Even If Health is Good, Be Weight Wise Pound Foolish!

As mentioned many times before, weight (and let me add here, waist circumference or waist-hip-ratio) does matter, whatever the professors said about being heavy and fit, yet still healthy.

Please, no matter how fit you feel or how fit you really are, if you are less than ideal, circumference- or weight-wise, do look up an editorial in American Heart Association’s Circulation, 2008, with the following title:

Healthy Lifestyle -- Even If You Are Doing Everything Right, Extra Weight Carries an Excess Risk of Acute Coronary Events by Paul Poirier, MD, PhD, FRCPC


Dr Poirier concluded: “From a public health perspective, increases in physical activity along with the establishment of healthy eating habits early in life may become the best, most cost-effective avenue to combat obesity and contain cardiometabolic risk.”

In addition to the above, it might pay to refer to my little write-up on June 27, 2008 for a study of 39,000 women, which cast doubts on those numerous studies that say being fat and fit is alright. This study by Harvard-affiliated researchers can be found in Archives of Internal Medicine.

Are you weight wise? Let’s pray we are all weight wise, pound foolish. Please don’t add any pound unnecessarily. Having extra English pounds may be desirable, but not the other pounds—Fat pounds!

Avandia, a Diabetic Drug, May Cause Heart Attack

Most of us may have heard this on the news some time last year. Nevertheless, I have decided to include it here for the benefits of those who have yet to hear about it. As can be seen in my blog dated February 21, new developments have already taken place concerning this drug subsequent to this alert. (A new safety alert by FDA was issued on August 14, 2007 regarding the potential danger of heart failure from consuming any of the thiazolidinedione class of antidiabetic drugs, of which Avandia is one.)

Avandia (rosiglitazone), approved in 1999 for treatment of Type 2 Diabetes, a serious and life-threatening disease suffered by some 18 to 20 million Americans, is potentially risky. Back in 2007, on May 21st, FDA issued an alert on the safety issues surrounding this drug. “Safety data from controlled clinical trials have shown that there is a potentially significant increase in the risk of heart attack and heart-related deaths in patients taking Avandia…Patients who are taking Avandia, especially those who are known to have underlying heart disease or who are at high risk of heart attack should talk to their doctor about this new information as they evaluate the available treatment options for their type 2 diabetes…there is inherent risk associated with switching patients with diabetes from one treatment to another even in the absence of specific risks associated with particular treatments. For these reasons, FDA is not asking GlaxoSmithKline, the drug's sponsor, to take any specific action at this time. FDA is providing this emerging information to prescribers so that they, and their patients, can make individualized treatment decisions.” said FDA.

According to FDA, “diabetes is a leading cause of coronary heart disease, blindness, kidney failure and limb amputation. Since the drug was approved, FDA has been monitoring several heart-related adverse events (e.g., fluid retention, edema and congestive heart failure) based on signals seen in previous controlled clinical trials of Avandia alone and in combination with other drugs, and from postmarketing reports. FDA has updated the product's labeling on several occasions to reflect these new data, most recently in 2006. The most recent labeling change for Avandia also included a new warning about a potential increase in heart attacks and heart-related chest pain in some individuals using Avandia. This new warning was based on the result of a controlled clinical trial in patients with existing congestive heart failure.”

FDA further wrote:

“Recently, the manufacturer of Avandia provided FDA with a pooled analysis (meta analysis) of 42 randomized, controlled clinical trials in which Avandia was compared to either placebo or other anti-diabetic therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes. The pooled analysis suggested that patients receiving short-term (most studies were 6-months duration) treatment with Avandia may have a 30-40 percent greater risk of heart attack and other heart-related adverse events than patients treated with placebo or other anti-diabetic therapy. These data, if confirmed, would be of significant concern since patients with diabetes are already at an increased risk of heart disease.”

Source:
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01636.html

Fighting Fire with Fire

Once again, isn’t it clear from the news clip by CNN (see report in my previous blog) that conventional medical treatment is fighting fire with fire? It's repeated far too often!

Often in a raging fire, people inevitably die. But need we add more fire to it?

What is the solution for eradicating a fire from a house that is starting to burn down? Isn’t the solution obvious? Yet there are people who choose certain options that cause more harm than benefits. For examples, they:

1) simply let the fire rage on without doing the necessary to rid the house of the fire (due to lack of knowledge, complacency, or couldn’t-care-less attitude), or,

2) while the fire is damaging properties (human lives), they employ fire-masking or other ineffective fire-fighting—rather than helpful, stop-fire—measures. These, they do perhaps not knowing, or not knowing fully well, that the fire will deteriorate further by their actions), or

3) continue to play with the fire (while the fire is burning, they do, or wait for others to carry out, research and/or clinical trials to discover possible fire-fighting practices or to find out possible solutions—especially when the solution is clear-cut. Nothing wrong with experimentations or trials per se!), or worse still,

4) add more fuel to the fire, or use more fire to fight an existing fire, thereby worsening the whole situation¹.


It is no different in the Raptiva scenario in my earlier blog; up till now, three patients treated with Raptiva have already died, and one more may be adding to this number; quite likely there are other unreported cases of such deaths. Need we carry on with the treatment, and see more deaths and suffering? The European community of doctors and other interest parties is wise in recommending an immediate cessation to the usage of “fire” to fight this fire. What do you say? Come on, have your say!




¹ One may say, “But the solution has not been found yet! ² How can we fight the ‘fire’ properly?” That is beside the point! At least one can stop adding fire, or cease from adding fuel to the fire that contributes to more people dying!!

² Please write me to discuss this further. As I mentioned, we can certainly help with psoriasis, or for that matter most other ailments as well as chronic and degenerative diseases. And these fire-fighting procedures come with no side-effects (albeit possibly, some recovery “crises”)!

FDA: Psoriasis drug could cause deadly brain infection

CNN reported on February 20 2009 that “the government is warning that taking the psoriasis drug Raptiva could result in serious brain infection and even death.”



Raptiva may cause a serious brain infection called progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

The Food and Drug Administration cited three confirmed cases, and a possible fourth, of people diagnosed with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) after being treated with Raptiva.

"Three of those patients have died," the FDA said in a public health advisory. "All four patients were treated with the drug for more than three years."

None was receiving other treatments that suppress the immune system.

Raptiva's product labeling was revised in October to highlight a boxed warning about the risks of life-threatening infections, including PML.

"At that time, the FDA directed Genentech, the manufacturer, to develop a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) to include a medication guide to educate patients about the drug's risks," the FDA's advisory says.

In the advisory, issued Thursday, the FDA highlighted the confirmed cases and promised to "take appropriate steps" to ensure that Raptiva's risks do not outweigh its benefits.

The FDA also said it will ensure that patients "are clearly informed of the signs and symptoms of PML" and that health care professionals "carefully monitor patients for the possible development of PML."

Overseas, the European Medicines Agency has gone further, recommending that no new prescriptions for Raptiva be issued and that patients taking the drug talk to their doctors about an alternative.

On Thursday it asked the European Commission to make that recommendation legally binding.

The group's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use determined "that the benefits of Raptiva no longer outweigh its risks, because of safety concerns, including the occurrence of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in patients taking the medicine."

It said patients who have been treated with the drug should be "closely monitored for neurological symptoms and symptoms of infection."

"Patients who are currently taking Raptiva should not stop treatment abruptly, but should make an appointment with their doctor to discuss the most appropriate replacement treatment," the agency said.

Raptiva, a once-weekly injection for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, works by suppressing T-cells -- cells that help fight infection -- in the immune system. Those cells cause the skin inflammation associated with psoriasis.
By suppressing T-cells, Raptiva "decreases the function of the immune system, which increases a patient's susceptibility to infections," the FDA said.

The National Institutes of Health says the prognosis for PML "remains grim; the disease usually lasts for months and 80 percent die within the first six months, although spontaneous improvement has been reported. Those who survive PML can be left with severe neurological disabilities."

Around 6 million to 7 million Americans have psoriasis, which is incurable, the NIH says.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/20/raptiva.brain.infection/

--


Author's note: Good news! We are confident that we can help you with your psoriasis issue.

The Pill – It’s Life Cycle & Side Effects

A lot happens in your body after you take a pill. Drugs that enter the body are transformed by myriad biochemical reactions that either break down the drugs into simpler substances or combine them (or parts of them) with natural body substances. This is the process of drug metabolism. Drug developers are attentive to the complexities of drug metabolism, because the way medications are processed in the body can make the difference between a drug that is safe and one that is ineffective or even harmful. Here's how it works.

Some portion of a drug may be lost as it passes through the gastrointestinal tract. Digestive enzymes in the stomach and the intestines can break down drugs, as can the actions of bacteria that normally live in the gut. Drugs can also interact with foods and beverages in the gastrointestinal tract, in some cases reducing, but in other cases increasing, the amount that gets absorbed.

After being absorbed through the gut, drug molecules travel via the portal vein to the liver. The liver is where most of the work of drug metabolism takes place. As the liver metabolizes drugs, it may produce chemical byproducts that are toxic to the liver itself. This is why taking too much of certain medications or taking them too often can harm the liver. The most common example of such a drug is acetaminophen (Tylenol).

In the liver, the work of drug metabolism is performed by enzymes (proteins that facilitate biochemical reactions). The liver's cytochrome P-450 system comprises more than two dozen chemically related enzymes that metabolize drugs.

Whatever remains of a medication after metabolism in the liver enters the hepatic vein, which carries blood from the liver to the heart. The heart then pumps the drug molecules out into the general circulation, which carries the drug throughout the body to its eventual target organ (and many other locations as well). Any molecules of the medicine that remain after traveling through the circulatory system eventually re-enter the liver via the hepatic artery, where the metabolic system can process them further.

The body excretes or eliminates water-soluble medications and their breakdown products (also known as metabolites) primarily in the kidneys, and the metabolites then pass out of the body through urination. Some medications or byproducts of drug metabolism that were handled by the liver pass back into the digestive tract through bile and later exit the body in the feces. Medications may also leave the body in saliva, sweat, exhaled air, and even in a mother's breast milk.

Source: A Johns Hopkins University publication—“The Life Cycle of a Pill” --posted in Prescription Drugs on February 17, 2009

--


The above article fails to highlight the fact that while a portion of a drug is absorbed and removed, a certain amount of the drug can stay in the system. It should be noted that some of the substances that remain in the system may be tucked away in the joints eventually causing such diseases as arthritis, while the other remaining substances can cause various other adverse effects. These adverse effects are far too many to name. I will touch on just a few of them.

Note that some of the remaining metabolized and/or the un-metabolized substances may find their way into the arteries as they are circulated around the cardiovascular system. This, unfortunately, can consequently fuel the plaque that is responsible for causing hardening of arteries (arteriosclerosis/ atherosclerosis) that ends up in heart disease, and so on.

Many pharmaceutical drugs, being non-carbon-based¹, may be inherently toxic. They also may not—or cannot—be fully utilized by the human cells and can therefore eventually, if not immediately, lead to side effects and/or harm. For example, certain types of diabetic drugs can cause heart failure. Hence, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that “an updated label with a "boxed" warning (FDA's strongest form of a warning)² on the risks of heart failure was needed for the entire thiazolidinedione class of antidiabetic drugs. This class includes Avandia (rosiglitazone), Actos (pioglitazone) Avandaryl (rosiglitazone and glimepiride), Avandamet (rosiglitazone and metformin), and Duetact (pioglitazone and glimepride).” (Refer August 14, 2007 News Release by FDA).

Heart failure aside, the liver and kidneys, being detoxing organs, often bear the brunt of the onslaught of pharmaceutical drugs, resulting in such problems as liver cancer and kidney failures.

For many people, the effect of drugs consumed may be discovered too late; they die before any drug manifestations appear.

You may say the above notes are not fair to pharmaceutical drug companies³. After all, they have helped a lot of people. But let me ask you a question:

“Is it fair to you or your body to experience all the side effects, such as diseases and pains, that can stem from constantly being drug-takers? ”



Feel free to comment—
Ray Chee




¹ The human body is carbon-based. Hence, in my opinion, non-carbon-based pharmaceutical drugs are incompatible with the body!

² not part of original sentence

³ I'm not attacking any company as such. Yes, drugs in general have certainly helped a great many people, at least in the short term. However, it's a well-known fact that all drugs do produce side effects of one kind or another; many even generate a multitude of side-effects! Study after study on the effects of pharmaceutical drugs has shown that to be true.