors not qualified enough. Nobody is saying herbs and simple remedies are useless -- where do you think drugs first came from -- but you're saying they can be used in place of certain medicines which are overprescribed. Where is the proof for this?

Have you ever considered that the reason you see so many patients let down by your doctors is the people who are let down by medical doctors seek alternative treatment, and the ones who are satisfied do not go looking for you, so you only see one side of the story? In other words you see a statistically insignificant part of the population? That you use this to attack the medical profession as a whole is intellectually dishonest to say the least.

You slam doctors for not doing enough, but if I were you I'd slam the stupid people who eat shit food and don't communicate their problems lucidly to their doctors.

[Stuart]

Have you ever considered that the reason you see so many patients let down by your doctors is the people who are let down by medical doctors seek alternative treatment, and the ones who are satisfied do not go looking for you, so you only see one side of the story? In other words you see a statistically insignificant part of the population? That you use this to attack the medical profession as a whole is intellectually dishonest to say the least.

Without disagreeing with any of your comments, perhaps there's another mechanism involved here. I suspect a lot of the people who go to quacks are chronic hypochondriacs who are continually inventing new symptoms to draw attention to themselves. They never get cured by medical doctors because there's nothing wrong with them to be cured in the first place and treating the "symptoms" simply results in the creation of a new batch. So, they go to the quack and get "treated" there - and the quacks don't have the education necessary to spot and deal with the hypochondriacs in question. So they treat the "patient" as if the complaints were genuine and hook themselves a customer for life.

[brianeyci]

That's a dangerous mode of thinking Stuart, first of all because in all of alternative medicine there are actually very few real quacks. Even therapeutic touch, running hands over someone to give them "Qi" powers is practised in hospitals (although they don't call it "Qi"). Second and most important is nobody wants to be sick. Whether or not their symptoms are self invented is immaterial, because unless the person is deliberately inventing symptoms for sympathy (and who the hell wants to waste time and money going to every doctor on the planet), psychological symptoms still deserve treatment. Just because they're psychological doesn't make them less real. What kind of treatment is the only question, and psychological problems may have an underlying diet or lifestyle issue.

Most people who you think are hypochondriacs have real problems and real issues.

There are definitely problems that medical doctors do not and cannot pick up. I remember a ruckus here when a mobile clinic tried opening up to test senior citizens for artherosclerosis. Doctors said that any person over a certain age would have some blockage, and it was stupid to test even though the person was paying out of his own pocket. I didn't really understand then, but in hindsight the doctors were right. Even if you could test every person for every possible disease, it's a waste of resources and time better spent elsewhere. These people with small problems would run to their doctors waving the test in their hands, demanding treatment when no treatment existed besides lifestyle changes or surgery was premature.

As much as kinnison would like family doctors to be nutritionists and dieticians, that's a responsibility best left to the patient to free doctors for acute problems. Anybody going to a medical doctor for a lifestyle change will be sorely disappointed.

[Broomstick]

I would like to point out that if a patient needs a nutritionist then the proper thing for a doctor to do is to refer that person to a nutritionist. Likewise, if a patient needs physical rehabilitation it's not the doctor who does it - the doctor refers the patient to a trained expert in that area. Doctors are not incompetant or deficient because they don't know everything.

Someone who is concerned with their diet or weight might, in many ways, be better off seeking assistance from a dietician and a personal trainer. That does not render the medical profession incompetant, it just means that if you have a habit of making bad choices rather than an actual disease you shouldn't be bothering the doctor about it (unless the doc is a psychiatrist).