Archive for the ‘Immune System’ Category

The Stink about Zinc

July 29th, 2010

Zinc, Zicam, Loss of Smell, Hyposmia, Anosmia

Sometimes, it’s hard to smell a rat, and if University of California, San Diego professor Terence M. Davidson, MD is correct, zinc-based cold remedies can make it even harder. Using a statistical method that shows a cause-and-effect relationship between exposure to a substance and the development of a disease, Davidson’s study showed that use of certain cold medicines containing zinc can lead to hyposmia (reduced ability to smell) and anosmia (the loss of the ability to smell).

The FDA jumped on this issue last year when it received 130 reports of loss of smell from users of three Zicam products — Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs, and Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs for kids. The FDA advised consumers to stop using these products and the manufacturer, Matrixx Initiatives, voluntarily pulled the products from the shelves while making clear that it "vigorously disagrees with the FDA’s allegations."

Davidson’s research team also questioned whether zinc gluconate, which is the active ingredient in the offending products, actually prevents colds or shortens their duration. "Given that they do absolutely no good for colds," he said, "and given that there is potential for harm, I see no point in putting any zinc gluconate products in the nose."

Not surprisingly, Matrixx Initiatives takes issue with the study conclusions. The company says that when people lose their ability to smell, respiratory infections and sinus problems are to blame. In fact, in 10 lawsuits brought against the company, the judges found little to no scientific evidence that zinc products diminished smell. In at least one case, the judge rejected Dr. Davidson as an expert witness, calling his conclusions seriously flawed. It’s interesting to note that Dr. Davidson’s statistical research "proving" the problems with zinc included only 25 people. Meanwhile, opinion in the medical community remains split. For instance, Neurologist Robert I. Henkin, MD, of the Taste and Smell Clinic in Washington, D.C., says, "The most frequent cause of smell loss is the common cold. The role these zinc-based products play in initiating or exacerbating this condition remains very difficult to ascertain."

On the other hand, 340 Zicam users, after ostensibly losing their sense of smell, brought suit against Matrixx Initiatives in 2006 and won their case. Matrixx settled for $12 million. At the time, the company issued a statement saying, "The decision by Matrixx to settle some lawsuits was a business and economic decision. It was not based on any perception that the claims are legitimate."

Nevertheless, over the years, 10 other suits have been brought against the company from users who also claimed diminished or lost sense of smell. CEO Hemelt makes a point of the fact that, as stated above, none of the judges in those ten suits found more than scant evidence that zinc is to blame. But the fact that so many users encountered trouble enough to bother filing suits does make the zinc formula seem a little less friendly.

Dr. Davidson claims that his patients and others who suffered a loss of smell when using Zicam products first experienced an extremely painful sensation of burning in the nose, after which they could no longer smell. Hemelt responds that his company’s independent tests show that such burning resulted equally from the use of the spray and placebos containing no zinc.

Smell aside, according to WebMD, zinc gets mixed reviews, at best, for its effectiveness as a cold remedy. On top of that, potential side effects include upset stomach, mouth irritation, metallic taste, and loss of smell.  A 2006 study concluded that zinc really didn’t help colds. The report read, "We contend that it is unethical to introduce any potentially permanent anosmia-inducing agent such as zinc or other heavy metals into the interior of the nose in a manner that could result in contact with the olfactory region to treat a temporary discomfort such as a common cold or allergy." On the plus side of the ledger, a study reported by Reuters in 2008 showed that zinc acetate lozenges shortened the duration of colds in study subjects. Led by Dr. Ananda S. Prasad from Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, the study looked at the impact of the lozenges on 50 volunteers with colds.  All of the volunteers had cold symptoms for less than 24 hours before taking part in the study. Among the group who received the lozenges, 56 percent were completely "cold free" within four days, as compared to an average of seven days for the placebo group. Also, it’s important to note that the FDA warning did not include zinc lozenges, tablets, or dietary zinc. The loss-of-smell issue appears to apply only to zinc gluconate applied topically.

Perhaps the position taken by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) makes the most sense. (Did I just say that?) On its website, the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements says, "The effect of zinc treatment on the severity or duration of cold symptoms is controversial. Researchers have hypothesized that zinc directly inhibits rhinovirus binding and replication in the nasal mucosa and suppresses inflammation. However, no data are available to support this hypothesis."

Given the side effects that have been reported for the topical use of zinc, you might do better to avoid the whole mess in the first place and protect yourself by wearing a surgical mask 24/7 and making a point of never shaking anyone’s hand or touching any doorknobs or phones. On the other hand, you could just use a powerful immune builder and a good quality natural antipathogenic formula that includes such ingredients as garlic, oil of oregano, olive leaf extract, and yes…zinc, but internally — not topically.

:hc

AIDS Immunity Secret

June 12th, 2010

AIDS Vaccine & HIV Infections

The secret to AIDS immunity may reside in the body’s own genes. Apparently, one out of every 200 people or so who get infected with HIV never comes down with AIDS. These people, known as “elite controllers,” never show any sign of disease and don’t need medication, even many years after HIV infection. Scientists figured that if they could find out what protects the elite controllers, they might be on the road to developing an effective AIDS vaccine.

Drs. Arup Chakraborty of MIT and Bruce D. Walker of Harvard University and the Ragon Institute for HIV research at Massachusetts General Hospital, put out a special call to the medical community to find research subjects, which wasn’t so easy given that controllers rarely report to a doctor’s office since they show no signs of illness. Eventually, though, they enrolled 1,100 elite controllers plus 800 people who had developed full-blown AIDS in a study, and the results are now in.

What they found wasn’t at all what they expected, according to Dr. Walker. “I actually had to pull out text books,” he says. The research team found that elite controllers have unusual genes that affect how their killer T-cells operate. Killer T-cells are specialized white blood cells that fight infection. Under normal conditions, the T-cells work together as a team to vanquish infected cells, with various T-cells attacking different components of the infected cell. The reason AIDS usually overtakes the immune system is that the virus mutates so quickly that the slow-moving swarm of T-cells can’t keep up. But in elite controllers, apparently, the killer T-cells work alone rather than in a swarm, and they become extremely aggressive in doing so. They kill the virus before it can progress. Plus, these T-cells react strongly to a broad range of targets, so they kill off mutations as soon as they develop.

The downside of this scenario is that such highly activated T-cells can turn against the victim’s own body, since the cells react to such a broad range of stimuli. And so, people with these super-aggressive T-cells have a higher incidence of autoimmune conditions. But on the other hand, the T-cells fight all manner of infection effectively — not just the AIDS virus, and so these individuals have more protection against infectious diseases like hepatitis, to mention just one.

The thing that gives hope to the researchers is the fact that normal people also have these super-aggressive, broad-spectrum killer T-cells, although in very limited numbers. This gives the scientists hope that they might be able to trigger the body to create more of these cells through a targeted vaccine.  “We think they might be coaxed into action with the right vaccine,” Dr. Chakraborty said. The scientists believe that once activated, the elite cells might clone themselves and multiply fast enough to overwhelm cells infected with HIV.

“What we need to do with a vaccine is train bigger [elite] T-cell armies that will be there when a person first encounters the HIV virus,” said Dr. Walker.

Traditional methods of developing vaccines haven’t been working in the case of AIDS because of the ability of the virus to mutate so quickly, and so this discovery potentially is key. The experts contend that the best hope for an AIDS vaccine lies in studying the body’s own mechanisms for controlling the disease. “I think it’s becoming more and more apparent that conventional ways of designing vaccines are not going to work for HIV,” according to HIV vaccine specialist Helen Horton of the Seattle Biomedical Research Institute. “I think this is definitely where we need to be headed.”

Unfortunately, though, the researchers say that a vaccine still lies at least 10 years in the future. Considering that over 34 million people worldwide now have AIDS, that 2.7 million new AIDS infections occurred in 2008 alone, and that the incidence of the disease keeps increasing, this seems a very long time to wait. In the meantime, I have seen numerous examples that if you keep your immune system optimized using natural immune system boosters, it tends to keep the viral load substantially down (sometimes to undetectable levels) in HIV positive patients. And although not a cure, it’s certainly better than the alternative — at least until a functioning vaccine comes along.

:hc

Killer Flying Fungus: Health Blog

June 1st, 2010

Flying Fungus, C. Gattii, Cryptococcus Gattii, VGIIc

Here’s one that should keep pessimists and hypochondriacs awake at night for months to come. It seems that a new strain of airborne fungus has emerged in the state of Oregon.  It’s deadly, and it’s heading south to California and beyond.  The fungus, known as VGIIc of the fungus Cryptococcus gattii – or C. gattii for short — has killed one out of four people known to be infected. If that’s not enough, the fungus not only targets humans, it also affects other mammals including dogs, cats, sheep, alpacas and elk. Other strains have been known to affect porpoises.

Even worse, the fungus does not spread from animal to animal.  Instead, the fungus infects trees and releases spores into the air that people and animals inhale.  It can take several months for symptoms to appear. These include a cough lasting weeks, sharp chest pain, shortness of breath, fever, nighttime sweats, weight loss, and meningitis symptoms including headache. Symptoms in animals may include a runny nose, breathing problems, nervous system problems, and raised bumps under the skin.

A related fungus, C. neoformans, is common among people with compromised immune systems such as those who received organ transplants and HIV-infected patients. In contrast, C. gattii seems to be much more virulent and indiscriminate. “This novel fungus is worrisome because it appears to be a threat to otherwise healthy people,” said Edmond Byrnes III, a graduate student in the Duke Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology. The mortality rate for C. gatti in the U.S. is about 25% out of 21 cases analyzed. Clearly, C. gattii is a very virulent strain,

But hold the panic. Karen Bartlett, an environmental health scientist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver says that although C. gattii can be dangerous, infections are relatively rare.  For example, on Vancouver Island, where the fungus is ubiquitous, most of the population has remained unaffected despite multiple exposures.  Scientists don’t yet know what makes a person susceptible to infection.

Researchers at Duke University Medical Center have been tracking the fungus to try to figure out its evolution.  If you thought the man-eating plant in Little Shop of Horrors was farfetched, the researcher’s findings may give you pause. They think C. gattii arose from a fungus associated with Eucalyptus trees in the tropics and sub-tropics. The first known outbreak in temperate climates occurred on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, in 1999 and has now spread to Washington and Oregon.  According to Duke researcher Wenjun Li, because the fungus had been confined to tropical areas until recently, it may be that environmental changes are responsible for the evolution and development of these new strains. As to the virulence of these strains, Dr. Byrnes speculates that the fact that this fungus can reproduce sexually may lead to the emergence of new, hyper-virulent combinations of genes. He also says that no matter how it arose, it is likely to stick around “at least for the foreseeable future.”

So what can you do to protect yourself?  Not much, at least according to the British Columbia Center for Disease Control. “There are no particular precautions that can be taken to avoid Cryptococcosis [C. gattii], You can, however, be alert for long lasting or severe symptoms and consult a physician (or veterinarian for animals) for early diagnosis and treatment.”

A presentation by epidemiologist Dr. Julie Harris delivered to the U.S Department of Heath this year may ease any concerns you have — if you live in the city. After studying the information about those who succumbed to infection by C. gattii and those who died from it, Dr. Harris says the greatest risk factor was participating in activities that disturb the soil (like construction). This makes sense since the fungus is found in trees, soil, and decaying organic matter, and most of the people affected lived within a mile of wooded areas, farms, or soil disturbance of some kind. So much for getting “back to the garden.” Also, Dr. Harris says that incidence of the disease in animals usually precedes incidence of the disease in humans, making animals a kind of early warning system.

At the moment, C. gattii is stuck in Oregon, but it is on the move. Your best bet is to stay alert for news of C. gattii and to keep your immune system strong. Also, you might want to keep a supply of a good antipathogen formula on hand — not just for C. gattii, but also for MRSA, rogue flus, and a whole range of other pathogens that go bump in the night. In the meantime, Dr. Harris recommends that health departments spread the word to create greater awareness among doctors, veterinarians, and the public.

:hc

Is Cleanliness Next to Sickliness? Health Blog

May 18th, 2010

Boost Immune System, Hygiene Hypothesis

I know a woman who is a clean freak. All her bathrooms are stocked with antibacterial soaps, and her surfaces get washed with bleach-infused cleansers and other harsh chemicals.  Even the basement and garage get this treatment. She created a fenced-in area in her backyard that she filled with sanitized sand for the kids to play in. Both kids were given antibiotics at the slightest sign of a cold or sniffle. The irony, though, is that in spite of her efforts to slay every last germ that might have caused illness, her son developed asthma and her daughter grew up to have severe allergies. Is it possible that her fanatical cleanliness might have backfired?

The answer is yes, according to a recent study led by Thom McDade, PhD, associate professor and director of the Laboratory for Human Biology Research at Northwestern University. Dr. McDade’s team found that exposure to parasites, bacteria, and viruses early in life is precisely the type of stimulation that the young immune system needs so it can learn, adapt, and regulate itself. Without having this exposure, children face a greater chance of developing allergies, asthma, and other autoimmune diseases when they become adults. In other words, too much cleanliness makes the system more vulnerable to serious conditions down the line. According to Martin Blaser, MD, professor of internal medicine at New York University, “Microbes ‘…perform important physiological functions but because of modern life they are changing and some are disappearing. Those disappearances have consequences — some good, some bad.”

In fact, Dr. McDade’s team found, among other things, that children who had more exposure to animal feces and more incidence of diarrhea before age two had a reduced incidence of inflammation in the body as they grew into adulthood. Says McDade, “”We’re moving beyond this idea that the immune system is just involved in allergies, autoimmune diseases, and asthma to think about its role in inflammation and other degenerative disease. Microbial exposures early in life may be important…to keep inflammation in check in adulthood.” Inflammation plays a key role in triggering chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s.

But why does exposure to germs early in life seem to have this protective effect? Experts attribute it to something they’ve given the colorful appellation, “the hygiene hypothesis.”  The hygiene hypothesis was first espoused more than 20 years ago by David P. Strachan, a professor of epidemiology at St George’s Hospital Medical School in London. His colleague, Marc McMorris, M.D., a pediatric allergist at the University of Michigan Health System, explains, “We’ve developed a cleaner lifestyle, and our bodies no longer need to fight germs as much as they did in the past. As a result, the immune system has shifted away from fighting infection to developing more allergic tendencies.” 

Essentially, the hygiene hypothesis holds that our greater reliance on antibacterial products, the use of airtight windows and doors, the smaller size of the modern family, and the use of vaccines and antibiotics have all reduced our bodies’ exposure to germs and infectious diseases. This essentially has left the immune system unemployed, and to paraphrase an old maxim, “idle immune cells are the devil’s tool.” The immune system is also designed to recognize foreign substances as allergens, and without bacteria to combat, it goes to town “creating” allergic conditions and inflammatory responses to irritants — just to keep busy.

An article on the FDA website says, “The “hygiene hypothesis” is supported by epidemiologic studies demonstrating that allergic diseases and asthma are more likely to occur when the incidence and levels of endotoxin (bacterial lipopolysaccharide, or LPS) in the home are low. LPS is a bacterial molecule that stimulates and educates the immune system by triggering signals through a molecular “switch” called TLR4, which is found on certain immune system cells.”

Not everyone agrees that the hygiene hypothesis has validity. Since the theory says that exposing kids to allergens and microbes early on will avoid problems later, some point to a study of risk factors for asthma in inner city children that found that the inner city kids who had early exposure to allergens and germs still developed asthma at the same rate as children not exposed. Of course, the critics perhaps fail to consider that other factors peculiar to the inner city environment might increase asthma risk anyway, such as increased air pollution, increased stress, increased exposure to vermin (rats and roaches), less opportunity for recreation, and so on.

In any event, the situation creates a bit of a conundrum. Naturally, parents want to protect their kids from scary infectious diseases, but how can they on the one hand protect them from infection while at the same time allow them enough exposure so that the kids don’t later develop allergic conditions and systemic swelling? 

Perhaps the answer is to just let kids be kids. If your kid picks up a piece of food from your floor and sticks it in her mouth, don’t freak out — assuming you clean the floor occasionally. If she comes home muddy, don’t whip out the antibacterial soap, which not only wipes out germs but also screws up the environment and puts the entire family’s health at risk from chemical exposure. In short, cleanliness may indeed be next to godliness, but being overzealous may play the devil with your health.

:hc

View Illness to Stay Well: Health Blog

May 15th, 2010

Boost Immune System

In slang vernacular, saying something is “bad” actually means that it’s really, really good. In a similar mind-flipping reversal, though your natural instinct may be to “see no illness, hear no illness,” it turns out that in order to stay healthy, it may be advisable to look at sick people…on occasion.

Researchers from the University of British Columbia came to this conclusion after showing volunteers a series of 10-minute slide shows on two different days. On the first day, the volunteers viewed slides of furniture, and not surprisingly, nothing much happened. On a subsequent day, they were shown slides of sick people manifesting various forms of illness and decrepitude — including graphic shots of pox and oozing skin lesions, mucous running out of noses, and so on. Or, they watched slides of guns pointed directly at them.

Before each slide show, the researchers drew blood from the volunteers. After the subjects watched the slides, the researchers drew blood again, and then they mixed bacteria into both the before and after blood samples to test immune response. Normally, white blood cells react to bacteria by producing a substance called interleuken-6 (IL-6), which fights infection. The stronger the immune response, the higher the levels of IL-6 that the white blood cells generate.

Those people who viewed the slides of sick people showed an incredible immune boost of 23 percent. Those who watched the gun slide show also had a spike in immune levels, but only by six percent. In other words, viewing the slides of sick people was about 400 percent more effective in boosting immune function than was watching slides of murderous criminals, though both endeavors improved immune function (keeping in mind that the generic furniture slides shown the day before provided no boost at all). Study director Dr. Mark Schaller says, “It seems that there is something specific about seeing people who look diseased that triggers the immune system to kick it into a higher gear.”

Earlier studies found that when people see someone who shows clear signs of illness, they feel disgusted and want to avoid that sick person. (You’ve got to wonder what funding organization actually thought we needed a study to establish that fact!)  This creates a bit of a biological conundrum, because on the one hand, running away from the sick individual does allow the healthy person to avoid exposure, but turning tail before getting a good look at the ailing individual means missing a chance to boost immune function. From the standpoint of pure self-preservation, the best scenario would be to get a really good look at the sick person, and then skip out before breathing in any microbes.

But while an immune boost might be a good thing in the short run, experts say that too much exposure to sick people might be bad, and not just from the point of view of contagion. When the immune system constantly is on alert, it becomes exhausted, according to Dr. Schaller. “It’s like a car engine. If a car engine is constantly revving at a high level, at some point down the line, it’s just going to fail.” And so, constantly being around sick people, even if they aren’t contagious, might initially trigger the immune system and then keep it revved, eventually depleting it. In other words, the self-preservation scenario needs a rider that makes clear that you should look at sick people to get your immune system going, but only occasionally.

But how does this recipe square with the fact that so many people spend hours watching medical dramas on television? Grey’s Anatomy, for instance, which is enormously popular, features one medical emergency after another, as does the equally popular House. Can shows like these exhaust the immune response? It sure makes sense that if a slide show excites an immune response, so would an action-packed drama, and maybe even more so. And the study also raises the question of how medical professionals fare in terms of immune exhaustion, given that they constantly look at the infirm.

In any event, the researchers speculate that the immune system evolved to rev up in the presence of sick people as a protective mechanism. Here’s powerful evidence of the spectacular wisdom of the body. Even though subjects rated the gun slideshow as far more threatening than the slideshow of sick people, they had a far greater immune response to pictures of those who looked contagious than they did to pictures of those who merely looked dangerous. The body seems to “know” that secreting IL-6 won’t help much if a bullet tears through your body, while it also seems to “know” that a bit more IL-6 just might stop an aggressive pathogen.

Meanwhile, researchers are busily investigating other aspects of how the mind affects health, researching whether hearing phrases like “this might pinch” has an effect on the experience of pain, for instance. Of course, they could just read the chapter in Lessons from the Miracle Doctors (”It’s the Thought that Kills”) that first explored the topic of mind/body integration in great detail over a decade ago. And perhaps while they’re at it, the researchers can check if the principles apply to finances. Would looking at photos of street people for brief interludes boost the ability to make money, for instance? This seems as good a question to snag some funding around as the aforementioned question of whether seeing a dripping nose boosts the immune system.

PS: And don’t complain about the pustule laden face of Baron Harkonnen from Dune at the top of this blog. It may be revolting, but I did just boost your immune system — no need to thank me.

:hc

Tamiflu Fraud: Health Blog

December 26th, 2009

Tamiflu Ineffective

I wrote in a newsletter last month that “Antivirals do not prevent the flu; in fact, if they are administered after you get the flu, they merely lessen its severity. But in this regard, Tamiflu and Relenza are barely effective.” I also mentioned the rather fishy circumstances under which the US government rushed to buy and stockpile billions of dollars worth of Tamiflu even before any significant influenza breakout. And now, on the heels of that report, a new analysis of Tamiflu just published in the British Medical Journal echoes my words.

“Governments around the world have spent billions of pounds on a drug that the scientific community now finds itself unable to judge,” wrote the editor-in-chief of the BMJ. The researchers found that Tamiflu does nothing to prevent complications such as pneumonia or bronchitis, it doesn’t reduce hospitalizations, and it doesn’t lessen the chances of death. At best, Tamiflu reduces flu symptoms by one day if taken within 24 hours of onset. The article implies that, in fact, Roche, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures and markets Tamiflu, misrepresented the drug.

Tom Jefferson, who headed the analysis for the health watchdog organization Cochrane Collaborative, said, “We now conclude there is insufficient evidence to describe the effects of Tamiflu on complications of influenza or the drug’s toxicity.” Which, it seems, is a euphemistic way of saying the drug probably does squat and may cause problems. The Cochrane group reached these conclusions after taking a close look at previously published papers that summarized earlier studies on Tamiflu — papers upon which most of the Tamiflu endorsements have rested. 

Just how did Tamiflu gain its reputation as the magic flu-slayer given that an independent investigation now finds that it’s just a notch above a placebo, and a potentially dangerous one at that? This seems an important question to answer given that about 68 million people worldwide have taken the drug, not to mention those billions of dollars spent.

Apparently, back in 2006, even the Cochrane group endorsed Tamiflu based on 10 studies finding that the drug reduced the incidence of respiratory infections, pneumonia, bronchitis, and similar conditions by 55 to 67 percent. But guess who funded those studies? It was Roche, naturally. And when the Cochrane team decided to take another look at those studies this year, they discovered disturbing inconsistencies.

First, only two of the studies ever made it into medical journals, and both showed Tamiflu does little more to prevent complications than a placebo. This made the researchers a bit nervous, and so they decided to check the data from the other eight studies, except that they weren’t able to because they discovered that in at least two cases, the data had gone missing. They asked Roche for the original data from the other research and finally got two of the unpublished studies after much ado, but those studies concluded, as did the published research, that the drug didn’t actually work. As if this wasn’t damning enough, several ghostwriters subsequently came forward claiming that they had written the research summaries for a few of the studies. “I had to say what a big problem influenza is,” one of the ghostwriters confessed. “I’d also have to come to the conclusion that Tamiflu was the answer.”

At first glance, I might be inclined to hand it to the FDA — patting them on the back and saying they were on the case. Afterall, the FDA requires that Tamiflu must bear a label stating that its effectiveness hasn’t been proven. An FDA spokesman explains, “The clinical trials . . . failed to demonstrate any significant difference in rates of hospitalization, complications, or mortality in patients receiving either Tamiflu or placebo.” But in the end, the FDA once again turned out, predictably, to be an industry lapdog; the agency agreed that the government could go ahead and buy huge stockpiles of the drug in case of a swine flu pandemic. In addition, the FDA aggressively works to crush any natural alternatives that have far fewer side effects, cost far less, and are at least as effective — considering that placebo is now the matching point. Thus, the FDA, although at first seeming to be on the ball, nevertheless aggressively forces individuals, doctors, and governments to buy Tamiflu as the primary “approved” choice for treating flu, even though it doesn’t work.

It’s certainly distressing to think about people banking all their hope on a drug that doesn’t work, or works marginally at best, instead of finding their way to more effective, less expensive  measures. But even more distressing is the fact that evidence exists that Tamiflu actually can cause serious problems, such as seizure, hemorrage, fatal allergic reactions, neurological damage, psychiatric symptoms, aggravation of diabetes, and so on. According to the Atlantic, the FDA says the drug may cause potentially fatal cardiac complications. It also notes that Roche never conducted an analysis to determine if the drug did more good than harm. Meanwhile, the CDC (God bless em) does not advocate doing additional studies because it says Tamiflu already has been proven effective — though that “proof” all comes from the manufacturer. And the World Health Organization, after reviewing the new study, still insists that stockpiling the drug makes sense because, according to spokesmen Gregory Haertel, “Over the last eight months in the course of the [Swine Flu] pandemic a substantial body of evidence has been building up to indicate that Tamiflu is effective at reducing and or preventing severe illness or even death in populations who are at risk to begin with and in populations who develop severe illness.” Just where that “substantial body of evidence” resides isn’t made clear.

As the Atlantic article points out, “A drug touted as beneficial on the basis of flimsy evidence has by now become so entrenched that no one appears willing to conduct the sort of study needed to prove whether or not it can, in fact, save lives.” Is this a question of the Emperor’s new clothes in which no one in authority dares speak up, or is a question of governments needing to look proactive in the face of the swine flu epidemic, even if that “proaction” costs billions and produces no benefit. In any case, Donald Rumsfeld just keeps counting his profits.

:hc

Nasal Irrigation Can Cause Sinus Infection: Health Blog

November 17th, 2009

Nasal Irrigation, Sinus Infection

For pure misery, a sinus infection does the trick nicely — making the head pound, the tissues of the nasal passages feel like they’ll burst from pressure, even making the ears and gums and roof of the mouth throb. Plus, they trigger coughs and cause fever. Now imagine having sinus infections regularly, every few months or so. Those who have “recurrent rhinosinusitis” desperately seek relief, and for many of those sufferers, nasal irrigation seems like a godsend. It’s cheap, it gives instant relief, and until now, it seemed completely safe.

Researchers from Georgetown University found that people who used nasal irrigation every day significantly up their risk of having recurrent sinus infections. Nasal irrigation entails using a saltwater solution and a device called a “Neti pot.” (It can also be done using a cup instead of the neti pot, and with other solutions that break up mucous, such as Alkolol.) The sinus sufferer simply takes the solution up the nose and then lets it run out, along with impacted mucous. For most sufferers, the process unblocks mucous from the ears and nose enough so that the pain diminishes right away. It also may actually heal the infection, providing a natural health alternative to taking antibiotics. Many people believe that regularly rinsing out the mucous keeps new infections from forming, and so they irrigate not only to treat active infections, but also to prevent future ones. But the Georgetown University researchers say too much of even this good thing may not be so good, after all.

The study followed 68 chronic sinusitis sufferers who used nasal irrigation twice a day for a year. The next year, the subjects stopped the daily nasal irrigation completely, and their incidence of sinus infections went down by 62 percent. Put another way, the year that the subjects rinsed twice, every day, they suffered an average of eight episodes of sinusitis a year. After they quit the irrigation, they only had three episodes a year. Plus, the study included a control group of 24 subjects who continued to rinse every day while the original group discontinued rinsing. Those who kept rinsing had a 50 percent higher incidence of new sinus infections.

How could clearing out mucous possibly increase risk of sinusitis? “Daily long-term use [of nasal irrigation] may result in an increased frequency of acute [sinusitis] by potentially depleting the nose of its immune blanket of mucus,” researcher Talal M. Nsouli, MD, wrote in a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) recently.

According to Dr. Nsouli, “By washing the nose, we are removing the bad mucus but, unfortunately, we are also removing the good mucus that contains the antimicrobial agents as well.”

Apparently, mucous contains immunoglobulin A, immunoglobulin G, lactoferrin, and lysozyme, which act as antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral agents. So there’s good mucous and “bad” mucous, just as there are good intestinal bacteria and not-so-good bacteria. When you take antibiotics and kill all the intestinal bacteria, you end up with gastrointestinal problems and a compromised immune system. That’s why it’s important to take probiotics if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of needing antibiotics — to replenish the good bacteria that gets stripped out. In the same way, when you flush out all mucous, you strip away the protective element and upset the natural balance of the body. Mucous is there for a reason. It’s only when it’s old and dried or carries more infected material than not that it needs to be flushed out.

“I don’t have anything against short-term nasal saline irrigation — even aggressive nasal saline irrigation for three, four days or one week is totally fine,” Dr. Nsouli said. “But when we are doing it on a daily basis, we are modifying the immunological biochemistry of the nose.”

Dr. Gaelen T. Marshall, who edits Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, agrees that short-term use is advisable. “It is still a good idea to get rid of mucus through a saline wash when a patient has a cold,” Dr. Marshall says. “But as with anything else, you can overdo it.

Of course, all of these “medical” statements must be taken with a grain of salt (tada!) since all this attention on the dangers of nasal irrigation serves the pharmaceutical industry well. We don’t necessarily need to throw the neti pot out with the saline solution. And remember, many medical practitioners still consider the first-line treatment for sinus infection to be antibiotics. And antibiotics can lead to chronic sinusitis plus a lot more trouble. Given the choice between nasal flushing and antibiotic treatment, the neti pot surely seems the less dangerous — just don’t use it twice a day, every day, on a prophylactic basis, at least not until more research comes in.

PS: And here’s a nice trick if using the neti pot while you actually have a sinus infection or cold. In addition to the salt, you can add a couple of droppers  of a good Echinacea based tincture to aggressively “go after” the bad guys.

:hc

Drug-Resistant Swine Flu: Health Blog

September 26th, 2009

Drug Resistant Swine Flu

It’s time for another “told you so” moment. As I’ve been warning for months, the widespread use of Tamiflu to ward off swine flu has started to breed drug-resistant varieties. Now, the media reports the first case where a resistant strain of swine flu has spread from one person to another. While there have been several dozen previous cases of drug-resistant swine flu reported, those were isolated cases, unlike this incident where one person developed the resistant variety and then infected another.

It happened at a summer camp in North Carolina, where 600 kids received prophylactic doses of Tamiflu to keep them from getting sick after a few campers came down with swine flu. Two teen girls who roomed in the same cabin subsequently came down with swine flu anyway — both suffering from a drug-resistant variety of the disease. While experts say that it’s possible the girls simultaneously developed resistant forms of the virus, it’s far more likely that the mutated, drug-resistant virus spread from one girl to another. The fact that both girls had the same, never-before seen mutation of the virus makes the latter scenario even more probable.

The good news is that the girls had mild cases and both recovered. The bad news, if it can be called “news,” is that the incident verifies what I’ve been saying all along — that drug-resistant mutations of swine flu are inevitable, and that these drug-resistant varieties can and will spread, given the cavalier way that Tamiflu has been distributed to the masses. To recap from my last newsletter on the topic, Tamiflu targets a protein called neuraminidase that lives on the surface of flu virus cells. This protein helps the flu virus break through the walls of cells it’s trying to invade so it can move into those cells and replicate itself. Tamiflu inhibits the neuraminidase protein, so that the virus can’t leave its original cell to infect other cells. If it can’t migrate, eventually the virus dies.

The problem is that viruses, including all forms of the flu, excel at mutating, and given enough exposure to anything that inhibits them, they find a way around it. This is particularly true if the inhibiting substance is as simple in composition as Tamiflu, which basically targets just that one protein, neuraminidase. The pharmaceutical industry keeps developing flu-fighting drugs and antivirals that target viruses on just one dimension, and so it isn’t surprising that every new pharmaceutical antiviral that comes out breeds resistant strains and so gets rendered useless. The more it’s used, the faster the flu virus finds ways to mutate around it.

Apparently, this past summer, many camps throughout the US engaged in the practice of distributing Tamiflu to campers in fear of widespread outbreaks. By the middle of July, the Centers for Disease Control had issued a statement urging camps to refrain from giving out Tamiflu wholesale to healthy campers, both to conserve the limited supplies of the drug available and also to prevent the emergence of resistant varieties of the disease. Unfortunately, by that time, campers coast to coast already had received their doses — and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. As I’ve noted before, personal and business stockpiling of Tamiflu has continued unabated since the first appearance of Avian flu in 2005. In spite of World Health Organization recommendations to distribute Tamiflu only to swine-flu infected individuals who are very young, old, pregnant, or who have compromised immune-systems, several countries including England hand out Tamiflu to anyone who claims illness, no doctor referral needed. 

In essence, it seems that most of the public and even some key health practitioners and government authorities don’t “get it” when it comes to Tamiflu. They see it as the “miracle cure” and want to be sure that those they care about have their dose on the ready, or even more, that they take it in advance as a protective agent. For instance, the director of one of the camps that handed out prophylactic Tamiflu to its residents, Camp Modin in Maine, took issue with the CDC on its call to refrain from giving out Tamiflu.

“The evidence speaks for itself,” said the director, Howard Salzberg. “I have no children with swine flu at this moment, and we are confident that the Tamiflu helped us remedy the situation. I understand the concerns of the C.D.C, but there is a uniqueness to the camp environment, similar to health care centers and nursing homes.” (Thank you, Mr. Salzberg, but actually, the evidence doesn’t speak for itself. You might as well say, “Everyone at camp drank Coke, and no one got the flu. The evidence speaks for itself; Coke prevents Swine Flu.”)

The physician-father of one of his campers, Dr. Marc Siegel, agreed with Mr. Salzberg. He said he wasn’t worried about depleting national stockpiles since he figures a vaccine will be coming out soon, so might as well nip the bug in the bud via Tamiflu in the interim. (Dr. Siegel probably needs to keep up on his medical journals a bit better. It seems he’s missed all the reports about the explosion in antibiotic and antiviral resistant pathogens over the last few years.)

Meanwhile, rather than join the mass rush on Tamiflu, which as I’ve said continually will most likely be severely compromised by the time flu season hits, and rather than nurse some hope that Relenza (the other drug effective against swine flu) will still work by that time or that the vaccine will be ready and safe — you’d be smart to stock up on natural solutions. They’re safe; they’re cost-effective; and they work on multiple fronts. And here the operative phrase is “they work” — and should continue to work against drug-resistant strains long into the future.

See guidelines and suggestions for protecting yourself in my newsletter of August 3, 2009.

hc

Showerheads Spread Disease: Health Blog

September 22nd, 2009

Showerheads, Bacteria

The bacteria police are at it again, having already discovered that handbags, money, and recyclable shopping bags teem with bacteria. Now they have a new and surprising item to add to the gross-out list. Ironically, it’s an item you most likely think of as antibacterial. After unscrewing 50 showerheads across the country and examining the contents, researchers from the University of Colorado discovered that a full third of them harbored dangerous bacteria that could cause lung infections and breathing problems. It turns out that showerheads are a perfect environment for the formation and growth of biofilm — i.e, warm, moist, and protected.

So much for getting disinfected in the tub. The researchers found 15 different types of bacteria hiding in the fixtures, including a particularly high concentration of Mycobacterium avium, a relative of the tuberculosis microbe. This species of bacteria thrives in city water supplies that chlorinate, because it’s resistant to chlorine and so can proliferate wildly when competitive bacteria get wiped out. It causes a nasty, antibiotic-resistant infection that can linger for years, with symptoms ranging from persistent cough to fatigue and breathessness. Doctors have been seeing steadily increasing numbers of people with infections caused by Microbacterium avium, particularly women who have compromised immune systems. They postulate that the spike in these lung infections has everything to do with showers — with the fact that showers have become more popular than baths, and also because of the chlorinated water issue in municipal systems. In fact, four of the shower heads tested came from rural homes supplied by private wells, and no Microbacterium avium were found in those.

Just how bad is the problem? To give some perspective, put this in your shower-cap: when in New York, the researchers tested the air in city subways and found that breathing subway air is healthier than breathing shower vapors, at least from a microbial point of view. The showerheads the team tested had 100 times more Mycobacterium avium than tap water from the faucet. The dark, moist environment provided by the showerhead creates a perfect breeding place for bacteria, and so they thrive there. This means that when you first turn on the shower, beware. That first blast most likely contains the highest concentrations of bacteria, fresh from the nozzle.

“If you are getting a face full of water when you first turn your shower on, that means you are probably getting a particularly high load of Mycobacterium avium, which may not be too healthy,” one of the researchers, Norman Pace, said.

Apparently, the bacteria suspend themselves in droplets of water and when you inhale, you take those bacteria deep into your lungs, where they can wreak havoc if you’re immune system isn’t buff. “The water droplets formed when a shower is turned on are very, very small and can go deep into your lungs and carry bacteria deep into your lungs, which is how you get disease,” said study director Leah Feazel. “A bath, on the other hand, doesn’t usually have the aerator on it to create these tiny particles and is therefore safer.”

Does this mean that you should either walk around grimy rather than chance a shower or draw a bath if you want to get clean?

Not necessarily. First, the scientists say that metal showerheads are far less bacteria-friendly than plastic ones, so you can switch to metal to minimize problems. In fact, you should replace showerheads a few times a year, they say. Cleaning out the old fixture probably won’t do it; the researchers found that bleach did not kill the microbes (remember, avium is resistant to cholorine). “We tested bleaching shower heads and we actually found that we had more of the mycobacteria after bleaching than we did before,” said Ms. Feazel. She suggests letting the water run for 30 seconds or so before immersing yourself — although this, admittedly, isn’t an environmentally friendly solution. You do have the option of using a whole house filtration system. And there are even some dedicated shower filters that incorporate silver to actively kill bacteria.

Then again, the researchers claim that if you have a strong immune system, you can probably ignore all of the above. “This really shouldn’t concern average, healthy people. The main concern is for people who are immune-compromised,” the researchers say, athough they admit that even healthy people can succumb. On the other hand, the more you force your immune system to fight the effects of your morning shower, the less immune function is available to fight everything else you face, from swine flu to cancer.

In any event, the shower-head is just one of many dangers lurking in the bathtub. I recently wrote about PVC in vinyl shower curtains, which can cause serious damage to the liver as well as to the nervous, reproductive, and respiratory systems. Then, if your water is chlorinated, there are the carcinogenic properties of chlorine to fret about.

It’s enough to make you want to return to the middle ages when people bathed once a year and carried flowers to the altar to cover the smell.

:hc

Swine Flu Soirees: Health Blog

July 4th, 2009

Swine Flu Parties, H1N1, Tamiflu

When Mike Meyers and Dana Carvey sang the Wayne’s World theme song, "Party time….excellent," they probably didn’t have swine flu parties in mind. Who could even imagine such a thing? But sure enough, that’s the newest craze sweeping the world, with Mom’s across the globe discussing the benefits of bringing their kids to just such a shindig. And why? Because they hope that exposing their children to the bug will build immunity against future exposures, when more virulent strains might possibly appear.

(more…)

« Older Health Blogs