Hiatal Hernia has been called the "great mimic" because it mimics many disorders. A person with this problem can get such severe pains in their chest that they think they are having a heart attack. They may think they have an over acid stomach because they will regurgitate stomach acid after they eat, or their stomach may hurt so badly they will think they have an ulcer. This is just a sampling of the symptoms that may occur from this disorder.  From Dr. Russ Tannebaum's website (Hiatal Hernia: An Overlooked Cause of Disease)

Hiatal Hernias are common.  Make that dog common.  Depending on whose research you feel is most accurate, statistics show that American adults have about a 50/50 chance of having some degree of Hiatal Hernia (HH), with the chances becoming significantly greater as one gets significantly older.  What is a Hiatal Hernia?   Allow me to explain.

You have two inner cavities in the middle part of your body; the chest or thoracic cavity (the upper cavity where your heart and lungs live) and the abdominal cavity (the lower cavity where your stomach and digestive organs reside). These two cavities are separated by the muscle used for breathing called the diaphragm (to see it in action, CLICK HERE).  Because there are structures that run from the upper cavity to the lower cavity (chiefly the esophagus and aorta), naturally there must be holes in the diaphragm to let them pass through. 

Since the diaphragm moves up and down in order to pull air into the lungs and then push it back out, there is a constant sliding of the diaphragm on these anatomical structures.  For any number of reasons, these holes known hiatus' (Latin: to stand open, to split; opening, aperture, gap; to yawn) can tear and become larger, potentially allowing part (or in some cases, all) of the stomach to be pulled up through the diaphragm and into the thoracic cavity.  As would make sense, the amount of stomach that comes through, depends on the size of the tear (see pic above right). 

The top part of the stomach contains a one way valve (the esophageal sphincter) that excepting extraneous circumstances such as vomiting, only allows food to travel in one direction; down into the stomach.  If the top part of the stomach is pulled up into or through the hiatus, this process can open the esophageal sphincter valve, allowing acid and stomach contents to reflux upward and burn the esophagus. 

Be aware that Hiatal Hernias can actually wax and wane; come and go.  Sometimes part of the stomach is pulled up through the diaphragm, but the hernia can, for various reasons, be reduced and return to normal, at least temporarily.  Below is a short, animated video showing the two kinds of Hiatal Hernias, sliding and rolling.  Statistically, about 95% of all hernias are sliding.

As you might imagine, there are a number of risk factors for developing Hiatal Hernias.  Although the biggest two are probably OBESITY  and SMOKING, there are plenty of others, including ASTHMA (COUGHING), CONSTIPATION (constantly straining at the stool), regular vomiting (such as might be seen in bulimia), trauma, stress (ADRENAL FATIGUE or SYMPATHETIC DOMINANCE), constant bending, PREGNANCY, too much sitting, or heavy lifting.  Let me show you the symptoms of an HH.

• ASYMPTOMATIC:  Remember that only about 10% of of Hiatal Hernias create any symptoms at all --- not a unique situation when  it comes to health and healthcare (HERE).

 

• REFLUX:  Although reflux can be caused by lots of things (TOO LITTLE OR TOO WEAK STOMACH ACID BEING THE MOST COMMON), I've shown you how HH causes reflux.  Thus, if you are constantly experiencing regurgitation, there is a significantly increased chance you have a Hiatal Hernia.

 

• ESOPHAGITIS AND ESOPHAGEAL STRICTURE:  Although HH can cause stomach acid to reflux all the way up into the mouth (I've treated a number of patients who actually have rings of chapped redness around their mouths from being burned by their own acid at night), it's the lower esophagus that bears the brunt of the damage.  Stomach acid where it should not be (where it there is no mucous lining to protect it) can cause the formation of both scar tissue (FIBROSIS) and stricture / constriction / loss of elasticity in the lower esophagus.  It can also cause something called Barrett's Esophagus (precancerous lesions).  As you might suspect, all of these increase the chances of developing full-blown cancer.

 

• MOUTH & THROAT ISSUES:  This could be dry mouth, bad breath, bleeding gums, chronic cough, rough or scratchy voice, hoarseness, and / or trouble swallowing.  Speaking of trouble swallowing....

 

• TROUBLE SWALLOWING:  Known as dysphagia, it's simple to see that with everything we've covered so far, trouble swallowing would be a natural sequelae.  This was shown in a study from last August's issue of Current Gastroenterology Reports (Hiatus Hernia as a Cause of Dysphagia).  "Dysmotility because of impaired contractility and vigor can occur as a consequence of repeated acid exposure from the acid pocket within the hernia, and the resultant poor clearance subsequently worsens this insult. As such, dysphagia appears to be more common with increasing hiatus hernia size. Furthermore, mucosal inflammation can lead to fibrotic stricture formation and in turn obstruction."

 

• DIGESTIVE ISSUES:  These are similar to what you get with other common digestive issues; post-meal bloating, gas, nausea, and even vomiting.  Be aware that vomiting blood is never a good sign (copious amounts of blood in the stool will appear black).  Also be aware that in many cases, indigestion will manifest as chest pain thanks to the stomach encroaching into the thoracic cavity.

 

• TROUBLE BREATHING:  Although it was mentioned as a risk factor, the November issue of the Clinical Respiratory Journal (Contribution of Hiatal Hernia to Asthma in Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease) concluded that "The patients with GERD with asthma have a high prevalence of Hiatal Hernia."

 

• MIGRAINE HEADACHES:  Although there are about a million potential causes of MIGRAINE HEADACHES, add one more to the list --- Hiatal Hernia.  In a study published in last July's issue of the Middle East Journal of Digestive Diseases (Association of Gastrointestinal Functional Disorders and Migraine Headache: A Population Base Study), a group of physicians from Iran's Shiraz University came to some interesting conclusions after looking at over 1,000 random patients with GI complaints.  "This study revealed an association between migraine and gastrointestinal functional disorders including IBS, reflux and dyspepsia. Hiatal hernia was the only abnormal endoscopic finding in patients with migraine headache."

 

• HEART:  Hiatal Hernias can mimic heart problems by causing chest pain.  A case study from last July's issue of BMJ Case Reports (Hiatal Hernia Mimicking Heart Problems) described heart attack-like symptoms in a 74 year old man whose stomach had worked its way from the abdominal cavity, through the diaphragm's esophageal hiatus, and into the thoracic cavity with the heart.  While not an everyday occurrence, neither are these massive HH's uncommon.

 

• ANEMIA:  Although there are numerous causes of ANEMIA, according to a 2015 study from the International Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, one of them is "underappreciated" (An Underappreciated Cause of Intermittent Chest Pain, Asthma, and Iron Deficiency Anemia).  Peer-review abounds with similar studies --- not surprising considering loss of blood is the most common cause of anemia.

 

• SEIZURES & SYNCOPE (FAINTING):   The more the stomach is pulled upward into the thoracic cavity, the greater the chances it irritates the VAGUS NERVE.  Because of it's heavy parasympathetic action (see my earlier link on Sympathetic Dominance), stimulation of the Vagus can cause dizziness, fainting, and even seizures (or what appear to be seizures --- HERE).  July's issue of the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings (Deglutition Syncope) carried a case study on this very thing --- "a 48-year-old man presenting with transient syncopal episodes that occurred while eating, caused by an intrathoracic stomach due to a hiatal hernia."  For the record, deglutition = swallowing.

 

• TROUBLE BENDING OVER:  Because bending forward  can cause the stomachs of those with significant Hiatal Hernia to enter the thoracic cavity, it's on the the list as well.

Although you can see how bad things can get, it's actually worse than that.   As crazy as it may seem, Hiatal Hernias can actually kill you.  That's why doing whatever it takes to get better --- hopefully without having to undergo surgery --- is a big deal, and potentially a huge boost to your health.

If you are diagnosed with reflux, whether from Hiatal Hernia or not, the very first thing that will happen is that you will be prescribed an H2 BLOCKER, or far more likely, a PPI (Proton Pump Inhibitor).  All you have to do is follow the links to see that these drugs (especially the latter) have been in the news for the past several years --- and none of it is good.  As far as medical care of an HH is concerned, the other option is surgery to repair the hiatus.  Although it appears that most people do well with the surgery, peer-review abounds with studies dealing with those who don't (so do internet message boards and Facebook groups).  Bottom line, if there are ways to avoid having the surgery, by all means use them. If you have one of those massive Hiatal Hernias where the stomach is in the thoracic cavity, I'm not sure there's really another option.

• DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO GET OFF PPI'S:  In researching this post, I came across any number of message boards where people were trading information on getting off of PPI drugs, many of whom had been on them for decades (plural).  There is actually a school of thought that PPI's, over time, actually lead to HH.  Regardless, these drugs are bad news because they have a myriad of side effects, are meant to be used no more than six weeks a year, and are extremely hard to get off of (addictive) for people who have been on a long time.

 

• QUIT SMOKING:  Nuff said.  Along these same lines, be aware that alcohol is a common cause of reflux as well.

 

• CHANGE YOUR CRUDDY DIETARY HABITS:  Not surprisingly, Hiatal Hernia is largely a disease of the Westernized world.   Correct eating will not only allow you to reduce what might be the single largest risk factor (obesity) by LOSING WEIGHT, but not eating junk both reduces inflammation and helps with the whole GERD thing.  Bear in mind that the official stance of the medical community (I've seen the studies and GUIDELINES) is that changing one's diet has little to no bearing on a HH.  My stance is that you never go wrong cleaning up your diet. After you've done an ELIMINATION DIET to see what foods you might be reacting to, get them out of your life.  Oh; and for heaven's sake, don't eat shortly before going to sleepytown (within three or four hours of bed or nap time).  And as if I really need to say it; don't overeat. If I have to define "overeating" for you, you may be a bigger problem than your HH.

 

• SLEEP HABITS:  As we've seen, Hiatal Hernias affect breathing.  So does SLEEP APNEA.  The number one risk factor for both is obesity (see previous bullet).  Also, many people with HH will prop the head of their bed up on books or blocks to prevent the stomach from pulling upward into the diaphragm, as well as helping prevent acid from making its way upward as well.

 

• DRINK PLENTY OF WATER:  One of the single best regulators of STOMACH ACID is water.  The average person does not drink nearly enough.

 

• MASSAGE THERAPY, CHIROPRACTIC, AND OSTEOPATHIC MANIPULATION:  There are tricks to manually push the top of the stomach down from the thoracic cavity to it's natural home in the abdominal cavity, many of which can be done on your own (YouTube abounds with such videos)

 

• THE HEEL DROP:  This is my favorite "trick," and involves drinking a significant amount of water quickly (I'll not debate here whether the water needs to be warm or cold), and then rise up on your toes, dropping sharply onto your heels.  Repeat.  The force of the heel strikes cause the stomach that's already been weighted down by water, to "drop" downward out of the diaphragm and into the abdominal cavity.   I've been using this technique for patients for thirty years --- very simple and super effective for many of them.  In similar fashion, I've often wondered if REBOUNDING ON A TRAMPOLINE could accomplish the same thing in healthier individuals (anyone with experience here, feel free to chime in).

 

• DEAL WITH SIBO, LEAKY GUT, DYSBIOSIS, H. PYLORI, AND CANDIDA:  Although I could have covered a number of others here, this should give you a starting point.  Just bear in mind that all of these "GUT ISSUES" (SIBO, LGS, and DYSBIOSIS ---- including but not limited to CANDIDA and H. PYLORI) have the ability to magnify HH symptoms.

 

• CHANGE THE WAY YOU GO #2:  By this I mean that some of you might benefit from a squatty potty.  There is a fantastic article over at Nature's Platform on the subject, called Health Benefits of the Natural Squatting Position (the back half of the article has some very cool material from peer-review).

 

• LOOK AT YOUR MEDICATIONS:   Be aware that there are any number of PRESCRIPTION DRUGS that are known to cause reflux. 

In some cases, surgery to reduce the Hiatal Hernia and repair the torn hiatus is inevitable --- almost always the case with huge HH's.  For those of you who have tried everything else, it is something to at least look into.  Bear in mind, however, that according to a large study published just a few months ago in the Journal of the Society of Laproendoscopic Surgeons (Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes of Paraesophageal Hernia Repair), five thoracic surgeons from Cambridge and Tufts concluded that "Long-term patient-specific outcomes showed comparable, encouraging results between open and laparoscopic repair of PEH without mesh reinforcement. However, half of those undergoing laparoscopic repair required the use of medication for symptom control."  Did you catch that?  Having your HH repaired only reduces your chances of needing ongoing GERD meds by 50%.

In another study, this one from the Annals of Surgery (Paraesophageal Hernias: Operation or Observation?), researchers and physicians answer the question of whether people would be better off to just go ahead and have the HH surgery and get it over with.  After comparing "watchful waiting" (WW) to "elective laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair" (ELHR), the authors, three surgeons from Harvard University, concluded that "The mortality rate of ELHR was 1.4%. The annual probability of developing acute symptoms requiring emergency surgery with the WW strategy was 1.1%.  If ELHR is routinely recommended, it would be more beneficial than WW in fewer than one of five patients. WW is a reasonable alternative for the initial management of patients with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias, and even if an emergency operation is required, the burden of the procedure is not as severe as was thought in the past."

In most cases, following a WHOLE-BODY HEALTH PROTOCOL is going to help with the chief symptom of Hiatal Hernia; GERD or acid reflux.  If you do end up needing a surgery, always go into that surgery PREPPED AND READY.

This email is from "Suzie" who came to see me for neurological TOS a few years ago.  My treatment helped somewhat, but certainly not enough to call it successful.  With her permission, I am answering this for everyone to see because I know that lots of people are in similar situations.  To see other CASE HISTORIES just follow the link.

Dr. Russ,
I had the first rib resection for my NTOS on August 22nd. It is better but not 100% - wasn't expecting 100% anyway I guess.

I was off work for four months. For two of those months I did an elimination diet w/ no gluten, no dairy, no added sugar, etc. - I followed the Vital Mind Reset Diet by Dr. Kelly Brogan.  The first month I still ate white potatoes but she asks you to eliminate potatoes, rice, and legumes so on the second month when her program started I eliminated them. So, I was basically eating paleo - meats, veggies, and good fats! As an example, for breakfast I usually ate her KB Smoothie - I used collagen, nut butter, cocoa powder, coconut oil, and sometimes a raw egg yolk or two. Yes, she called it a fat bomb and the intent was to get your blood sugar stabilized. She stressed eating organic and grass fed & finished meats and non-GMO fed animals that need more than just grass like pigs or chickens.

Sounds good so far Suzie.  Remember that rice and white potatoes are both high glycemic (especially the potatoes) as well as being potential GLUTEN CROSS-REACTORS.  And while some people can eat BEANS AND / OR LEGUMES, not everyone can handle them.  BTW, I am a big fan of PALEO and / or HFLC (KETOGENIC) for people trying to deal with underlying or occult inflammation (there is also some crazy amazing information on scientists using Keto diets to address cancer -- HERE).

Honestly, I don't feel as though my depression improved. I lost weight. The pain in my feet subsided mostly and the tingling in my feet did as well for the most part. It was close to Thanksgiving when her program ended and I DID NOT reintroduce food as I should have. I went back to eating some bad food - I didn't go strictly back to bad food but I did throw it back in my diet. Sometimes I would eat pizza, or a PB&J sandwich with white bread, or a bakery pastry, etc. I would say I was doing 50/50 - 50% paleo and 50% crap. 

According to the peer-reviewed literature, DEPRESSION is one of the myriad of problems that fall under the category of "CAUSED BY INFLAMMATION".  Don't think I'm picking on you, but the whole point of putting in the time and effort to do an ELIMINATION DIET is to at some future time, "reintroduce" foods back so that you can figure out which one(s) you might be reacting against immunologically.  The thing to remember about food sensitivities (I'll use GLUTEN as an example since it's common), is that you have to go off of reactive foods totally.  It's why there is no such thing as a "low gluten" diet --- it's GLUTEN FREE.  And if you click the link, you'll see why I'm not a fan of most "GF" programs or foods. 

Because I myself am sensitive (whether it's actually a gluten issue or a FODMAP issue, I'm not totally sure --- functionally it doesn't matter), I have figured out that if I do a cheat day I pay for it.  Severely!  I took a big-time cheat day over this past Christmas break, and it took me a month to get my Gut straight afterwards.  That's why CHEAT DAYS for people whose only issue is their weight are usually not a big deal, but if you have sensitivities or serious underlying illnesses, you are much more likely to cause yourself extended grief each and every time you cheat.  This is the voice of experience speaking.  Every person has to ask themselves if it's worth it.  And this doesn't even begin to address the issue of potentially re-firing addictions (HERE).

I noticed stuff when I went back to foods I hadn't been eating for the 2 months. I couldn't always figure out which food it was but sometimes I could. Symptoms I started having were itchy skin, congested nose, watery eyes, sneezing (I have never been a sneezer - in the past if I sneezed I was coming down with a bug). I tried to have chili once - used soaked kidney beans instead of canned - terrible bloating. Potatoes and rice definitely cause runny nose, sneezing, etc. When I would eat pizza or a sandwich it felt heavy in my belly and my guts would just feel off. Sometimes my mouth will hurt on the inside or my lips will hurt. Other than the beans, which causes bloating fairly quickly, it will take a few hours for the runny nose, eyes, sneezing to start. Food intolerances or food allergies??? I have never had seasonal allergies in my life but now when I eat certain things that is exactly what I think people who have seasonal allergies suffer from.

It almost sounds like a histamine thing, but GRAINS and potatoes actually have low histamine levels.  However, they are both on the cross-reactivity list above, meaning your body reacting against them could potentially cause excess production of histamine.  Also be aware that SIBO (Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth), which is intimately related to FODMAPS (HERE), can cause increased Mast Cell activity (high histamine levels).  But then again, so can both LEAKY GUT SYNDROME and ALLERGIES.  Although there is a specific enzyme (HMT) for breaking down histamine in the CNS, histamine in the gut is broken down by the enzyme 'diamine oxidase' or DAO.   What causes diminished levels of DAO?  The very things mentioned in this paragraph, plus certain medications, chiefly ANTI-DEPRESSANTS and the non-PPI drugs used to treat GERD --- H2 blockers aka "Histamine Blockers" such as Pepcid, Tagamet and Zantec. 

Other drugs that affect histamine levels via decreasing your body's production of DAO include BETA BLOCKERS, NSAIDS, and the "biologics" people take for various AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES.  Oh; and yes, antihistamines as well (which I have seen cause back pain in a number of patients).  For the record, among the foods that are high in histamine, many are "healthy".  These include about anything fermented (including not only alcohol and vinegar, but various probiotic concoctions such as the KKK -- Kombucha, Kefier, and Kraut.  Furthermore, healthy green tea acts as a blocker of DAO.

The last month before I went back to work I was eating 50/50 and wanted to lower my dose of cymbalta. I want off thse antidepressants that I have been on for over 20 years. I was on a low dose but it was very hard coming off of this drug. I am no stranger to trying to get off antidepressants. I have been through hell coming off them in the past. I have finally been free of taking cymbalta for about 2 months now but initially I was extremely angry and wanted to be violent. I had a lot of trouble keeping myself in check. The rage from Cymbalta withdrawal has subsided but, as I'll explain in the next paragraph, I am still very depressed and angry. I am lowering my Burpropion dosage now but I have been on this before and never noticed major withdrawals from this drug.

The problem with antidepressants is that no matter what anyone tells you, they create a reliance on, or addiction to them.  Why?  It all has to do with negative feedback loops. Cymbalta is a SSRI ANTIDEPRESSANT with an added component that also blocks the reuptake of norepinephrine, officially making it an SNRI (Serotonin and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors).  In my humble opinion as the 'Village Idiot,' these are terrible drugs that should probably never have gained FDA APPROVAL. 

Although I am not an expert on the subject in any sense of the word, the internet abounds with horror stories of coming off of SNRI's.  When you block the body's "reuptake" of various neurotransmitters with SNRI's, you create artificially high levels of said neurotransmitters at the synapses.  The increased levels of neurotransmitters are supposed to, among other things, improve mood and energy levels.  The problem is that when you stop blocking the reuptake of any neurotransmitter, levels of said transmitters plummet.  The result can be a wide array of potentially severe (and in many cases 'bizarre') side effects. 

I am honestly not sure of the best way for people to come off of these drugs, although the web abounds with such articles.  For the record, Burpropion (Wellbutrin) is a drug used to treat depression, anxiety, and is used extensively in smoking cessation.  It is known to react with lots of drugs, including antihistamines and antidepressants, not to mention H2 Blockers.

The night before I went back to work I had horrible pain just below my sternum. I debated going to the ER a couple of times that night but didn't. I did not go to work the next day and the pain subsided after awhile. I hate work. I've hated it for a long time. I always hated school. I was not looking forward to going back. Within the first couple of weeks of work I started having bad heartburn although it took me a week to figure out what it was because I've only had heartburn a couple of times in my life. I was also getting pretty severe lower belly bloating. Some days I feel like I have a stomach full of acid and others I have pretty constant heartburn. Not every day is the same and some days are worse than others. I started drinking just smoothies - blend of lettuce, carrots, coconut oil, and sometimes beats, in the mornings and also sometimes at nights. Sometimes I feel like I can't eat anything or have no idea what to eat because everything seems to exacerbate my symptoms. I have had some pretty significant lower back pain start since going back to work too. At first I thought it was from sitting again a lot but I am wondering if it isn't related to whatever is going on.

Heartburn is usually the result of LOW STOMACH ACID (not high stomach acid), and among other things, can be brought on by various forms of stress (which when maxed, can cause ADRENAL FATIGUE), which also happens to be intimately related to SYMPATHETIC DOMINANCE.  Be aware that the medical community's solution for GERD is always H2 Blockers or more commonly, the even more dangerous PPI's I mentioned earlier.  Neither solves the problem, and in truth, frequently causes the problem to become virtually self-perpetuating to the point people cannot live without them.  And not that I need to tell you this Suzie, but going through life hating what you do for a living makes everything --- including healing your body and mind --- difficult, to say the least.  Unfortunately, I don't have a simple answer for this.

I had an ultrasound done of my gallbladder and kidneys, etc. and nothing abnormal was found. I met with a gastroenterologist last week who did not impress me, but no conventional doctor has other than the doctor I had in Boston for my TOS. I went educated into the appointment with the gastro and asked for tests. He said he thinks it is IBS w/ constipation. I don't accept it - I want to know why? (I have always been constipated. I didn't know that because I didn't realize going to the bathroom once every 3-4 days wasn't normal). I learned a few years ago after trying to figure out what was wrong with my arm that this isn't normal. I'd say for the last 4-6 weeksI have only pooped once on my own. The other times I have either done a coffee enema (I know they are not specifically for this) or just a water colonic to go to the bathroom) He also said, "since when is gluten related to depression?" when I mentioned the diet.

I had started taking some digestive enzymes, Duozyme, that Kelly Brogran recommends, but they hadn't helped. He took one look at them and told me to stop taking them. He ordered an Upper GI and Small Bowel Barium test which I had today. The doctor today that did the initial part of the test when you swallow the barium and he takes the x-rays told me right away that I had significant reflux - the tech said she could see it too - you could see me swallow the liquid and it go down but come right back up. The doctor today told me 2x that he saw major reflux. The gastro doc also ordered a comprehensive metabolic panel and a calprotectin fecal test because my sister has crohns. I insisted on an H. Pylori test. He said they don't test for SIBO which I think is absolutely ridiculous! I don't think I would have gotten these tests had I not been persistent. I didn't like the man. After he suggested it, I told him I had no intention of going on a PPI and he looked at me, shrugged his shoulders, and said, "that's what we do here". He told me at around the 30 minute mark in the appointment that he had to go because he had other patients waiting.

Be aware that tests like upper GI, lower GI, ultrasounds, MRI's, etc, etc, are looking for gross pathology, and not subtle or "functional" problems.  First, there is an intimate relationship between IBS --- a known autoimmune disease --- and SIBO (HERE).   You can purchase good DIY tests for both SIBO and H. PYLORI (not to mention several labs that do incredible COMPLETE STOOL ANALYSIS).  It's interesting about the "gluten" comment, because I hear patients complaining of it all the time.  Just yesterday I had a patient with an extremely rare issue (Tarlov Cysts) that she told her doctor that her symptoms improve when she stays away from gluten and sugar.  Her doctor dismissed it out of hand as stupid.  This is the norm because the system of healthcare we've created under our current insurance system cannot tell the difference between FUNCTIONAL PROBLEMS & GROSS PATHOLOGY!  I'll get to the CONSTIPATION momentarily, but isn't it fascinating that after all this song and dance, "what we do here," is put everyone on a PPI?

Since I have gone back to work my depression has gotten very bad. Most days I don't know how I make it through the day. I typically go in the bathroom to sit there and cry at least once a day. I can barely keep it together. My rage during Cymbalta withdrawal HAD subsided but as more stomach symptoms keep coming I have found myself angry/depressed almost all of the time now. I basically hate everyone and have nothing nice to say about anyone. I go from being so mad to bawling. I feel like I am about to explode any minute. I worry that I will lose it and keeping it in check is a full time job that is killing me. I want to snap. I have worked myself up into a mess writing all of this because I am at my wits end about everything...AGAIN...for the millionth time in my life.

I am utterly exhausted with myself and my issues. It took me 4 years to figure out what was wrong with my shoulder and have two surgeries because no doctor would/could help me. I was hoping for a better year - a new start - and the first day of the new year brought the beginning of more problems. I don't want to spend the money - it terrifies me to now have to spend even more money to try to fix whatever is going on now. I'm still paying for last years surgeries. I am utterly fed up with myself. I feel like I don't deserve this help - I don't deserve to spend more of our money to figure out what's wrong with me.  I hate myself for being sick. I just simply hate myself.

I wish I had all the answers for you Suzie, but I don't.  What I can tell you for sure is that you've got some issues going on with your GUT (probably both LGS and DYSBIOSIS).  Beyond the links I've provided today, be sure and look at THIS POST as well as our articles on FMT.   Bear in mind Suzie that you'll probably need some specialized FUNCTIONAL MEDICINE TESTING as well.  However, for most of you reading this, you can't really go wrong by starting to tackle your health on your own (HERE).   As is always the case, even though your doctor will probably disagree with you and think you are loony tunes, be sure not to do anything without their express written consent.

Although first touted by DR ANDREW TAYLOR STILL, there is a growing number of elite scientists researchers, and physicians, who believe the solution to many --- some would say most --- chronic illness and chronic pain is in the fascia (HERE).  We could definitely add one more to this list; Italy's Bruno Bordoni.  Dr. Bordoni (a physician, physical therapist, professor, and researcher at Rome's TorVergata University and Milan's Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation) is in rarefied air when it comes to researching fascia.  Today I want to briefly take you through some of his studies on FASCIA, showing you how it really is related to everything that goes on in the body (for the record, many of Bordoni's studies are co-authored by Dr. Emiliano Zanier --- another Italian).

The first study we'll discuss today is from a 2014 issue of the Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare (Clinical and Symptomatological Reflections: The Fascial System),  The authors, Drs. B & Z, reveal that "Every body structure is wrapped in connective tissue, or fascia, creating a structural continuity that gives form and function to every tissue and organ. The human body must be considered as a functional unit, where every area is in communication with another through the fascial continuum, consequently originating perfect tensegritive equilibrium."  Right away the authors reveal that fascia is not only a mechanical continuum / structural continuum (TENSEGRITY), but is intimately involved in communication as well (FASCIA IS ITS OWN NERVOUS SYSTEM).

They went on to talk about the importance of both fibroblasts (which we will discuss later) and the ECM (fascia's "gelatinous substance known as extracellular matrix, where numerous molecules (ie, glycosaminoglycans, proteoglycans and polysaccharides such as hyaluronic acid) can be found").  They then discussed the way that the layers of fascia glide on each other ("The superficial fascia is made up of different layers, whose formation facilitates the sliding of one layer over another").  If you want to see what this looks like, one of the coolest things on my site is THIS TWO PARAGRAPH POST showing a side-by-side comparison (10 second videos) of the difference in the gliding ability of the low back fascia of people with low back pain, and people without.

For those of you fascinated by fascia as related to the LYMPHATICS, "according to some texts, within the superficial fascia there is a vascular network independent of the lymphatic and blood pathways. It is called the Bonghan duct system."  This is part of what allows fascia to act not only in a physical and neurological manner, but in a neurochemical manner as well --- it actually acts as a separate endocrine system (HERE).  Furthermore, fascia is its own PROPRIOCEPTIVE SYSTEM as well, likely containing as much proprioceptive power as any other single tissue.

"The deep fascia is the last connective layer before coming in contact with bones, muscles, and the visceral [organs], and vascular systems. Its vascular and lymphatic system is well developed, with numerous corpuscles in charge of proprioception....  The fascial continuum can be considered a sense organ of human mechanics...."

When proprioceptors / mechanoreceptors are not fired off to the brain (the most obvious reason for this would losses of motion, both SECTIONAL & SEGMENTAL), it's been said that every message that's prevented from going up to the brain (sensory messages are otherwise known as "afferent"), inhibits thirty responses coming back down on the motor ("efferent") side.  This is at least part of the reason that decreased function of fascia, and the abnormal firing of mechanoreceptors / proprioceptors that follows, is increasingly being associated with various disease states in the peer-reviewed literature.

"The muscle system is part of the fascial continuum, and when it is affected by pathologies or systemic disorders such as visceral [organ], genetic, vascular, metabolic, and alimentary [digestive] disorders, its function undergoes a nonphysiological alteration; there are many epigenetic processes that can lead to its adjustment as a response to mechanotransductive stimuli, resulting in further decrease of its function and properties. Once altered, the fascial continuum generates a symptomatology that deteriorates the health condition of the patient, very often developing symptoms that are more significant than the clinical parameters diagnosed through medical diagnostic devices.  The nociceptive afferent inputs [pain or similar] from the fascial system can modulate the afferent response from the central nervous system. If the afferent is not physiological, the efferent will be in dysfunction and in pathology.  An increased level of circulating cytokines originating in the connective system, due to systemic pathologies, could develop neuropathic pain."

Pay attention to what this is saying.  When MECHANOTRANSDUCTION (the ability to convert mechanical energy into electrical messages) is altered by faulty or "altered" BIOMECHANICS, there is a loss of function that goes far beyond anything we can see with current technology (CT, MRI, X-rays, etc).  The symptoms that develop as the result of said biomechanical dysfunction may not only be severe, they are also not nearly as controlled by genetics as they are by "epigenetics" (HERE).  When this cycle gets going, it can become "vicious," feeding itself.  Furthermore, when you add circulating CYTOKINES (INFLAMMATION) to the mix, the result can be the neuropathic pain we refer to as CENTRAL SENSITIZATION (in many of his studis he talks about ALLODYNIA & HYPERALGIA), with the paper's next several paragraphs talking about fascia's relationship to "normal" pain.  When I say 'normal' I mean the everyday chronic, severe, pain that's caused by SCAR TISSUE (fascia that has become FIBROTIC and THICKENED, or "DENSIFIED").

"The loss of a correct sliding of the layers is demonstrated by an increased density of the fascial thickness... termed... fascial densification. Defective sliding, for instance due to a scar, generates tension, which then affects the fascial continuum, developing painful symptoms. Tensional alterations can derive from the contractile property of fibroblasts, creating a fascial tonus that is independent of neurological intervention. A nonphysiological [pathological] mechanical environment stimulates an inflammatory environment, with resultant fibroblasts’ hyperplasia and further fascial densification, which then develops into chronic inflammation and into the sensitization of nociceptors."

Because I am running out of time, let me give you an overview of the rest of the paper.  The authors speak at length about the relationship between OSTEOPOROSIS & INFLAMMATION, saying "The fibroblasts (the foundations of the fascial system) affect the immune system, and as a consequence bone tissue; this phenomenon is called osteoimmunology," and then going on to mention that the same phenomenon is likely present in RA.  Not surprisingly, they talk about some of the principles mentioned in Meyer's ANATOMY TRAINS ("The fascial continuum can also develop symptoms in areas which are far from the original dysfunctional point") as well as discussing CHRONIC NECK PAIN caused by dysfunciton of the CERVICAL FASCIA ("an alteration in the thickness of the fascial layers has been verified, with consequent altered spinal mobility and pain").  Beyond pain, said dysfunction also causes many of the mechanics of vision to be abnormal, as well as gait and balance issues. The authors end by spending a number of paragraphs showing how fascia is an organ of special senses that have been referred to as "interoception".  Interoception?

Mechanoreception, mentioned earlier, deals with your body's ability to sense "mechanical" entities like stretch, pressure, movement, vibration, etc.  Interoception is a bit different. In a study probably not named after Ric Ocasek's 1986 hit (HERE), last year, Complimentary Medicine Research carried a study called Emotions in Motion that dealt with something known as the Body / Mind (aka the Mind / Body Connection).  Dr. B kicked things off by talking about some of the "pioneers of psychotherapy," and the way they connected the psyche to the body in a single "mind-body functional unit".  Bordoni went on to talk about the ways that some of the same receptors that sense mechanical activities (the mechanoreceptors that allow for proprioception) have the ability to act in terms of interoception.  While Oxford's Reference Guide defines 'interoceptor' thusly ("any receptor organ composed of sensory nerve cells that respond to and monitor changes within the body, such as the stretching of muscles or the acidity of the blood"), Bordoni himself says.....

Interoception is the awareness of the bodily condition based on the information derived directly from the body. The pathways pertaining to interoception project towards the autonomic and medullar homoeostatic centers and the brainstem, where they are routed to the frontal cingulate cortex and the dorsal posterior insula, by the thalamocortical circuit. Interoception can modulate the exteroceptive representation of the body, as well as pain tolerance; dysregulation of the pathways that manage or stimulate interoception could cause a distortion of one's own body image, influencing emotionality.

The authors went on to discuss how different kinds of bodyworkers, PT,s chiros, osteopaths, etc, etc, are able to stimulate these areas of the brain by stimulating the interoceptors found in fascia, thereby affecting the body "emotionally".  They then discussed various pathways and mechanisms, specifically addressing the way that "skeletal muscle tensional load" along with "fascial deformation" (HERE is a link to fascial deformation) are able to increase blood flow via sympathetic response, which triggers certain responses in the brain ("Scientific research has proven that the fascial continuum is innervated by the autonomic sympathetic system").  This is why HOMEOSTASIS is critical in the autonomic nervous system, and why SYMPATHETIC DOMINANCE can cause problems in the body, the mind, and the emotions.  As crazy as it may sound to those within the mainstream, "A disorder involving the myofascial system will have repercussions on the emotional state. There is a strong relationship between the myofascial structure and the emotions."  Bordoni goes on to say...

"We can say that the presence of a disorder of the myofascial continuum, during everyday movements and activities, can alter the emotional state of the person, as studies reveal in the presence of fibromyalgia and in other pathological situations. It is possible to suppose that an emotional allodynia could be established originating from constant myofascial non-physiological afferents, which would bring the emotional state and the myofascial pathology to the same level. In fact, the very position of the body stimulates the areas of emotionality, and the presence of myofascial alterations leads to postural alterations. A dysfunctional myofascial system alters the posture and the emotional state."

After all, what is FIBROMYALGIA but an extreme state of ADRENAL FATIGUE (some might call it Sympathetic Dominance), many times to the point the body has burned its adrenal glands down to a frazzle (yes, 'frazzle' is a scientific term!).  Think about it like this; I personally periodically deal with TRIGGER POINTS. When they get fired up, you had better believe they effect my emotions. And yes, POOR POSTURE affects the whole thing because trunk flexion (a bent-forward or HEAD-FORWARD POSTURE) aggravates the whole mess.  And while it's easy to dismiss this as a purely mechanical / biochemical phenomenon, Bordoni clearly shows that it is neurological and biochemical as well.

Speaking of neurological, Bordoni and Zanier teamed up yet again for a 2013 study called Cranial Nerves XIII and XIV: Nerves in the Shadows.  If you've ever studied anatomy, the very title of this study will surprise you because there are only 12 Cranial Nerves (always named according to their corresponding Roman numeral --- for instance, THE VAGUS NERVE is CN:X or Cranial Nerve Ten).  There are no such things as CNXIII or CNXIV ---- or are there?  I am not going to dwell on this study, but instead will highlight for you a single paragraph having to do with fascia.

"The current view is that nerve N has the ability to affect sexual behavior... . It is believed to act by stimulating luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone on contact with pheromones, improving olfaction and identifying odors, and this series of events will affect sexual behavior.  Finally, the trigeminal system can be stimulated by odors. If a connection between the cervical sympathetic ganglia, the trigeminal system, and the aforementioned nerve [Nerve N] was confirmed, we might better understand and explain some cervical [neck] disorders, such as those related to the menstrual cycle or chronic rhinitis [chronic sinus]. In addition, we could link certain sexual behavioral disorders to trigeminal pain.  In order for the body to maintain homeostasis, each and every part needs to be in harmonious and tensegritive collaboration, with regard to not only fascial but also immunological, neuroendocrine, and psychological functioning."

Now, we'll take a look at the way that fascia is both affected by and affects movement, as well as it's relationship to the nervous system.

As I said at the beginning of today's post, there are an increasing number of scientists and physicians who strongly believe that the fascia is the key to understanding both health and disease.  Much of this has to do with the way that fascia acts on the nervous system.  The periphrial nerves in your body are surrounded by three layers of fasica --- endoneurium, perineurium, and epineurium (HERE).  When the gliding of these layers on each other is compromised by some sort of adhesion or restriction, Bordoni stated in 2015's Reflections on Osteopathic Fascia Treatment in the Peripheral Nervous System, that "there is an impediment to the sliding of the nerve, [causing] the rigidity of its fascial structures during joint movement to be increased....  All this will lead to fibrous adhesions, decreasing the sliding of the intrafascicular tissue. The fibrosis increases the compression both inside and outside the tissues with a thickening of the nerve. This is even more noticeable when the nerve passes through small areas. The situation described will generate pain symptoms."  This is only one of many reasons its critical to keep your fascia moving.  Speaking of moving fascia....

In my post on TENSEGRITY, I embedded a clip of Dr JC Guimberteau's Strolling Under the Skin.  In it you can see the way that fascia moves, and the fact that each individual strand of connective tissue moves in ways that are almost impossible to believe, and frankly impossible for me to explain.  Last year Bordoni published a study called The Indeterminable Resilience of the Fascial System in which he stated of fascia's structure....

"These microvacuoles (a repetition of polyhedral units of connective fibrils) under internal or external tension change shape and can manage the movement variations, regulating different body functions and ensuring the maintenance of efficiency of the body systems. Their plasticity is based on perfect functional chaos: it is not possible to determine the motion vectors of the different fibrils, which differ in behavior and orientation; this strategy confers to the fascial continuum the maximum level of adaptability in response to the changing internal and external conditions of the cell.  The fascial continuum is like a flock of birds flying together without a predetermined logic and maintaining their individuality at the same time."

So, when fascia is working, it's essentially an elegant "chaos," but what about when it's not?  On my site I frequently discuss "MICROSCOPIC SCAR TISSUE".  Scar tissue is different than normal tissue in in a variety of manner --- it's less elastic, more pain sensitive, weaker, and less vascular, making it prone to diminished vascularization and oxygenation.  And as you might have suspected, the whole mess is prone to both pain and re-injury.  Not a good situation.  Is there a viable solution?  There is, and it has little to do with THE "BIG FIVE".  What it does have to do with is tissue deformation.  Bordoni revealed this in 2015's Understanding Fibroblasts in Order to Comprehend the Osteopathic Treatment of the Fascia.

"The various layers communicate by a microvacuolar system, which is in turn composed of the same structures of the superficial fascia; it is a microscopic web, concerning vessels and nerves, in varying directions, and is highly deformable."

I mentioned tissue deformation earlier and told you that it is accomplished by putting mechanical stress / loads on the connective tissues like fascia.  In many cases, tissue deformation involves varying degrees of "CONTROLLED TRAUMA" to break the adhesion (an "UNTETHERING" if you will) so that said tissue can be progressively loaded (stretched) and untangled, and later on, strengthened. Dr. B went on to talk about the FIBROBLAST as being the, "foundation of the fascial system."  What makes STIMULATIING FIBROBLASTIC ACTIVITY --- stimulating the very cells that make COLLAGEN --- so foundational to the healing process?  Listen to these cherry-picked reasons.

"The fascial system can be plausibly considered a memory organ, because it not only registers the functions of the structures it surrounds and connects, but also memorizes any function or information arriving and departing from the same structures.  The fibroblasts contain receptors for the growth hormone (GH), and depending on the levels of growth hormone circulating they can secrete insulin-like growth factors (IGFs).  The cells of the fibroblasts directly affect contractile tissue repair. They secrete different soluble substances, such as insulin-like growth factors (IGFs), fibroblast growth factors (FGFs), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), interleukins (ILs), and nitric oxide (NO), as response to mechanical information undergone by the muscles.  The cannabinoid receptor or CB1 can be found in the fascial system and in the fibroblasts as well. This relationship is believed to better manage any inflammation and pain information originating in the fascial tissue, as the fascia undergoes continuous remodeling during the day.  Fibroblasts regulate the pressure of fluids and the flow of liquids that permeate the fascia. When the fibroblast undergoes a strain, the water inside is expelled toward the extracellular matrix.  Every fibroblast is potentially aware of the functional state of the one close to it, as well as those distant from it, ensuring the fascial and mechanical continuity.  They convey tension, dynamically affect mechanical tension, can rapidly remodel their cytoskeletons, When the fascial tissue lengthens, the fibroblasts flatten themselves and expand, increasing their area of action, are capable of metabolic responses....  This mechanism is known as mechanotransduction; tension is the 'language' of cells."

Holy Toledo that's amazing!  You can start to see why I've written OVER 150 ARTICLES ON FASCIA!  Believe me when I say that the quote above could have been longer (I cherry-pick everything due to constraints on time and space).  One other thing the fibroblasts do is help the fascia align itself so as to direct muscle fibers in the optimal direction / vectors, which creates both power and ease of motion.  But what happens when something goes wrong, when the fascia is not "aligned" properly, and motion becomes anything but easy? 

Although there are an endless number of ways to therapeutically affect the fascia, the goal is fairly universal.  Increase function, while decreasing pain.  Bordoni talks about "altering the mechanical properties of fascia, such as density, stiffness, and viscosity, so that the fascia can more readily adapt to physical stresses."  Some of this you can do yourself (STRETCHING, EXERCISE, FOAM ROLLERS, STEEL ROLLERS, "FUNKY GIZMOS," TRAMPOLINES, WHOLE BODY VIBRATION THERAPY, all sorts of FUNCTIONAL TRAINING, EXTENSION THERAPY, THE DAKOTA DEVICE, YOGA, PILATES, etc, etc, etc).  Some of it you'll have to have someone do for you / to you (HERE'S ONE).  The bottom line is that there must be "breaking of the fascial cross-links" --- the fibers that act like extra fibers in a net (HERE is a picture).

When treatment is done properly (note that this is more than a mechanical issue --- stick around to the end), "Fibroblasts are able to change their orientation and probably their mechanical behavior."  The end result is an "improved sliding of the various fascial layers, allowing resetting the afferent of the free nerve endings, resulting in physiologic response of the efferent."  In English this means that when you take abnormal pressure off of the sensory side of the nervous system, it allows the motor side of the system to function better, with the end result being better function and less pain.
But what about scar tissue that is stubborn or too deep to access easily?

It was Donnie Iris who famously stated in 1981's hit single, LOVE IS LIKE A ROCK, that, "you can't depend on your doctor."  Although some might debate the veracity of his statement, when it comes to effectively dealing with health problems related to fascia, it's not only true, with the average doctor it's doubly true.   I've given you a small taste of how bad scar tissue can be, but we're going to let Dr. Bordoni (along with Dr. Zanier) give us the bigger picture. 

The duo kicked things off in their 2013 study (Skin, Fascias, and Scars: Symptoms and Systemic Connections) by saying, "There are four main stages in skin healing: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling."  Although I've talked about these in the past using slightly different names (HERE), allow me to take just a second to cover them for you again.

• HEMOSTASIS:  Hemostasis is when the heme (the blood) becomes stagnant (stasis).  This is the formation of the "clot" that contains all of the growth factors, platelet factors, and other anticoagulants, that begin the process of shoring up a "hole" (injury) in the tissue.
  
• INFLAMMATION: Inflammation (see my earlier link) is neither swelling nor infection.  It is a group of chemical messengers that allows the body's cells to communicate with each other.  Just remember that in the correct dose, local inflammation is vital for the healing process.  When there is too much however --- especially when it is coursing throughout the whole body --- it is the chief driver of most disease processes; even those that most people have been led to believe are "genetic".
  
• PROLIFERATION: Proliferation is exactly what it sounds like --- a proliferation of the collagenous tissue.  "Within 8–14 days from the injury, the third healing stage begins, involving the migration of the fibroblasts toward the provisional extracellular matrix made of fibrin and collagen.  The fibroblasts, which are stimulated by the different growth factors, are divided into myofibroblasts comparable with smooth muscle cells (they hold a protein, which is the alpha smooth muscle actin). These cells can increase the traction force, and thus they contract and reduce the open area of the lesion."  This is the phase that lasts up to six weeks, which is why insurance companies like to hound those who have been in WHIPLASH ACCIDENTS that the "science" says that treatment beyond a couple months post-accident is not warranted because all the healing that's going to take place has already taken place.
  
• REMODELING: Up to this point the scar is a jumbled mess --- a wad of fibrous tissue that is functionally similar to a hairball (HERE).  "Remodeling" simply takes the scar and makes it more functional --- hopefully more like well-combed hair.   "Remodeling can last for years and depends on the size and nature of the wound. In this phase, type 3 collagen is replaced by a stronger fiber such as type 1 collagen, but it is lined up without a specific order and is smaller than the collagen of an undamaged skin surface. This results in more strength but less elasticity."
  

The question now becomes, what causes scar tissue to go haywire, and what can be done to get the healing process back on track?  Let's talk about what we know --- things mentioned in the study.  Firstly, inflammation always leads to fibrosis (HERE).  So, if at any point in the process, you can control "SYSTEMIC INFLAMMATION," you've helped control the amount of "fibrosis" the body is laying down.  When talking about Sympathetic Dominance and increased inflammatory response (something I mention HERE), the authors mentioned that "We can logically assume that in the presence of a scar, these receptors may experience an alteration, resulting in transmitting nonphysiological signals and creating a pathological reflex arc."  This would account for the Central Sensitization and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (it used to be called Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy) mentioned earlier in the post.

Drs. B & Z also discussed people who genetically build great deals of scar tissue (HERE), as well as the direction of the injury and subsequent scar tissue (LANGERS LINES).  Not surprisingly both mechanoreceptors and nociceptors are affected by scar tissue, particularly if it's being exposed to chronic inflammation (HERE). 

"We can logically assume that in the presence of a scar, these receptors may experience an alteration, resulting in transmitting nonphysiological signals and creating a pathological reflex arc. It is worth remembering that the language of the cell is, precisely, the tension, which activates the mechanotransduction (ie, the chemicobiological and metabolic response to the tension). This response will be different depending on how the tension emerges and depending on different parameters. However, it is usually ignored that if the tissue where the tension is observable is in an unbalanced condition, as in the case when a scar is present, the cells cannot properly interpret the message, giving consequent anomalous responses.  Fascial tissue is made of contractile fibers, which may possibly produce spasms and consequential dysfunction and pain"

The authors go on to talk even more about the relationship of fascia to the sympathetic nervous system, once more providing a glimpse at potential mechanisms of Sympathetic Dominance and whole body symptoms (make sure to see my suggestions for toning down the sympathetic response --- HERE).   And this is where things start to get wild.  Bordoni talked about the fact that both sensory and motor nerves carry things other than electrical impulses ("chemicobiological, neurotrophic, and at the same time, immune substances"), potentially causing scar tissue to transmit a wide variety of aberrant messages to the brain and various parts of the body. This is at least part of what creates such a wild array of the bizarre and seemingly unrelated symptoms seen with chronic soft tissue injuries --- especially when the HEAD is involved (these people are often labeled by their doctors as "crazy").

"When there is a fascial injury, there is a fascial dysfunction.  A physiological alteration in any part of the body will affect, as a result, everything that is covered by the connective sheet: the symptom will arise in the area concerned with the alteration or, in contrast, in a distal [distant] area, when this is not capable of adapting to the new stressor."

Bordoni goes on to compare / contrast ankle injuries to spinal injuries, talking about how one can affect the other on numerous levels (mechanical, biochemical, neurological, etc).  Pay attention to this direct quote.

"We can then assume that if a scar on the ankle creates an adhesion, this unusual tension will also be recorded by the thoracolumbar fascia, with the consequent appearance of back pain or dysfunctions in the shoulders. It is acknowledged that the thoracolumbar fascia can cause lower back pain or anomalies in the arthrokinematics of the shoulders. Furthermore, when the fascial surface is not in its normal physiological condition, the normal fascial receptors can develop into nociceptors, with a more complex symptomatology.  The sympathetic nervous system is connected to the emotions, and we can assume an emotional alteration resulting from nonphysiological information arising from the periphery. We can still hypothesize the presence of thalamic and hypothalamic dysfunctions because of relations with the sympathetic system and skin.  We can also logically theorize that in time, a scar on the ankle might generate a visceral dysfunction."

Allow me to summarize.  A high-flying basketball player roaches his ankles several times, causing fascial and TENDINOUS dysfunctions.  Coupled with systemic inflammation from living the HIGH CARB LIFESTYLE (it's what "healthy" people were doing in the 1980's), he develops problems in the THRORACOLUMBAR FASCIA that creates a degree of chronic low back pain as well as LEVATOR TRIGGER POINTS behind the shoulders.  The mechanoreceptors found in fascia are actually converted to nociceptors (pain sensors), that ratchet up the sympathetic side of the ANS (autonomic nervous system).  This can actually lead not only to chronic pain but to problems in the viscera (the organs).  It also, as I showed you earlier, changes ones emotions.  How do I know this?  After three separate avulsion fractures of my ankles (right twice, left once), I was at one time ready to have my right ankle amputated until THIS HAPPENED.  Through changing my diet, methods of exercise, and improving the ways I treat myself, I am about 90% better than I was 12 or 14 years ago.  Although I never want to go back there again, the experience undoubtedly led to a better understanding and dogged determinedness to help those suffering with their unique problem(s).

As for surgeries, Bordoni and Zanier went on to talk about SPINAL SURGERY, ABDOMINAL SURGERY, KNEE SURGERY, and several others.  They also talked extensively about the potential problems associated with said surgeries --- adhesions, scar tissue, chronic pain, pathological biomechanics, muscle spasms, visceral dysfunction, ABNORMAL PROPRIOCEPTION, along with dozens of others.  It's why I always suggest conservative methods before trying surgery.  Listen to what they say about the potential far-reaching effects of a surgery on the low back, including its ability to adversely affect the Cervical Fascia and / or cause TOS.

"A lumbar scar could increase the tension of the deep fascia of the neck, pulling the stellate ganglion. This event may cause symptoms at the level of the cervical and thoracic outlet and negatively affect all the neural structures related to it. To exclusively treat the joint negatively involved will not solve the problem."

What does solve the problem?  Although there are many thought processes, Bordoni and Zanier discuss solutions in another 2015 study called A Multidisciplinary Approach to Scars: A Narrative Review.  Here are some of the methods they mention in their study.  Clear the HPA-AXIS, control inflammation, make sure your body is dealing with OXIDATION, HYPERBARIC O2, OT, PT, DO, CHIRO, MASSAGE, BODY WORK, NEEDLING, CUPPING, HERBAL, Ayurvedic, homeopathic, or naturopathic remedies, NUTRITIONAL SUPPORT, along with several others.  But what happens when these approaches fail and you are forced to have surgery?

In 2016, Bordoni came back with a study called Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: Review and New Hypotheses.  What's interesting to me is how he shows studies on back surgery are literally all over the place.  "The percentage of pain detected after spinal surgery varies ranging from a low of 5% to a high of 74.6%, and the percentage of need for re-operation ranging from 13.4% to 35%." This is yet another example of NOT BEING ABLE TO TRUST STATISTICS. 

Because we've covered most of the basics of why a back surgery might fail, I am going to mention the one that most people are totally unfamiliar with, the diaphragm.  "One component that is not even considered when trying to understand the reasons for failed back surgery syndrome is dysfunction of the diaphragm muscle, which is not referred to in the literature. The diaphragm is involved in chronic lower back and sacroiliac pain and plays an important role in the management of pain perception."  Which brings us to our next section......

If you click on the pics above, you can blow them up and take a look at the relationship between the muscle we call the diaphragm, the abdominal cavity, THE RIBS, and the spine.  Although Bordoni is one of the world's foremost experts on fascia, his niche would have to be the diaphragm.  In 2013, Bordoni and Zanier published a study on this topic called Anatomic Connections of the Diaphragm: Influence of Respiration on the Body System.

"From a functional perspective, two areas can be recognized in the diaphragm, ie, the crural region and the costal region. The former is responsible for correct breathing, whereas the latter prevents gastroesophageal reflux. This separation has an anatomic function, because during deglutition [swallowing], esophageal distention, and vomiting, these diaphragmatic areas must work at different times and with different innervations [nerves]."

This brief video shows the bony attachment points of the diaphragm.  Notice how when it contracts it pulls downward, causing negative pressure in the thoracic cavity to "draw" air in, while when it relaxes, it pushes air upward and out.

Listen to what the authors say about the pelvic diaphragm (pelvic floor) in relation to breathing.  "The pelvic diaphragm not only has a significant role in supporting the pelvic organs and in resisting increasing pressure, but also affects respiratory function."  And while I will not cover it here, the authors dealt at length with the diaphrgm's numerous neurological connections (including the phrenic nerve), saying "It is important to emphasize that when an organ such as the liver or the gallbladder does not function properly, the phrenic nerve will be affected."  Yet another example of everything affecting everything (and be honest; how crazy common are LIVER / GALL BLADDER issues in the Westernized world?).  Speaking of EVERYTHING BEING CONNECTED ("the deep cervical fascia reaches the pubis via the fascia transversalis"), let's take a look at the study's section called Fascial Connections.

"It is important to consider the fascial and connective links between the diaphragm and the pelvic floor, and the rest of the body. First, the abdominal muscles are related to the costal, lumbar, and pubic iliac regions of the body, ie, rectus abdominis, the internal and external oblique muscles, pyramidalis, cremaster, transversus abdominis, great psoas, quadratus lumborum, sacrospinalis, and transversus spinalis (where the multifidus spinae is distinguishable). Further, the fascial tissue possesses fibers capable of contracting, probably causing spasms, followed by dysfunction and pain.  When there is a problem in the diaphragm or in any of the structures belonging to this fascia, there will be dysfunction.  A physiologic alteration in any part of the body will affect everything that is covered by this connective sheet: the symptom will arise in the area concerned with the alteration or in a distal area, when this is not capable of adapting to the new stressor.  If handling of these forces is restrained, postural and visceral equilibrium will become dysfunctional. We can assume that the phrenic nerve passes through the deep fascia and media, and be indirectly affected by the superficial fascia of the neck."

Interestingly enough, Bordini not only talked about reflux and PPI drugs in this study, just last month he published a study called Low Back Pain and Gastroesophageal Reflux in Patients with COPD: The Disease in the Breath.  I've talked to you about GERD and the dangers of PPI's (Proton Pump Inhibitors --- aka "acid blockers"), as well as giving you a posts on both CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN and COPD.  Bordoni and his team put the whole thing together, showing you not only how common all of them are in our society, but just how intimately related to each other they are as well.  Although I have dealt with it on my site, the question now becomes, how do you successfully address the issue without drugs?

In 2016, Bordoni published a study on this very topic called A Review of Analgesic and Emotive Breathing: A Multidisciplinary Approach, in which his team stated "The diaphragm is the primary muscle involved in breathing and other non-primarily respiratory functions such as the maintenance of correct posture and lumbar and sacroiliac movement. It intervenes to facilitate cleaning of the upper airways through coughing, facilitates the evacuation of the intestines, and promotes the redistribution of the body’s blood. The diaphragm also has the ability to affect the perception of pain and the emotional state of the patient."  After going on to talk about the many neurological and mechanical connections between breathing, the diaphragm, and the problems mentioned above, he suggests the solution.

"It is undeniable that a respiratory disorder can alter the emotional picture, similar to depression and anxiety, and it is equally true that an altered emotional state worsens the respiratory function. Considering also the emotional side during manual treatment, such as manual therapy or an osteopathic treatment, would probably be more helpful for the patient."

I would add to that, learning how to breathe properly.  While I will not go into this topic in depth, realize that there are different schools of thought on exactly what "proper breathing" should look like.  A number of years ago I met a gentleman from Switzerland (actually this guy was in his 60's and looked and sounded like a smaller version of Arnold in his prime), who had cured (his word, not mine) a number of major health problems using the Buteyko Method of breathing, developed by a Russian MD, Konstantin Pavlovich Buteyko, back in the 1950's.  He gave me a couple of E-books on the subject, which are fascinating to say the least, the premise being that controlling your CO2 levels is far more important for all aspects of breathing and health that O2 levels.

There is one more study I need to mention before heading to the final section --- last year's The Five Diaphragms in Patients Following Cardiac Surgery in Sternotomy: An Observational Study.  The authors, led by Dr. B, looked at and examined 300 patients that had been cut from stem to stern during open-heart surgery.   The study had a great deal to say about the fascial system as related to the body's five different diaphragms ---- the respiratory diaphragm, pelvic floor, buccal diaphragm (the cheek), the thoracic outlet (where TOS occurs), and the tentorial diaphragm (made up of the tentorim cerebelli or membrane that separates the brain / cerebrum from the cerebellum).

"The fascial continuum creates a structural continuity that  gives form and function to every tissue and organ. The human body must be considered as a functional unit, where every area  is in communication with another through the fascial continuum, consequently originating perfect tensegritive equilibrium.  The dural fascia system of the skull continues, coming into contact  with  the  deep  cervical  fascia,  continuing  with  the  endothoracic  fascia  anteriorly  and  the  thoracolumbar  fascia  posteriorly;  the   first  continues  with  the  transversalis  fascia  until  the  pubis,  while  the  second  involves  the  whole  of  the  posterior  area  of  the   body. This fascia system involves all the bodily diaphragms,  including the respiratory diaphragm. Trauma following a  cardiac  surgery  with  a  sternotomy  will  affect  all  the  diaphragms  as a result of the anatomic and neurological continuity.  The evaluation has  highlighted  the  structure  of  fascia  restrictions  and   the preferential positioning of such structures.  The diaphragms of the body are  considered a pivotal point in the interpretation of the patient’s clinical status and treatment."

Just last month Bordini published a study in Future Cardiology called Depression and Anxiety in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure.  I've shown you in the past how DEPRESSION is linked to any number of health-related problems (including heart problems), via INFLAMMATION.  This latest study strengthens this link.  His study, of course, has a strong emphasis on the diaphragm, but goes beyond that.  After talking about the sheer numbers of people as well as the astronomical costs associated with caring for said people, Bordini got down to the brass tacks of the study.  In a phrase that could have easily gone in the section above....

"The inspiratory dysfunction of the diaphragm is a key element in patients with chronic heart failure, influencing mortality and morbidity rates. The breath becomes more superficial, with increase of the sympathetic activity; the sympathetic nervous system stimulates the phrenic afferents, which in turn stimulate the sympathetic fibers, in a vicious circle. This pathological condition predisposes the patient to arrhythmias and higher risk of sudden death."

The authors went on to discuss the VAGUS NERVE (use it to your advantage to counteract Sympathetic Dominance), and the way it can become compromised......

Emotional conditions such as anxiety and depression can negatively affect the baroreceptors’ response [pressure receptors in blood vessels used to adjust B], as well as they can produce an altered function on the diaphragm. The action of the diaphragm is not only controlled by metabolic factors, but also by emotional states such as sadness, fear, anxiety and anger. The interaction between the breath and the emotions involves a complex interaction between the brainstem and a few brain centers...   The breath stimulates the mechanoreceptors of the diaphragm and the visceroceptors of the viscera [organs] moving during the respiration, which constitute the interoception mechanism.   A dysregulation in the interoceptive pathways could cause a distortion of the body image, affecting the emotional condition. Anxiety can alter a few afferent pathways related to breathing, amplifying one or more receptor pathways related to the respiration.  The phrenic and vagus nerves provide visceral information.

The authors went on to talk about the way that abnormal stretching of peripheral nerves affect the ability of the fascial sheaths of said nerves to slide on each other properly.  This is a big deal because the sliding of the fascial layers is a huge source of PROPRIOCEPTION / MECHANORECEPTION, which, as you already know if you've seen the post that has over 50K likes on Facebook, is responsible for everything that occurs in the body (and one of the reasons that growing numbers of scientists and physicians feel that fascia holds the key to solving most disease processes).  In fact, these authors discussed the ways that functional problems in this system cause (I am loosely quoting here) 'pain, anxiety, depression, intense emotions, neurogenic neuroinflammation, trouble breathing, functional impairment of the muscle tissue, further destabilizing the function of the diaphragm, as well as problems in the hormonal system and brain itself (the hypothalamus–pituitary axis),' affect the rest of the body.  Even for you Yoga Masters out there, who knew that breathing was this big a deal? BTW, the next logical question is how to successfully affect the fascia to improve cardiovascular function and breathing?

Although I've already touched on this, in a study from October of 2015, Bordoni answered this question via a study titled The Fascial System and Exercise Intolerance in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure....  After talking about the relationship between inflammation, Sympathetic Dominance, OXIDATIVE STRESS, and heart failure, Dr. Bordoni went on to say...

"The literature, however, recognizes fascial dysfunction as a cause in many pathological situations. The fascial system, if altered, generates a symptomatology that deteriorates the health condition of the patient, who very often develops symptoms that are more significant than the clinical parameters diagnosed through medical diagnostic devices."

These are the same tests and parameters that frequently tell doctors that there is nothing wrong with you.

"Chronic fatigue, for instance, can be associated with the fascial system, particularly when the pathological disorder has persisted for several years. A recent experimental study has shown that common physiological mechanisms may be involved in the causation of muscle pain and fatigue; the nociceptive afferent [pain] inputs from the fascial system can modulate the afferent response from the central nervous system. If the afferent is not physiological, the efferent [motor side of the nervous system] will be in dysfunction and pathology."

Affect the motor portion of the nerve and you affect everything.  That would be everything with a capital "E".  "Muscle fatigue is associated with a decline in motor coordination and performance. The fascial continuum is essential for transmitting the muscle force and for correct motor coordination: the fascia is a vital instrument that enables the individual to communicate and live independently. The transmission of the force is ensured by the fascial integrity, which is expressed by the motor activity produced." In other words, FASCIAL ADHESIONS are going to adversely affect the way your body's various parts communicate with and respond to each other, in turn affecting your bodies ability to function as normal on almost any plane you care to discuss.  This is why dealing with said adhesions is a big deal. Here is a loosely quoted list of the benefits of manual therapies. 

"Improve motor coordination, reduce metabolic expenditure, decreased intolerance to exercise, increase proprioception, reduce inflammation and influence anti-inflammatory cytokines, affect the intramuscular pH, modulate acid/base parameters, modulate the temperature of the extracellular matrix, better removal of waste metabolites, favor production of hyaluronic acid, increase fibroblast growth factors (FGFs), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), ILs, and nitric oxide (NO), improve coordination and posture, improve tone, improve biotensegrity, improve urinary incontinence, and positively affect breathing.   Working on these interconnected parts of the body in terms of fascial and neurological links; it is possible hypothetically to create an improvement in the patient’s symptoms, due to the improvements of the fascial system. Evidence-based medicine is based not only on scientific research highlighted in articles, but also on the patient’s experience of treatment and the clinical experience of the operator."

The end-product, according to a study published last July in the Annals of Thoracic Surgery is that Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment Improves Heart Surgery Outcomes.  In this RCT, eighty post-op heart surgery patients were divided into two groups --- the first getting post-surgical respiratory therapy alone, and the second getting manual therapy along with.  What were the results?  Only that group two had shorter hospital stays, lower pain scores, and better breathing as measured by spirometry. 

When you look at the big picture, Bordoni's work proves not only see how big a deal fascia is, but that it's important to deal with injury or dysfunction ASAP.  That's because in most cases, adhesed, thickened, or densified fascia can be changed ("deformed").  The thing to remember here is that your approach must be multi-faceted.  In other words, don't even think of tackling serious problems solely in a mechanical fashion.

Address adhesed fascia on all levels (including controlling inflammation) and it's more likely to get results LIKE THESE.  But fail to change crappy diets or unhealthy lifestyles means you will probably be working against yourself as you continue to drive fibrosis-causing inflammation.  And as for those things you can do to help your own cause fascia-wise, they are legion and for the most part contained in MY GENERIC POST on "Universal Cures" (the word 'cure' being used figuratively of course).  And the best thing about it for you is that it's completely and 100% free!

"CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices members voted 12-2 to include the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) as "an option for influenza vaccination for persons for whom it is appropriate" in the 2018-2019 influenza season. The vaccine was also added back to the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program in a 14-0 vote."  From Molly Walker's article for MedPage Today (ACIP Reinstates FluMist for 2018-2019 Flu Season)

I'm almost finished with a massive (and massively cool) post on FASCIA, but the ongoing absurdity by the powers-that-be concerning FLU VACCINES is nothing less than astounding, meaning today you get yet another post on flu. Two or three years ago scientists realized that the FLU MIST was not only barely above zero percent (0%) effective at preventing flu, they realized it had been that way since at least 2013 --- this after telling citizens in 2012 that it was over 80% effective.  So seeing Helen Branswell's new article for STAT (Flu Mist is Back: Vote Opens Way to Wider Use of Popular Drug) was somewhat of a surprise.  What really interested me about her story, however, was that it wasn't so much about how good or bad FluMist works (its V.E. or Vaccine Effectiveness), but about protecting the financial interests of BIG PHARMA. 

"The decision will be a relief for MedImmune, which makes FluMist, and for people in public health who see this vaccine as an important part of the response to both annual flu outbreaks and the rare but often more dangerous flu pandemics. There had been mounting concern the company, a division of AstraZeneca, would abandon the vaccine if it could not find a way back to the U.S. market.  AstraZeneca signaled it will ask CDC if its purchase through its Vaccines for Children Program can be increased to include FluMist for next winter."

Isn't that special!  This way your hard-earned tax dollars get to fund a vaccine that in a group of poorly-functioning vaccines, stands out above the rest for being truly terrible (HERE).  After discussing how tough it is to GUESS WHICH THREE OR FOUR FLU STRAINS of the thousands circulating should go into next year's vaccine, Professor of Pediatrics at Hofstra, Henry Bernstein, was quoted as saying, "I’m a little concerned about whether it would be interpreted that we’re compromising our interpretation of the science.... Branswell showed that at least some of the others believed likewise. "A number of members of the committee expressed concern that restoring FluMist to the recommended vaccines list before there is evidence to prove the problem has been fixed could further undermine the battered reputation of flu vaccines, especially if it turns out that the change MedImmune made did not improve the vaccine’s performance."  Concerned?  Maybe.  But not enough to vote it down.

Although the SCARE TACTICS used to coerce people into receiving annual flu shots continue to work on some level; in similar fashion to "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," people are beginning to see the bigger picture. The result is that the reputation of flu vaccines is taking the kind of beating that makes the word "battered" look to be the week's biggest understatement.  In other words, the fear factor is shrinking.  Throw into the mix that articles like Branswell's, whether knowingly or unknowingly, expose this debate for what it really is --- a debate about dollars.   It's no wonder increasing numbers of people are becoming disenchanted, seeing the shot for the scam it really is.  By the way, this is largely what Cochrane, the most respected and elite of the mainstream medical organizations that meta-analyze medical data and research, believes as well (they published their new recommendations for flu vaccines earlier this month HERE). 

It's also why growing numbers of people are realizing that EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE the way it's currently being done cannot be trusted.  And while I did not have time, I promise that if you researched the people on this board who actually voted for FluMist to be reinstated, you would likely find financial COI that looks suspiciously similar to THE COI I showed you a month ago concerning TAMIFLU (for the record, Dr. Bernstien voted not to have FluMist restored to FDA approval).

Flu vaccine efficacy numbers may seem lower than normal, but any flu vaccine is better than no vaccine, says William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University....  Schaffner characterizes the current vaccine's efficacy numbers as "not bad," and reiterates that vaccination helps prevent severe flu even if it isn't perfect. He also emphasizes the importance of pediatric immunizations, given the latest CDC data about pediatric deaths, and looks ahead to upcoming flu vaccine research."  MedPage Today's Molly Walker from yesterday's article, Flu Vax Data 'Only Tell Half the Story'

I've shown you time and time again just how easy it is to tinker with numbers or statistics, making them "prove" almost anything you want.  In fact, I just gave you a prime example of not only how this is being done in medicine in general, but particularly in relationship to the various debates swirling around this year's flu season (HERE).  Molly Walker was back for the attack in MedPage Today with yet another article beating the drum for flu vaccines, while simultaneously beating up those of us she would characterize as "ANTIVAXXERS" (Are 'Vaccine Skeptics' Responsible for Flu Deaths?  Some Experts Say Anti-Vaccine Lobby Took Over Messaging About Flu Vaccine).

Look folks; this isn't that tough.  I know very few people who are actually "anti" vaccine.  What thinking-people are is pro-vaccine choice.  Nowhere is this truer than with the ridiculously crappy flu vaccine.  I say crappy because that is exactly what this shot is (and although Cochrane says it a bit nicer, they would agree).  Walker quotes Baylor's Dr. Peter Hotez (MD / PhD) as placing blame for a good percentage of this season's flu death directly at the feet of people like me.  "This current flu epidemic may turn out to be the first major example of how the antivaccine lobby in America was effective in dissuading people not to get vaccinated, and may be responsible for hundreds or more American deaths."  Walker found several other experts to agree with this assessment, somehow managing to get the director of Infectious Disease Epidemiology of an Ivy League school (Columbia's Stephen Morse) to say something totally and utterly scientifically indefensible.

"For flu, even 20% protection can prevent many cases and save many lives directly and indirectly..."

On the surface, this statement makes some modicum of sense.   The thought process is simple --- 20% immunity sucks, but I guess it's better than nothing.  But is this really true?  Let me show you how we've all been hoodwinked by statisticians with Ph.D's in chicanery.   Firstly, I've shown you several times that VE for this year's virulent portion of the flu vaccine (the H3N2 portion) is actually 10% or less (HERE), and not Morse's 20% (the CDC says 17%).  And secondly, in the always-interesting comment section, "Dr. CC" provided one of the singularly clearest explanations of the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE RISK I have ever seen in regards to VE (Vaccine Effectiveness).  Watch the yellow ball and try to figure out which cup it's really under.

I support appropriate vaccination, but I feel it is irresponsible to label patients exercising their decision for informed consent as being responsible for deaths. Clearly, we as a medical profession have done a poor job of educating the public and gaining their trust, and trying to badger them into compliance only increases the distrust they have in medicine. I have to say I even had to rethink my support of the flu vaccine when I learned that the efficacy numbers used were misleading to the public. Most assume that "20% efficacy" means 1 in 5 people would be protected from the flu ---- as do many of my fellow physicians. It took a colleague of mine to point out that it is a ‘relative’ risk reduction, which means you actually are only reducing the typical estimated 4% risk a person has each year, down to 3.2%. In other words out of 100 vaccinated people, 1 person (0.8%) would be protected from the flu if all 100 were vaccinated.  What is more disheartening, and something patients are becoming increasingly aware of, is the fact that the 'flu deaths' reported are actually 'flu-associated' illnesses.....

Amazing!  And as crazy as it may seem, if you use this year's actual numbers (10% VE instead of 20%), the odds are even worse (.4 instead of .8).  This means that you would have to vaccinate 200 people instead of 100 in order to prevent a single case of flu. Gulp!  And in the same way that a measles vaccine does not protect one from polio, neither does a flu shot protect one from the myriad of diseases that fall under the category of flu-like (or as Dr. CC said, "flu-associated") illnesses.   And as to Dr. CC's statement, I even had to rethink my support of the flu vaccine when I learned that the efficacy numbers used were misleading to the public, as yourself whether the 'misleading' is intentional?  At the very least, BIG PHARMA is gleefully reveling in the error, while doing nothing to correct said misconception (If I had time I could show you how they are actually exploiting it).  Speaking of misconceptions, let's take a moment to discuss a biggie --- the "life saving" effects of the antiviral, Tamiflu.

Gary Schwitzer and his team of 40+ physicians, researchers, epidemiologists, and journalists run the site Health News Review.  Their organization looks at media stories (or PRESS RELEASES) on DRUGS, MEDICAL DEVICES, NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS, DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL TESTS, SURGERIES, DIETARY RECOMMENDATIONS, etc, then reviews them, ranking them from 1 to 5 stars based on the amount of truth they contain.  In other words, HNR considers themselves experts at sniffing out FALLACIES IN EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE.

Rather than taking on a single article, a week ago, journalist Mary Chris Jaklevic, went off on the coverage of an entire class of drugs (antivirals) in a piece called Stories About Tragic Flu Deaths Wrongly Portray Tamiflu as a Panacea.  I'm not going to spend an inordinate amount of time on TAMIFLU because simply understanding how the FDA approved it (60% of the studies on the drug --- the studies showing how crappy it really is --- were BURIED) provides most of what you need to know.  Furthermore, after crunching the data on dozens of Tamiflu studies of over 24,000 people, Cochrane concluded that if you can get the drug into a person during the first two days of their illness, it will convey "small benefits on symptom relief, namely shortening duration of symptoms by half a day on average." Half a day?  Is this a joke? This is the "life saving" miracle drug that everyone in the media is clamoring about?  You bet your sweet bippy it is.... and they are.  Can anyone say "fake news"?

Jaklevic went on to list a number of media stories with deceptive headlines, as well as a clip from the national news showing how this drug is being represented --- as the "panacea" mentioned in her story's title.  If you want more proof of how bad Tamiflu really is, you can read her article, or you can read my brother's really short article (HERE --- he's an MD).  As my friend DR. ERIC SERRANO so "eloquently" wrote (HERE), you need to realize that this drug does not do even remotely come close to doing what it is represented to do by the media, or those in industry who are pulling their strings.

Although I thought most of Jaklevic's story was spot on, for some reason she felt an obligation to parrot a widely touted CDC statistic that is both wrong and misleading.  "The CDC has estimated U.S. flu deaths this season could be close to their peak in recent years of 56,000, and most deaths occur in the elderly."  Firstly, most of these deaths occur not only in the elderly, but in a sub-group of the geriatric population that scientists and doctors refer to as "the frail elderly".  Secondly, Dr. Ed Yazbak, a pediatrician and professor, showed everyone how ridiculously exaggerated flu mortality stats really are in a story he wrote a number of years ago (HERE).

If you are one of those people who has fallen into the pit of chronic pain and chronic illness, be sure to read my DIY generic protocol that may help you start pulling yourself out of that pit (HERE).

When Gretchen says that back in 1994 she was involved in a MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT, it's quite possibly the understatement of the year (it was a five roll-over crash that killed the vehicle's other occupant).  After being hospitalized with kidney and other injuries, she was released, but like so many others with SOFT TISSUE INJURIES, she struggled to get better, fighting a constant battle with pain --- a battle she frequently felt like she was losing (research says 50% of all women injured in MVA's are never the same --- HERE).  Despite going through LOTS OF THERAPY, LOTS OF CHIROPRACTIC, an array of BIG-FIVE MEDICATIONS, and specialists / procedures of all sorts (including an RFA, where some of the nerves in her spinal column were "cauterized" with a super-heated needle), she had just about given up --- particularly considering the severity of another accident she was in in 2013.  Then she called and made an appointment.

back, but there was not much to do there, since little of the SCARRED FASCIA I dealt with on the previous visit had returned).  Her results AFTER JUST ONE TREATMENT over two years ago --- for an accident that happened almost a quarter century earlier --- were so amazing (not uncommon, although certainly not guaranteed), I asked if she would do a VIDEO TESTIMONIAL for us.  Although a bit reluctant (like many, she didn't particularly relish being in front of a camera), she agreed, realizing the potential to help others in a similar situation she was prior to treatment.

While FASCIAL ADHESIONS are certainly not the only cause of pain that doctors sometimes cannot get a handle on, it is certainly a substantial one.  For those of you coping with chronic pain, chronic sickness, or a chronic inability to do the things you love, I have a NIFTY LITTLE PROTOCOL that might help get you back on track.  It's certainly not a solution for everyone or everything, but at least take a moment or two to glance at it, as it might prove to be a game-changer for you or a loved one (and best of all, it's completely free).

Earlier this week MedPage Today's Molly Walker wrote an article called Public Health Experts Look Ahead to Better Flu Control, taking a peek at what epidemiologists and government officials believe could be done to make next year's FLU VACCINE more effective than this year's vaccine (remember that the H3N2 portion of this year's vaccine --- the more virulent strain of the virus --- provided less than 10% effectiveness -- HERE).  Walker quoted Harvard epidemiologist, Marc Lipsitch, thusly.  "We've become a little bit used to the idea that the flu vaccine is not a great vaccine.  We have to target the right strains, and even when we get it right, it's not always effective."  Allow me to show you just how right Dr. L really is on both counts. 

Just yesterday the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said that "Most (69%) influenza infections were caused by A(H3N2) viruses."  They then said that vaccine effectiveness (VE) against this strain "was estimated to be 25%."  Is this true?  Firstly, if you click the previous link, you'll see that someone, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is wrong (VE is almost always exaggerated by the CDC before being quietly downgraded in the summer --- HERE).  And secondly, even though Dr. L discussed the importance of targeting the correct strains, he failed to explain how difficult (impossible) it really is, because as I've shown you in the past, "matched years" (correctly guessing which three or four strains should be included in next year's vaccine that's being made this year) occur approximately once a decade.  Not surprising considering there are literally thousands of variant strains of flu virus.

The CDC's Timothy Uyeki was then quoted about his opinion of antivirals --- the drugs many doctors recommend if you get the flu --- the Tamiflu that has been in such a shortage due to this year's panic.  I'll not talk about what he said, but if you're interested in seeing just how badly you've been hoodwinked concerning this all-but-completely ineffective drug, take a look at THIS SHORT POST.  As is is typical, there was the usual whining by government officials about not having enough of your hard-earned tax dollars for research ("this takes a lot more funding").  And as I often do with articles that can only be described as propaganda pieces, I headed directly to the comment section, where Dr. JP chimed in with his two cents.

"Correct that a flu vaccine is 100% ineffective if it is not taken. At present it seems to be 70-83% ineffective if it is taken. (that's 17-30% effective, right?) But the only way you know if a treatment or prophylactic is ineffective is if you get the condition you're trying to prevent. Wow -- 70-83 percent of people who get a flu shot get the flu anyway? That's a pretty useless vaccine.  If you don't receive the treatment and you don't acquire the condition -- that's not ineffective, it is null data -- and who's going to report it anyway!"

Dr. JP went on to describe the science behind VE as "dodgy statistical manipulation".  It is dodgy, considering that the director for the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, Dr. Michael Osterholm, recently discussed how inflated CDC VE stats really are. I quote, "The vaccine is, at best, around 10% effective on H3N2."  The words "at best" mean that it's doubtful it's even 10% effective. 

The CDC created a built-in excuse for the future VE downgrade that is sure to come, when they admitted that, "the findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations."  Yes they are, and if people would simply read my posts on FLU VACCINES, they would understand that the "science" behind those limitations is as dodgy as the statistics themselves.  What does the science show?  Follow a few of these links to see just how crappy these vaccines really are, which is creating a huge black eye on the profession.  Think about it this way; if the scientific and medical communities truly believed everything they adoringly tout concerning EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, they would treat the flu like what it really is --- A BAD COLD. 

Notice that I earlier mentioned the word panic.  This was not an oversight nor was it hype.  Governmental organizations and their partners in crime from the private sector (BIG PHARMA),  purposeful create, aggressively cultivate, and then actively promote an environment of fear (panic) surrounding each and every flu season for one reason --- to sell more vaccines.  The same can be said for antivirals such as TAMIFLU, which are themselves no better than about 10% effective.  Helen Branswell's article for Thursday's edition of STAT (Three Quarters of People Who Got Flu Shot This Year Weren't Protected Against Most Common Strain) quoted CDC director, Dr. Anne Schuchat as saying, "We are a bit concerned that the performance of the vaccine right now might reduce interest in getting vaccinated in the future, but we have the other side that flu was just so bad so far this season, so many people have been sick and see how miserable it is."

But was this year's flu really that bad, and could it legitimately be described as "worse" than other recent seasons?  Or, was the media --- a group who is collectively and constantly looking for some "DIRTY LAUNDRY" --- selling fear and panic in order to juice their ratings?  You be the judge after listening to Branswell quote from this week's CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (I am cherry-picking a bit here).

"The H3N2 vaccine effectiveness in children 6 months of age to 8 years old was 51 percent. The text of the report did not point out that in children aged 9 to 17, there appeared to be no protection at all against H3N2 viruses.  So far this season 63 children have died from flu.  While tragic, that number is actually low in comparison with other recent seasons.  In older adults, the H3N2 vaccine performance was much less impressive. Seniors aged 65 and older saw their risk of needing medical care for flu cut by 17 percent, and in adults 50 to 64 — an age group with an unusually high hospitalization rate this winter — the H3N2 component’s effectiveness was 10 percent.  Those numbers correspond to what was seen last year in those age groups in the U.S. and also to vaccine effectiveness estimates from Canada that were released earlier this month."

How can you tell this is statistical rubbish?  Ask yourself how in the world Vaccine Effectiveness could be over 50% for children 8 and under, but 0% for those ages 9-17?  This stat alone shows you how bogus the numbers are.  And as for the elderly, the latest Cochrane Review on flu vaccines and the elderly from last week (HERE) showed exactly what the last Cochrane Review for flu vaccines and the elderly showed several years ago; that VE hovers in the nether regions for this age group.  That's not me folks, that's Cochrane; the most prestigious and respected producer of medical meta-analytics on the planet (HERE).  The CDC is MANIPULATING THE DATA (playing statistical games) to try and keep a lid on just how bad things really are with flu vaccines (VE).

Allow me to show you an example of data manipulation concerning the flu vaccine that I stole from the previous link.  "A few days ago I was discussing the brand new Cochrane Review concerning flu shots in healthy adults with my brother (AN ER DOCTOR who has never been a fan of the shots).  He brought up an interesting point.  Even though the data of hundreds of studies since 1965, containing over 80,000 subjects, was crunched to show that the vaccine lowers a healthy adult's chance of contracting flu from 2% to 1% (a whopping 1 percentage point), he rightly predicted that industry would claim that the unvaccinated group had 100% more flu than the vaccinated group (after all, two is 100% greater than one)."

Here's another example of data manipulation concerning flu vaccines that you undoubtedly didn't hear about from the mainstream press.  Enter Dr. De Serres.  Dr. Gaston De Serres biography for CIRN (the Canadian Immunization Research Network) reads thusly.  "Dr. De Serres is a medical epidemiologist at the Institute National de Santé Publique du Québec and a professor of Epidemiology at the Faculty of Medicine at Laval University. Dr. De Serres works in the area of control and prevention of infectious disease with a focus on vaccine-preventable diseases and respiratory infections, vaccine effectiveness and vaccine safety."  His specialty is flu vaccine.  I mention Dr. De Serres only because he was the lead author for a study (Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers: Critical Analysis of the Evidence for Patient Benefit Underpinning Policies of Enforcement) published in last January's issue of PLoS One.  Listen to the conclusions of his team of a dozen medical researchers from facilities around the world.

"Annual influenza vaccination for health care workers (HCWs) is widely endorsed and increasingly enforced on the basis that it will reduce influenza-associated morbidity and mortality in patients.  Two pivotal systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been published summarizing and pooling these four RCT [studies] findings, but reached different conclusions about the strength of that evidence. Whereas the review conducted by investigators of the CDC characterized the overall quality of evidence as moderate, the Cochrane review concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support HCW influenza vaccination as an approach to reduce patient risk. Such uncertainty in the quality of the evidence warrants closer examination. This is particularly important given that compulsory or coercive (e.g. vaccinate-or-mask) policies have been extrapolated in some jurisdictions to not only include HCWs providing direct patient care, but also to include all staff in acute-care hospitals and other healthcare settings."

After making all of their calculations with extremely generous statistics (among other concessions, De Serres' team assumed a flu vaccine VE of 60% --- significantly better than what's seen in a typical year), they concluded that "Through this detailed critique and quantification of the evidence, policies of enforced influenza vaccination of HCWs to reduce patient risk lack a sound empirical basis.  While HCWs have an ethical and professional duty not to place their patients at increased risk, so also have advocates for compulsory vaccination a duty to ensure that the evidence they cite is valid and reliable." 

Because the evidence for MANDATORY FLU VACCINES FOR HEALTHCARE WORKERS is so "unreliable" (some HCW's understand this, therefore there is a significant segment of them who do not want the shots), De Serre's team concluded that the only viable way to protect patients is for all healthcare workers to wear a mask, not just those who declined to be immunized.  "A coherent prevention policy to reduce risk to patients to the extent possible would dictate the wearing of masks by all HCWs, vaccinated or unvaccinated, for the duration of the winter respiratory season. We are unaware of such extreme policies anywhere to date."  So, the only thing that might help stop the spread of flu in institutional settings isn't even being done. 

This is an emotional, hot-button issue.  Make sure to look at it logically, and not based on the fear purposefully created by people who either don't understand the evidence (those who are currently 'drinking the koolaid') or who completely understand it and realize just how crappy it really is.  BTW, the second group is far scarier than the first.

What did you get for / from your valentine this year?  Hopefully not a box of cheap chocolates.  I only bring this up because two days ago the British Medical Journal published a study called Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods and Cancer Risk....  Although you intuitively knew this, there is some real "meat" (ULTRA-PROCESSED MEAT) in this study that you can take home to your family (and it's all free online).  But the first thing we have to do before proceeding is to create a clear definition of ultra-processed food (UPF).  Most of us know what processed foods are, but what in the heck are "ultra" processed foods?

According to natural health expert, Dr. Adrew Weil (What are Ultra-Processed Foods?), UPF's "include soft drinks, packaged snacks and baked goods, and reconstituted meat products such as chicken and fish nuggets. Instant noodles and commercially produced soups also qualify."  But as you'll soon see, UPF's go far beyond the obvious foods seen on this list.  Another study from BMJ (this one published in 2016 --- Ultra-Processed Foods and Added Sugars in the US Diet...) concluded that......

"Ultra-processed foods were defined as industrial formulations which, besides salt, sugar, oils and fats, include substances not used in culinary preparations, in particular additives used to imitate sensorial qualities of minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations.  Ultra-processed foods comprised 57.9% of energy intake, and contributed 89.7% of the energy intake from added sugars. The content of added sugars in ultra-processed foods was eight-fold higher than in processed foods.  High intake of added sugars increases the risk of weight gain, excess body weight and obesity; type 2 diabetes, higher serum triglycerides and high blood cholesterol; higher blood pressure and hypertension; stroke; coronary heart disease; cancer; and dental caries. Moreover, foods higher in added sugars are often a source of empty calories with minimum essential nutrients or dietary fiber, which displace more nutrient-dense foods and lead, in turn, to simultaneously overfed and undernourished individuals."

Over-fed and under-nourished.  That pretty much sums up a huge and growing segment of Western society (no pun intended).  And even though it's on this two year old list, the latest study is specifically about the relationship between UPF's and CANCER.  Speaking of UPF's and cancer; while most people have at least heard that SUGAR FEEDS CANCER, the medical community has been slow to embrace Dr. Otto Warburg's work --- odd considering he won the Nobel Prize for Medicine back in 1931 (HERE).  Once you realize that added sugar makes up the largest portion of UPF's, it's not difficult to argue that the medical community needs to step up to the plate and change the way they deal with their average patient (HERE).

An interesting "proof" of a phenomenon routinely found in EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE is that less than six months ago the American Journal of Nutrition (Ultra-Processed Foods in Human Health: A Critical Appraisal) said this about the ADDICTIVE NATURE (or non-addictive as their authors determined) of UPF's.  "This commentary challenges many of the basic arguments of [the relationship between] the link between food and health. We believe that there is no evidence to uphold the view that ultra-processed foods and drinks give rise to hyper-palatable foods associated with a quasi-addictive effect."  This statement becomes especially interesting once you realize the study's lead co-author, Dr. Michael J. Gibney, "had primary responsibility for final content... serving on scientific committees for Nestlé and Cereal Partners Worldwide."  Here's an article about NESTLE that will make you puke, and the CPW is a joint effort between Nestle and General Mills to develop BREAKFAST CEREALS.

After looking at 105,000 people without cancer and adjusting for confounders (sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics, age, sex, occupation, educational level, smoking status, number of children, height, weight, dietary intakes, physical activity, personal and family history of diseases, drug use including use of hormonal treatment for menopause and oral contraceptives, and menopausal status) these authors determined that (quote is somewhat cherry-picked)......

"Main food groups contributing to ultra-processed food intake were sugary products (26%) and drinks (20%), followed by starchy foods and breakfast cereals (16%) and ultra-processed fruits and vegetables (15%).  Ultra-processed food intake was associated with increased risks of overall cancer and breast cancer. The association with overall cancer risk was statistically significant in all strata of the population investigated.  Ultra-processed foods have also been associated with a higher glycemic response and a lower satiety effect [it never makes you "full"].  Excessive energy, fat, and sugar intakes contribute to weight gain and risk of obesity, with obesity recognized as a major risk factor for breast, stomach, liver, colorectal, esophagus, pancreas, kidney, gallbladder, endometrium, ovary, liver, and (advanced) prostate cancers and hematological malignancies [leukemia].  For instance, body fatness in post-menopausal women is estimated to contribute 17% of the breast cancer burden."

And this is just for starters.  The authors went on to talk about the effects of plastics, chemicals, and other "ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING" packaging materials commonly used in UPF's, as well as the effects that additives such as dyes, MSG, ASPARTAME, and several others, have on PHYSIOLOGY / HOMEOSTASIS, particularly when it comes to GUT HEALTH and MICROBIOME (remember that 80% of your immune system is found in the Gut --- HERE).  Although you could correctly guess what the most common UPF's are (see pics at top of page), some might surprise you.  The list included "fried potatoes, biscuits, bread, coffee, sweet pastries, dairy desserts, ice cream, fruit purée, fruit in syrup, fruit and vegetable juices, soups and broths, sandwiches, pizzas, salted pastries [crackers]."  Also mentioned were processed "starchy foods (cereals, legumes, or potatoes)."

What's the solution to this mess?  First, control your BLOOD SUGAR.  This is done via controlling your intake of simple carbohydrates.   Secondly, because generic LOW CARB DIETS can be loaded with all sorts of garbage, including TRANS or other junk fats, I suggest you go PALEO.  Some of you might do great with a KETOGENIC DIET as well (click THIS LINK to watch a cool video by a researcher at Pitt using Ketogenic Diets in his lab to successfully address cancer).  And for those of you struggling with serious chronic health issues and rampant inflammation (HERE), be sure and take a look at THIS POST for a nice little protocol that will at least point the average person in the right direction.

Doc, I have a bone to pick with you and the rest of the medical profession: I am real tired of hearing about pain. I have no pain. I have loss of functionality without pain. I am also real tired of hearing about injury, There is no injury, just a lifetime of assymetrical usage. My mother did the same thing, but much worse. She actually gave herself severe scoliosis without injury, just by bending over her work asymmetrically for 60 years. I'm not that bad yet, but it's real hard to fight alone, ad it's very difficult to find help, because all anyone wants to talk about is pain and injury, whereas all I want is not to end up in a wheelchair (like my mother).  From Suzie via a blog comment (I got this after I put this up today).

Making sure that you do not end up with soft tissue fibrosis is a big deal.  This fact really hits home once you realize what fibrosis really is. Spine Health reveals that, "Fibrosis is the replacement of normal tissue with scar tissue."  News Medical (What is Fibrosis?) describes it thusly. "The term fibrosis describes the development of fibrous connective tissue as a reparative response to injury or damage. Fibrosis may refer to the connective tissue deposition that occurs as part of normal healing or to the excess tissue deposition that occurs as a pathological process. When fibrosis occurs in response to injury, the term “scarring” is used."  Merriam Webster defines fibrosis as "a condition marked by increase of interstitial fibrous tissue."  The Oxford Dictionary says this of fibrosis. "Fibrosis is the thickening and scarring of connective tissue, usually as a result of injury."

I've talked at length on my site about fibrosis, the debate as to whether it's really "scar tissue" or not (HERE), as well as a characteristic mentioned above --- "THICKENING" ("DENSIFICATION"). There is an inaccuracy above that I must clear up as well.  When Oxford says that fibrosis is usually the result of injury, this is simply not true.  Or at least not true in the sense that most people think of an injury as a physical trauma.  Listen to what the authors of a study published earlier this month in Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews (Scarring vs. Functional Healing: Matrix-Based Strategies to Regulate Tissue Repair) showing that fibrosis goes way beyond CONNECTIVE TISSUES.

"All vertebrates possess mechanisms to restore damaged tissues with outcomes ranging from regeneration to scarring. Unfortunately, the mammalian response to tissue injury most often culminates in scar formation. Accounting for nearly 45% of deaths in the developed world, fibrosis is a process that stands diametrically opposed to functional tissue regeneration. Wound healing is guided by precise deposition and remodeling of the extracellular matrix (ECM). The ECM, comprising the non-cellular component of tissues, is a signaling depot that is differentially regulated in scarring and regenerative healing.  Strategies to improve wound healing outcomes therefore require methods to limit fibrosis."

Allow me to take you through this bit by bit.  First off, I've shown you previously that fibrosis is the number one cause of death, not just in America, but worldwide (HERE), directly accounting for almost one death in two.  Secondly, bear in mind that there is a known reason for this --- inflammation always results in fibrosis (HERE).   And while this inflammation can certainly be the result of a physical trauma, it can also be driven by other things, including food sensitivities (HERE is a common one), sugar and junk carbs (HERE), PARASITES, BLACK MOLD, DYSBIOSIS, POLLUTION, TOXIC METALS, OCCULT INFECTIONS, POOR POSTURE, CHEMICAL EXPOSURE, and on, and on, and on.  And ultimately, it all leads to inflammation, which in turn leads to fibrosis (HERE), which itself leads to various sorts of dysfunction(s) depending on where it's found (heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc, etc), with the ultimate dysfunction being death.  Today, however, we are going to focus on inflammation and fibrosis of the connective tissue fascia.

FASCIA is the tough membranous cover that permeates muscles (it's also the covering for nerves, blood vessels, bones, etc, etc).  It can become "fibrous" (fibrotic) due to either local inflammation from an injury (HERE) or systemic inflammation from the many causes mentioned earlier (HERE).  Either way, as joints become dysfunctional (even slightly so), BIOMECHANICS can become screwed up enough to start causing degenerative changes. While DEGENERATIVE CHANGES in and of themselves are not typically enough to cause pain in their earlier stages, few would argue that the less degeneration you have, the better.  Enter TISSUE REMODELING.

As you can see from watching a few of our VIDEO TESTIMONIALS, it is important --- scratch that; it's imperative --- to get injured / insulted tissues moving and keep them moving in order to prevent fibrosis and the subsequent problems that follow.  A study from  the Tissue Repair Laboratory of the State University of Rio de Janerio (Mechanical Tension Prevents Fibrosis by Reducing Collagen Deposition After Injury On Subcutaneous Layer In Mice) provided some proof.  Two groups of mice had their THORACOLUMBAR FASCIA "injured" by a microsurgical procedure.  The first group underwent specific stretches, while the second did not.  After later looking at the tissues under a microscope the authors concluded that, "Microinjury resulted  in a significant increase on collagen deposition in the absence of stretch, but not in the presence of stretch. Brief tissue stretch attenuated the collagen deposition following tissue injury. These results have potential relevance to propose treatments of different types of excessive scars."

There are only about a million and one ways to mechanically load your soft tissues, including many that you can do on your own (HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, or HERE).  What does moving injured or inflamed soft tissues do besides fire off PROPRIOCEPTON?  Let's take a look at an issue of Molecular Basis of Disease (Tissue Mechanics and Fibrosis) that was published 5 years ago this month (everything in today's post is cherry-picked due to restraints on time and space).  The study kicks off with the statement "Mechanical forces are essential to the development and progression of fibrosis."  This means that if you can control (or at least manage) said forces, you will ultimately change the progression of the healing process and control / manage deposition of collagen (fibrosis) that I usually refer to as "SCAR TISSUE FORMATION". 

The authors talked about the many different forces at work in tissue --- pushing forces, pulling forces, hydraulic forces, etc.  What do these forces do and why is it important to learn how to harness them?  "These forces collectively regulate the phenotype and proliferation of myofibroblasts and other cells in damaged tissues, the activation of growth factors, and the structure and mechanics of the matrix – all of which are central to fibrosis."  This is why understanding FIBROBLASTIC ACTIVITY as it related to both normal and abnormal fibroproliferation is a big deal.  And as for the fibroblasts, the authors state "It is important to note that changes in the mechanical properties of tissues can both cause and result from fibrosis."  In other words, biomechanical / biochemical changes cause fibrosis, and fibrosis causes biomechanical / biochemical changes.  And in similar fashion to compound interest, you can either make these changes work for you or they will likely work against you; quite possibly for the rest of your life (can anyone say 'Vicious Cycle'?).  The authors ended by concluding....

"Mechanical forces are increasingly appreciated to play a role in fibrosis on a par with soluble [chemical] factors. Matrix stiffness is so far the best-appreciated mechanical stimulus in fibrosis, and liver and lung are the tissues best studied. Even for these tissues and stimuli, our understanding of forces, their effects, and mechanotransduction in fibrosis is rudimentary."

The first thing I want you to grasp is the concept of MECHANOTRANSDUCTION --- the process of turning mechanical energy into electrical / chemical messages that the body understands.  As you might have guessed, it's compromised in fibrotic tissues.  And as for the "soluble factors," this would not only cover INFLAMMATION (a chemical process that is not synonymous with either swelling or infection), but all sorts of growth factors and enzymes as well.  Speaking of enzymes, thirteen researchers from the surgical departments of Stanford and the Oregon Health and Science University teamed up to publish a study (Focal Adhesion Kinase Links Mechanical Force to Skin Fibrosis via Inflammatory Signaling) in Nature Medicine.

The study kicked things off by saying, "Traditional cytokine-based paradigms for fibrosis largely overlook the role of cell-matrix interactions and physical cues in disease pathogenesis."  In English, this means that although mainstream scientists have known about the effects of CYTOKINES (inflammation) on the development and proliferation of fibrosis for a very long time, only recently are researchers appreciating mechanical effects on the ECM (the gel part of the connective tissue).  Listen as these authors talk about potential causes and solutions for "exuberant fibroproliferation ---- a common complication after injury."

Because inflammatory mechanisms are strongly implicated in fibrosis, we examined whether FAK modulates cytokine/chemokine signaling.  One key component of wound repair that is often overlooked is mechanical force, which regulates cell-matrix interactions through intracellular focal adhesion components, including focal adhesion kinase (FAK). Here we report that FAK is activated after cutaneous injury and that this process is potentiated by mechanical loading. Fibroblast-specific FAK knockout mice have substantially less inflammation and fibrosis than control mice in a model of hypertrophic scar formation.  Inflammatory chemokine pathways are a major mechanism by which FAK mechanotransduction induces fibrosis.

In other words, FAK --- an enzyme that controls, regulates, and essentially causes "focal adhesions" (can anyone say FASCIAL ADHESIONS?) is not only found in great concentrations in said adhesions, but is "activated" by injury, and "potentiated" by loading said tissues in a mechanical fashion (this process is known as TISSUE DEFORMATION).  What does tissue loading entail?  Tissue loading is any sort of mechanical stimulus that pushes or pulls tissue, and is accomplished by the very things mentioned earlier; exercise, stretching, bodywork, etc, etc.   "It is possible that in addition to these chemokine-mediated mechanisms, FAK may also control fibrosis by directly activating fibroblast collagen production... Based on these studies, we propose a model for load-induced fibrosis whereby mechanical force activates both MCP-1 secretion and collagen production through FAK to perpetuate a ‘vicious cycle’ of fibroproliferation after injury."  Stimulating the production of collagen through INCREASING FIBROBLASTIC ACTIVITY is a good thing, but in cases where inflammation (cytokines, chemokines, etc) is rampant or the mechanical loading is "abnormal," the end result can be crazy amounts of Scar Tissue.

When you start studying Scar Tissue, you'll quickly see that there is a great deal of conflicting information about it's potential pain sensitivity and ability to conduct pain impulses.  For instance, I have come across several medical publications saying that scar tissue is not painful (i.e., if there is pain present, it's coming from something else besides the scar).  Let me give you an example of this from the Net Doctor (Very Painful Scar).  After an individual tells an online physician that he has an old appendectomy scar that hurts so bad he cannot stand his shirt to touch it, the good doctor answers....

"It is fairly common for people to have an anesthetic, or numb, area around an operation site owing to inevitable damage to superficial sensory nerves in the skin; this usually recovers in time.  Extreme sensitivity is most unusual. Your GP's reassurance suggests that this condition is not indicative of anything nasty.  However, the pain sounds very unpleasant so do go and impress this on your doctor if the situation is still causing concern.  Yours sincerely, The NetDoctor Medical Team."

Not common?  Most unusual?  Not nasty?  Allow me to show you that if you are struggling with some sort of adhesion-induced pain issue (whether you realize it or not), it's not only common, it's common enough that numerous experts in the field are discussing it in some form or fashion.  Below are some random quotes from the first couple pages of a Google search.

• "Scar tissue pain occurs, for example, after an operation, and can result in chronic pain in and around the scar area.  The cause of scar tissue pain is damage to a small skin nerve, or when a nerve is squeezed by the scar tissue. In scar tissue pain, which can occur after an operation, there sometimes mention of neuroma formation at the end of a damaged skin nerve. After some interventions, such as inguinal hernia, lung, heart, kidney, and shoulder operations, as well as breast amputations, scar tissue pain is more common."  The Maastricht University Pain Centre in the Netherlands (Scar Tissue Pain)

 

• "Every time an injury to the skin penetrates through to the dermis layer, a scar will occur as a result of the healing process, this is the body’s way of naturally repairing itself. In response to a wound, the body produces collagen, a protein of which the rest of our skin is made from. Scar tissue however, looks and feels different – some researchers suggest that this is due to its alignment, which differs from that of normal skin tissue.  Although many scars are trivial, some are extremely unpleasant causing not only aesthetic displeasure but also chronically painful symptoms. Scar pain, whether it be from an operative, or traumatic cause, is very common. The symptoms and signs can be similar to those of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. They include pain, itching, swelling, tightness, restriction of movement, skin colour changes, allodynia or hypersensitivity to touch, and hyperalgesia or marked pain to deeper palpation.  Scar tissue pain is usually caused by damage to the nerves or when a nerve is compressed by the scar. In some cases..... firing uncontrollable pain signals to the brain."   Dr. Mark Miller, owner of a number of Pain Management clinics in England, from an article called Scar Pain

 

• "Wounds take a variable amount of time to heal. The location of the wound makes a difference, as peripheries like your foot heal slower than your shoulder for example. Other factors such as smoking, using steroids, diabetes or low protein levels also slow wound healing.  Scars are not just skin deep. They may involve several layers beneath the skin which are stuck together."   My Ortho Clinic dot com (Stitches, Wounds & Sensitive Scars)

 

• "Many people have scars as a result of accidents, injuries and surgeries. While scar tissue is extremely helpful at repairing cells quickly to prevent further damage and/or injury, the characteristics of scars and their presence in the body can restrict and inhibit movement. This can lead to myofascial pain, musculoskeletal imbalances and ultimately impede athletic performance.  Since the configuration of scar tissue is not the same as the surrounding muscle fibers it can alter the way these structures work."   From an article on PT On the Net (How Scar Tissue Affects Pain and Performance) by therapist Justin Price

 

• "As of 2012, 33% of births ended in C-section.  A common complaint after a C-section is the sensitivity of the scar itself.  In addition, the scar may cause a slight postural change... that could result in back pain.  But the possible consequences don’t stop there. The scarring can cause the adjacent muscles to develop trigger points that refer pain.... In addition, the adjacent connective tissue can become restricted also causing pain.  Lastly, the scarring can irritate superficial nerves in the area of the scar.  What’s more, the round ligament that attaches from the sides of the uterus to the labia can be caught in scar tissue after a C-section because the incision is also right over the area where the round ligament crosses the pelvic brim.  Another symptom we have seen with our patients who have had C-sections is that they may have issues with lower digestion such as irritable bowel syndrome or constipation. This occurs because of the tightening created by the scar tissue pulls within the abdominal cavity and thus affects the organs."   Cherry-picked from an article called C-Section Scar: Problems and Solutions by the physical therapists at the Pelvic Health and Rehabilitation Centers of California

 

• "After a trauma, a large cut or surgery around the nerves, scar tissue forms. Scar tissue is both good and bad. It helps the nerve attach to nearby structures, but when the patient moves, pressure is placed on the nerve because the scar tissue can pull on the nerve. Even without movement, the scar tissue can reduce the nerve's blood supply. All of this can cause significant nerve pain. The main symptom is constant, unrelenting pain coming from the nerve tissue."  The University of Michigan's Medical School (Scarred Nerves)

 

• "Scars can be a big pain... When there is an initial injury (and yes, a surgical incision is an “injury”), the body goes through three phases of healing: Inflammation, Proliferation and Remodeling. Through this process, the body creates scarring to close up the initial injury. Scars are composed of a fibrous protein (collagen)....  The difference, however, is that scars are not quite organized the same way as the tissues they replace, and they don’t really do the job quite as well.  Scars can form in all tissues of the body.  Scars are not super selective when it comes to tissues they adhere to. So, sometimes, scars will adhere to lots of tissues around them and this pull can lead to discomfort.  Sometimes, small nerves can be pulled on by the scar which can lead to irritation."   From Dr. Jessica Reale's (she's a DPT in Atlanta) article about Painful Scars.... 

In these articles, there's a common thread: injury or insult leads to scarring, which in many cases leads to pain and various sorts of dysfunction.  If you are struggling with CHRONIC PAIN, there were terms used in these articles that you really need to be familiar with.  HYPERAGLIA, ALLODYNIA, CRPS, Hypersensitivity --- uncontrolled firing of pain signals to the brain (CENTRAL SENSITIVITY), are just a few of the more common.  And if you've been following my site(s) for the past decade or so (DCP is where I started), you are already aware of the fact that Scar Tissue is different from normal tissues in any number of ways, including both its physical structure and its increased propensity to act as a pain generator (HERE), via an almost infinite number of causal mechanisms.  And on top of everything else, it's dysfunction is being touted as a "universal" cause of disease (HERE).

For instance, the August 2015 issue of Muscle & Nerve (Comparison of Nerve Growth Factor-Induced Sensitization Pattern in Lumbar and Tibial Muscle and Fascia) concluded, after injecting NGF into various areas of human fascia that, "Nerve growth factor (NGF) induces profound hyperalgesia.  The mechanical hyperalgesia area was larger in tibial fascia than in muscle. Pressure pain thresholds were lower, tonic pressure pain ratings, and citrate buffer evoked pain higher in fascia than in muscle."  This is all well and good, but the next sentence is where the rubber meets the road as far as chronic low back pain is concerned.  "Thoracolumbar fasciae appear more sensitive than tibial fasciae and may be major contributors to low back pain." Once you start to understand the THORACOLUMBAR FASCIA, this all starts making sense.

This is doubly true if you recall that the amount of degenerative change (HERE) or presence of disc herniations (HERE), are poor indicators not only of whether or not a person will have back pain at all, but how severe said back pain may be.  Check out the results of a study from the University of Heidelberg's Dissertaitions Kurzfassung (Pain Sensitivity of Human Fascia and Muscle Sensory Findings After Chemical and Electrical Stimulation).  And if you are one of the millions of Americans suffering from CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN, be sure and read the paragraph until you understand it.

"ln many patients, chronic low back pain  cannot be explained by abnormalities in the bony structures of  the vertebral column. Due to their dense innervation, fascia and muscles of the lower back are  potential alternative sources of nociceptive input in these patients with "non-specific low back pain".  These studies suggest that the fascia of the lower back might be a key structure in the genesis of nonspecific low back pain, because of its high innervation density, its high pain sensitivity to several  stimuli, and substantial pain amplification after its stimulation. Effects of muscle nerve stimulation in  previous studies may have been at least partly due activation of afferents from the fascia that run through these nerves. Therefore, treatment of the fascia may be an important target for prevention and treatment of back pain."

We are seeing this phenomenon is studies over and over again.  If you want another example, take a look at Dr. Stecco's, The Role of Fascia in Non-Specific Low Back Pain.  And what do we see when we go to current peer review as far as treatment is concerned?  We see that while far from perfect, bodywork of various sorts (stretching, MANIPULATION, exercise, etc --- things that move joints and fascia) is at least as good, or in most cases, better, than other treatments designed to get these people get out of pain and return to function.  And they're certainly better than drugs (HERE).  If you are interested in lowering your level of systemic inflammation and addressing the various roots of many, if not most of your fascial adhesions, I would suggest you take a moment to read THIS SHORT POST.

Don't you find it interesting that numerous drugs pass FDA muster, only to later be removed from the public after experts "discover" how dangerous and/or ineffective they really are?  Today I am going to give you a small taste of exactly how that happens, but before I do, let's take a moment to look at this phenomenon up close and personal.  On Thursday of last week, our government announced, via the Global Defense News (According to VA, Drug Prazosin Fails to Alleviate PTSD in Military Veterans), that........

"About 11 percent to 20 percent of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been diagnosed with PTSD.  The drug prazosin failed to effectively alleviate post-traumatic stress disorder in military veterans, according to a trial conducted by researchers with the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Prazosin, which includes trade names Minipress, Vasoflex, Lentopres, and Hypovase, is also used to treat high blood pressure and anxiety.  Although the drug has been effective in controlling nightmares or improving sleep quality associated with PTSD, the researchers concluded it was no better than a placebo, according to results published in The New England Journal of Medicine."

Riddle me this Batman; how can a drug specifically used by government physicians to treat Combat Veterans diagnosed with PTSD be both "effective in controlling nightmares or improving sleep quality associated with PTSD" and "no better than placebo" at the same time?  This, my friends, is the sort of oxymoronical gibberish today's post is about.  For the record, the study's lead author stated in GDN, "....the trial seemed like a good idea, but you know, live and learn....  I don’t think it should change clinical practice..."  This seems to be a common conclusion in the field of evidence-based medicine.  Don't like the research findings you come up with?  IGNORE THEM until the government finally steps in with a drug ban.  In the meantime, there are plenty of people who need prescriptions, and lots of money to be made.  Here is a list of a few of the neat little tricks regularly employed by Big Pharma to make their products appear better / safer than they really are.

• MAKE THE ISSUE POLITICAL:  Nowhere is it easier to see how industry deflects criticism than the manner in which they politicize VACCINES. And no vaccine is more politicized than the FLU SHOT.  Despite the medical community's battle cry of nothing but "BEST EVIDENCE," the flu vaccine has shown just how hollow this statement really rings.  Not only does the vaccine not work against the more virulent strains of the flu (HERE), the latest COCHRANE REVIEWS on flu shots from just last week showed essentially what they did in the last reviews done five or six years ago --- that the flu vaccine is woefully ineffective in light of the time, energy, and money the government and big pharma spend warning people (FORCING PEOPLE) to get their shots.  Unfortunately, those who use peer review to question the staus quo are labeled as "ANTIVAXXERS," which in today's politicized environment, is similar to being called a neo-nazi.
  

 

• CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT OF DEPENDENCE ON BIG PHARMA:  This is not only true of the general public, the average of whom is exposed to hundreds of thousands of DRUG ADS and PRESS RELEASES before they are out of high school, it's likewise true of doctors.  The brainwashing starts in medical school and continues right on through practice.  Think of it this way; with our university system garnering a significant part of their funding directly from BIG PHARMA, are these institutions really going to bite the hand that feeds them?  Of course not.  Click the link and fast forward the video to the 15:15 mark (you'll laugh your head off and gain a better understanding of yet another way that the system is being gamed).  Dr. Gorski once argued that diet and exercise are not alternatives, but actually part of the "fortress" that makes up mainstream medicine (HERE).  I would argue that you would never have any idea of that from looking at the average doctor visit.  The powers that be want you sick, but living a very long time, T-totally dependent on drugs for your perceived well being.  Thanks to people who refuse to step up and take charge of their own health, they are getting their wish (HERE).
  

 

• HIDE RESEARCH RESULTS YOU DON'T LIKE:  INVISIBLE & ABANDONED research is another drum I've been beating for a very long time.  For instance; how many of you were aware that TAMIFLU received it's FDA approval because 60% of the studies done were never published?  The only reason studies are not completed, or completed and not published, is because the results were not what industry was hoping to see.  Although oversight agencies such as the FDA and CDC are trying to get a handle on this problem, it's recently been estimated that half of all medical studies are I & A.
  

 

• RESEARCH IS NOT REPRODUCIBLE:  What does it mean when scientists cannot reproduce pharmaceutical research --- either their own or someone else's?  In many cases it means we are no longer dealing with science.  This problem is so rife in some fields (CANCER, for instance) that select research teams have not been able to reproduce as much as 90% of the profession's most important experiments (HERE).
  

 

• SET THE STUDIES UP TO PROVE WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO PROVE:  I belong to a group run by a specialist in FUNCTIONAL MEDICINE (he's an MD) that has members from every specialty imaginable, many of them researchers.  What I hear concerning a large portion of studies that are discussed on the board is just how poorly designed many (some would argue most) experiments really are.  There are DOZENS OF TRICKS easily employed to create experiments in such a manner that they can prove anything you want them to.  And no one is shocked by the fact that when industry pays for the study, the results are far more likely to be beneficial to industry than if done by an independent third party.
  

 

• DRAMATICALLY UNDERREPORT DRUG SIDE EFFECTS:  Make sure that drug side effects are rarely reported.  Because if the proper governmental reporting authorities don't get accurate reports on AE's (adverse events), those AE's never make it into the statistical analysis of the drug's safety profile.  Naturally, this makes most drugs appear much safer than they really are.  This problem is so rampant that hundreds of studies have estimated the overall rate of reporting side effects at between 1% and 5%.  In other words, somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 100 serious drug side effects are ever reported to the agencies specifically created to take these reports (HERE). 
  

 

• USE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE:   A few days ago I was discussing the brand new Cochrane Review concerning flu shots in healthy adults with my brother (AN ER DOCTOR who has never been a fan of the shots).  He brought up an interesting point.  Even though the data of hundreds of studies since 1965, containing over 80,000 subjects, was crunched to show that the vaccine lowers a healthy adult's chance of contracting flu from 2% to 1% (a whopping 1 percentage point), he rightly predicted that industry would claim that the unvaccinated group had 100% more flu than the vaccinated group (after all, two is 100% greater than one).  It's like Mark Twain once said, figures never lie, but liars figure.  If you get a good enough statistician on your research team, you can prove the moon really is made of green cheese!  This is why everyone should learn the difference between ABSOLUTE & RELATIVE.
  

 

• THE LAB IS DIFFERENT THAN THE REAL WORLD:  This was just dealt with the other day, although the exact post escapes me at the moment.  Variables are far more easy to control in a lab setting, many times giving us experiments that look nothing like real life.  Because of this the results look nothing like real life either.
  

 

• CREATE HYPE & CREATE DISEASES:  Whether talking about ADHD, flu, GERD or a myriad of other health issues, be sure and make things sound far worse (or mysterious) than they really are.  And by all means talk about these problems in terms of "diseases".  You no longer have heartburn, you have Gastro-Esophageal Refulx Disease.  You no longer have OSTEOARTHRITIS, you have DEGENERATIVE JOINT DISEASE.  Tacking the word 'disease' or 'syndrome' onto the end of a descriptive term is a surefire way to create hype and fear, and ultimately sell more drugs.
  

 

• DISCREDIT ANYONE WHO DARES OPPOSE YOU:  My site is littered with names of individuals who have come forward with their discoveries only to be blasted as quacks and crackpots by those in power --- something we routinely see in politics as well (who could forget the number of times that Hillary covered for Bill's sexual "escapades," many of which would now be classified as "assaults," while residing in the Arkansas Governor's Mansion and White House?).  What's cool is that we are seeing more and more people willing to step forward and take a bit of heat for what they are publishing in peer-review (HERE is a recent example).
  

Any one of these bullet points can be a big deal.  But when you dump them all together into a big cauldron and bring the whole sordid mess to a boil, you get a witches brew that skews and distorts truth in a way that creates maximum amounts of fear.  And face it, fear is what sells drugs.   This despite the fact we already know just how dangerous (scratch that, deadly) drugs and surgical interventions can be (HERE).  If you want to see this entire process in action, take a look at this video interview of chemist Boyd Haley on the neurotoxicity of MERCURY.

Looking for a better way?  Wanting to stop being Big Pharma's biggest commodity?  Looking for something that could help you get off the MEDICAL MERRY GO ROUND?  It's your lucky day because this generic health protocol is completely free (HERE).  Leverage it to your advantage and start taking your health and life back today.

Every once and awhile, if I think a significant number of people might benefit, I take an email and turn it into a CASE STUDY.   This one comes from "Sue" (name changed to protect her identity).  Be aware that I do not have time to respond to most emails that are not directly inquiring about my POTENTIAL ABILITY (or inability as the case often is) to help with a specific problem.

In 2010 I had a tummy tuck with removal of love handles and hernia. That night I had profuse bleeding and had get 2 transfusions, but worse, my neck was hanging to floor and I couldn't pick it up.  A doctor out of that office mentioned "positional whiplash from the anesthesia" (the nurse anesthetist didn't look smart, I should have run).  Does this make sense?   I'm here eight years later still in lot pain

Because of this I had two cervical fusions, and now have cervical fusion syndrome.  I can't look down or walk fast.  I literally can't function.  I'd just graduated with a professional degree that I haven't been able to use.  I'm very mad.  My apartment is paid until Oct, then I pray. I would have had great, busy, life helping people.  Instead I sit at home bored and in pain.  I have trouble shopping for food. I wanted to make a difference and move to the West coast.  Like this, I can't move unless the pain lessens so that I'm sure I can work all day without being fired.  My family blames me having surgery.

Please tell me what you think happened and what to do now. I have constant pain even though I'm taking dilaudid.  I have a burning tongue, when I move I hear bubbles and cracks, I can't stand, I have sweating feet, my shoulders hurt so bad I can hardly wear a bra.  My neck weak and the pain now comes to front chest and upper back.  I'm afraid another level is broken. The last fusion was C3 to C7.   Prior was C4 to C7.  No one warned me I would likely have to have more and more fusions.  I thought one was it. I want my life back, I need work, I feel useless, and if not for God, no idea how I'll survive past October.

What would you suggest now for treatment?  I'm in so much pain that grocery shopping is terrible.  My walking is not right.  I have myelopathy.  All my limbs and head are heavy.  I can't look down.  Do you have anything to fix that?  I feel disabled, horrible, and alone, and I need job.  I really need to use my mind.  Please answer.

Thanks,
Sue

Receiving a steady stream of emails like this one all day long is difficult.  It's tough to watch people struggling with problems that no one has any idea what to do with, and that the majority of the medical community has essentially given up on.  In this case we have Sue, a young woman, who had a cosmetic surgery and ended up with a strange side effect of anesthesia.  How common is this?  While her particular issue is quite rare, according to BJA Education (Injury During Anesthesia), varying degrees of peripheral nerve damage occur somewhere between 1 in 250 to 1 in 5,000 surgeries, depending on a wide variety of factors.

The Royal College of Anesthetists (Risks Associated with your Anesthetic Section 10: Nerve Damage Associated with an Operation Under General Anesthetic) said this about nerve damage from anesthesia.  "If motor nerves are damaged, there may be weakness or paralysis (loss of movement) of muscles in that area. Rarely, (less than 1 in 10,000 general anaesthetics) nerve damage occurs that is permanent. Permanent damage lasting more than a year, is estimated to be less than 1 in 5,000.  Spinal cord damage occurs in less than 1 in 50,000 patients having a general anaesthetic."  While rare, you can see that situations like Sue's sometimes happen.  And in similar fashion to the way that adverse reactions to drugs are dramatically under-reported (HERE), the same can be said for adverse events associated with surgical procedures.

So, unlike many patients I've seen who were directly screwed up by their plastic surgeries (HERE for instance), Sue's was indirect. Which brings us to her chronic neck problems.  Firstly, remember that "WHIPLASH" affects far more women than men (although I have a tough time actually calling this whiplash).  Also, when people have issues in their neck they frequently end up with RADICULOPATHY (irritation of the nerves that go into and affect the hands).  Myelopathy is significantly worse because it involves the spinal cord.  The American Journal of Neuroradiology (Myelopathy) describes it simply as "any neurologic deficit related to the spinal cord."  Although the authors mentioned various tumors and CANCER as a common cause of myelopathy, the most common cause is DEGENERATION (bone spurs, calcium deposits, loss of disc height, etc) or HERNIATION.  STENOSIS (narrowing of the spinal canal) is a common cause as well.

Although this paragraph is not geared specifically at Sue, since she's already had two decompression surgeries --- the only treatment the medical community deems viable other than palliative care from the BIG FIVE CLASS OF DRUGS --- doctors will undoubtedly try to convince her to have another surgery.  Depending on the degree of severity of the myelopathy, many chiros treat people with it in varying ways.  Those include CHIROPRACTIC ADJUSTMENTS (these should typically be non-force techniques for individuals with myelopathy) and stretches / exercises (HERE HERE and HERE are studies). 

The surgeries for myelopathy has gotten better over the years, particularly when done only one time at only one level.  Case in point is a study from a 2003 issue of Neurosurgical Focus (Laminoplasty for the Treatment of Failed Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery) that said "In anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), because the risks and likelihood of pseudarthrosis increase with the number of treated segments, attempts are typically made to limit the number of treated levels. Thus, postoperative recurrence of myelopathy following ACDF may occur because stenotic levels were not treated or because adjacent segments have degenerated."  You don't have to look very far to see that "adjacent degeneration" is a common phenomenon with spinal surgeries --- particularly fusions.  Five years ago last month, the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (Adjacent Segment Disease Following Cervical Spine Surgery) concluded that.....

"Adjacent segment cervical disease occurs in approximately 3% of patients per year, with an expected incidence of 25% within the first 10 years following fusion. Nonfusion procedures such as anterior diskectomy and posterior foraminotomy do not decrease the rate of adjacent segment disease compared with ACDF. Recently, enthusiasm has developed for artificial disk replacement as a motion-sparing alternative to fusion. To date, however, multiple clinical trials and subsequent follow-up studies have failed to demonstrate significant reduction of adjacent segment disease when artificial disk replacement is performed instead of fusion."

In other words, if you have fusion, you are far more at risk for problems above and below that surgery (adjacent levels).  This is much more true for multiple levels or surgeries than for a single level of surgery.  The literature (both scientific and non-scientific --- message boards, blogs, articles, etc) abounds with studies and stories of post-surgical difficulties.  Knowing all this is great, but nothing I've talked about thus far is going to help Sue get better. We'll get there, but I want to talk about her symptoms a bit more first.

The sweating feet could easily be a sign of SYMPATHETIC DOMINANCE (click the link as I show you some ways to help control it).  The inability to look down is because your lower and mid cervical spine (where all neck flexion and extension takes place) has been fused solid.  And while peer review is not loaded with studies connecting myelopathy to burning in the tongue, there is ample anecdotal evidence on message boards.  The shoulder pain is a common symptom of radiculopathy (pinched or irritated nerves in the neck that run to the hands) as well as myelopathy, increasing the potential for future surgeries due to a phenomenon we mentioned a moment ago --- Adjacent Degeneration Syndrome (the levels above and below the fusion wear out rapidly).  And as for the "bubble sounds and creaking and popping," this is known as 'creep' and is a sign of degenerative changes (HERE), all of which are signs of failed cervical fusion syndrome.  Here is what WebMD says about failed neck fusion surgery.

"When symptoms such as numbness or weakness in the arm suggest that a neck problem is causing a pinched nerve (radiculopathy), surgery may help you feel better faster. But it's not clear that surgery is any better than nonsurgical treatment in the long run. And research also suggests that a complex surgery that includes fusion is not better than a simpler surgery to take the pressure off the nerve."

Three years ago this month, the HSS Journal carried a study (Revision Surgery for Failed Cervical Spine Reconstruction) by researchers from Philly's Thomas Jefferson University and Hospital.

"As the number of cervical spine procedures performed continues to increase, the need for revision surgery is also likely to increase.  Revision rates for surgery on the cervical spine can be high, and vary by the type of procedure performed.  Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is common after cervical spine surgery. After anterior cervical arthrodesis, the rate is approximately 2.9% per year, and after a second cervical fusion, the incidence of ASD is up to 25%."

Although you are between a rock and a hard place Sue, there is quite likely room for improvement --- possibly significant improvement.  The very first thing that someone in your situation needs to do is to reduce your level of SYSTEMIC INFLAMMATION to a crawl (I always suggest doing this both PRE- AND POST-SURGERY as well).  Beyond that, there are several modalities or treatments that may have good effects (LASERS {probably needs to be a Class IV}, PEMF, TISSUE REMODELING, ACUPUNCTURE, etc, etc, etc).  Once the surgery is healed, gentle traction is sometimes beneficial, not so much for the fused area(s), but for the areas "adjacent" the fusion.  And although much of it will not pertain specifically to you, I actually created a generic template for dealing with systemic inflammation (HERE).  As is always the case with someone in severe situations, consult with your doctor before undertaking anything that could prove detrimental.

For the record, it always amazes me how many studies there are, showing that for a wide variety of musculoskeletal issues (SPINAL DEGENERATION and DISC HERNIATION are two of the biggies), there is little correlation between imaging results and the symptoms or degree of pain.  This should provide some hope because it indicates that inflammation is playing a huge role.  In other words, reduce inflammation and you likely reduce your symptoms. 

It was 10 years ago in April that Dr. Beatrice Golomb, an an MD / Ph.D researcher and professor at Cal State San Diego where she runs the Golomb Research Group (I've mentioned many times on this site (HERE), published her landmark study in the American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs (Statin Adverse Effects: A Review of the Literature and Evidence for A Mitochondrial Mechanism). What still amazes me about Dr. Golomb's paper is that the bibliography contains just shy of 900 studies (892 to be exact).  And after Golomb's team combed through all that research, she shocked the cardiac care world with these cherry-picked conclusions...

"Statins are a widely used class of drug, and like all medications have potential for adverse effects (AEs).  We hypothesize, and provide evidence, that the demonstrated mitochondrial mechanisms for muscle AEs have implications to other nonmuscle AEs in patients treated with statins. In meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, muscle AEs are more frequent with statins than with placebo. A number of manifestations of muscle AEs have been reported, with rhabdomyolysis the most feared. AEs are dose dependent, and risk is amplified by drug interactions that functionally increase statin potency, often through inhibition of the cytochrome P450 system. An array of additional risk factors for statin AEs are those that amplify (or reflect) mitochondrial or metabolic vulnerability, such as metabolic syndrome factors, thyroid disease, and genetic mutations linked to mitochondrial dysfunction. Converging evidence and empirical considerations suggest that mitochondrial dysfunction may also underlie many non-muscle statin AEs... such as cognitive loss, neuropathy, pancreatic and hepatic dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction. Physician awareness of statin AEs is reportedly low even for the AEs most widely reported by patients."

When it comes to cholesterol, our government, in cahoots with both the medical community and BIG PHARMA, uses a constant stream of PUBLIC FEAR CAMPAIGNS geared at scaring you into wanting to lower your CHOLESTEROL.  And not just to lower your cholesterol (there are plenty of natural ways for the average person to accomplish this), but to lower it via one of the most popular classes of drugs in America, STATINS.  And here's the rub...

You'll never hear me say that statins don't lower cholesterol.  The truth is, they frequently lower it like gangbusters.  The problem is that there is often a massive price to pay for lowering cholesterol with statins, in what Dr. Golomb refers to as "AE's" (adverse events).  Unfortunately, few people are aware of the hundreds of studies that have shown time and time again that AE's are reported to the proper authorities not much more than 1% of the time (HERE), making most medications appear much safer on paper than they are in the real world.  I am going to use today's post to revisit Dr. Golomb's amazing study, because unfortunately, the more things have changed, the more they've stayed the same.

Lest we fail to grasp how important this study was, Dr. Golomb began by telling us that, "Statins have been the best selling prescription drug class in the US and include atorvastatin, the best-selling prescription drug in the world – indeed in history."  While this is no longer completely accurate, it's largely so, with the #1 selling drug still from the statin family of drugs, Crestor (rosuvastatin) instead of Lipitor (atorvastatin).  And because so many people are unnerved by the mere mention of the word cholesterol, Golomb provides and extremely basic lesson in cholesterol physiology, helping make those without medical training aware of the various functions it serves as well as the substances for which it's a precursor. 

• SEX STEROIDS:  ESTROGEN, PROGESTERONE, and TESTOSTERONE, just to name the more common ones, are made from cholesterol.
• CORTICOSTEROIDS:  Corticosteroids, glucocorticoids, mineralocorticoids, and others (cortisone, cortisol, aldosterone, etc) are of critical importance for a wide variety of physiological functions. 
• BILE ACIDS:  Bile (gall) is an important digestive juice that's made by your liver and stored in your gallbladder.  PROPER DIGESTION is compromised without it.
• VITAMIN D:  How cool is it that sunshine turns cholesterol into one of the most important vitamins in your body --- Vitamin D!  Just understand that Vitamin D is not really a vitamin as much as it is a hormone / hormone precursor, with about a jillion important functions.
• LIPID BI-LAYER:  Every single cell in your body is contained within a LIPID BI-LAYER made up largely of cholesterol.

So, as you can see, cholesterol has a lot of important functions. Knowing what these are allows us to start figuring out what sort of AE's a person might have if they deplete their cholesterol or attack the metabolic pathways that either manufacture or utilize cholesterol.   We'll get to that, but first I want to talk about the why of this study --- why are statins such a problem for so many people?  Dr. Golomb sums it up in a single sentence.  "Statins lead to dose-dependent reductions in coenzyme Q10, a key mitochondrial antioxidant and electron transport carrier that serves to help bypass existing mitochondrial respiratory chain defects."  Allow me to explain.

MITOCHONDRIA are the organelles within each cell that manufacture cellular energy in the form of something called ATP.  Every single function of the body requires ATP, and all of the body's numerous chemical reactions (including those that make ATP) are catalyzed by enzymes --- substances that speed the reaction up, in many cases thousands of times faster than would occur without the enzyme.  Co-enzyme Q10 is one such critical enzyme.   What Dr. Golomb is saying is that if you don't have enough CoQ10 to act as a catalyst, not only will you not be able to keep up with your body's massive demands for cellular energy, but you won't be able to bypass any existing "MITOCHONDRIAL RESPIRATORY CHAIN DEFECTS" in a "dose-dependent" fashion. In other words, the higher the daily dose of statins or the longer you've been on them, the greater the chance you have of developing some really nasty health problems.  If you want to see what these look like, click the link and take a look at the pie graph.

As many people are aware, far and away the most common side effects of statins involve muscle.  "The best recognized and most commonly reported AEs of statins are muscle AEs, and include muscle pain, fatigue and weakness as well as rhabdomyolysis."  Most people understand the first group of AE's mentioned, but if you aren't quite sure about RHABDOMYOLYSIS and its relationship to the others, be sure and click the link because Rhabdo is freaky stuff!

Before I move on, I need to talk about a phenomenon seen with almost all drugs, but greatly exaggerated with statins; the ability to be on both the good and bad side of the equation as far as the effects of the medication are concerned.  Allow me to explain.  There are numerous studies that show varying amounts of benefit to certain physiological functions with statins. The example Dr. Golomb used was "improved walking distance".  However, in similar fashion to a bell curve (in this case the bell will be somewhat lopsided), some studies show as many people having problems (AE's) as people being helped.  This is because statins tend to have strong effects either way, positive or negative, and in some cases, both, simultaneously.  For instance, a person taking a statin might be able to walk further without pain, but with every dose is increasing their chances of developing statin-induced AE's.  So, although the gross effect of Dr. G's analysis was that statins don't cause muscle pain, she believes it was because the AE's were balanced out by significant numbers of people who improved on the drugs. 

"Evidence supports the proposition that antioxidant effects of statins underlie (or contribute to) many fundamental statin benefits – including benefits to flow and oxygen delivery and inflammation. These effects may participate in improved walking distance in patients on statins, including benefits to muscle/walking in persons with and without peripheral artery disease. Yet a subset of people reproducibly exhibit increases in markers of oxidation on statins, and the occurrence of this increase has been tied to muscle pain while on statins."

As noted by Golomb and her team, statin-induced muscle problems unfortunately do not always resolve once people stop taking them (be sure to read the comment from Chris Wunsch in my post on Rhabdo above). "Muscle effects arising on statins do not uniformly resolve fully with statin discontinuation."  In some cases, these effects are described as only "partially reversible."  And of these, she describes Rhabdo as "among the best-recognized and most feared complications of statins; it occurs when muscle damage is severe, leading to a marked elevation of CK (e.g. in excess of 10 times the upper limit of normal) often accompanied by evidence of renal dysfunction and occasionally renal failure and death."  The list of other problems directly associated with Rhabdo include severe malfunction of, "heart, pancreas, liver, bone marrow, respiratory function, and central nervous system toxicity" or, as this letter to the editors of the American Journal of Medicine (Multiorgan Failure Induced by Atorvastatin) by a group of three specialists indicated, "all of the above." 

It was the crazy side effects that kept MY FATHER IN LAW from taking statins.  Awesome guy who spent a chunk of a year in Jefferson Barracks polio hospital when he was seven --- iron lung and the whole bit.  Despite the fact that he simply could not take statins because of muscle AE's (something especially problematic is someone with post-polio syndrome), his doctors would hound him on every single doctor visit.  It seems that this is a common theme. 

Dr. Golomb wrote, "Although some investigators promote very low LDL cholesterol targets, proposing that lower is better and no LDL-C is too low, the US FDA has stated that 'all statins… should be prescribed at the lowest dose that achieves the goals of therapy (e.g. target LDL-C level).' Intensive statin treatment in RCTs does not improve mortality, even in patients with heart disease, relative to less intensive treatment. Moreover, intensive treatment comes at the cost of an increased risk of adverse outcomes."  I once had a very young, thin, and at least apparently healthy patient, whom I quizzed as to why he had written on his intake forms that he was on statins.  He replied that since his father had previously suffered a heart attack, his doctor suggested that he should go on statins in order to prophylactically prevent one of his own, especially since he had 'good insurance'.  No lie, his total cholesterol was under 100 --- the physician's target level.  Gulp!

We know that statins cause muscle side effects, but what about other side effects?  "Drug interactions arise when drugs inhibit metabolic pathways of statins, compete for metabolism with statins, or cause similar or interacting toxicity.  Several widely used statins – atorvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 pathway."  I've written extensively about BIOTRANSFORMATION, and the body's need to be able to clear toxins (not to mention DRUGS) via the P-450 CYTOCHROME SYSTEM.  If you cannot clear drugs (statins included) from your system, they build up and cause problems.  What sorts of problems?  They affect the body's 'powerhouse,' the mitochondria.

"While a medley of potential mechanisms may cause or contribute to statin AEs, mitochondrial mechanisms have been repeatedly implicated in muscle AEs. Mitochondrial defects predispose to problems on statins. Additionally, statins predispose to mitochondrial defects in all users and, to a greater degree, in [EPIGENETICALLY] vulnerable individuals. Dose-dependent reductions in coenzyme Q10 can reduce cell energy, promote oxidation, promote apoptosis [cell death], and unmask silent mitochondrial defects."

Although the most common AE's are muscle-related, there are plenty of others.  Listen as Golomb explains.  "Muscle and brain are the organs most classically affected in mitochondrial disease (mitochondrial myopathy and encephalomyopathy are classical manifestations of respiratory chain diseases).  Muscle is highly aerobically dependent and selectively vulnerable to mitochondrial pathology.  But given the evidence for mitochondrial vulnerability and pathology related to statin AEs, it merits note that other organs – including brain, liver, heart and kidney – can be affected by mitochondrial pathology as well, and we suggest mitochondrial mechanisms may also be involved in a range of nonmuscle statin AEs."  Without spending inordinate amounts of time on each one, what are these AE's?  In no particular order they include,  "mitochondrial encephalomyopathy, fatigue, cognitive problems, gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms, psychiatric symptoms, sleep problems, and glucose elevations."  All of this begs the question, what can be done to reverse course and get better?

"Randomized trial evidence has little to offer in understanding recovery profiles for statin AEs.  Even for the most commonly reported AEs involving statins, patients state that physicians often dismiss the possibility that their AE may be statin related. Failure to recognize drug AEs can prevent needed reassessment of the risk-benefit profile for statin treatment – and where appropriate, modification of the treatment regimen, in the face of possible or probable statin AEs."

This is exactly what I saw with my father in law.  No matter how serious the side effects or how many times he told his doctors he could not take statins because they caused both pain and weakness, they constantly pushed him to take the drugs.  "Try them again, you might have gotten over your reaction to them.  It may have been a fluke.  Try a different dose.  Try a different drug.  Try that drug with this drug."  It was crazy.  And although the first step in solving AE's of all sorts should probably include supplementing with CoQ10 (as well as calling your doctor to be taken off the statin immediately), there are plenty of others that could make a difference as well.  Chief among those would be diet, which was not mentioned in this meta-analysis, although Dr. Golomb has lectured on EVIDENCE-BASED DIET. 

As you've seen, cholesterol is important.  It's good stuff.  Good stuff.  So, why does it sometimes stick to arteries?  When the body is in A STATE OF PERPETUAL INFLAMMATION, the arterial walls become damaged and in similar fashion to other epithelial tissue barriers, "LEAKY".  The body then uses the wax-like fat, cholesterol, to patch the damage.  This process is also dose-dependant, meaning that the more SYSTEMIC INFLAMMATION, the greater the damage that must be repaired, and the more cholesterol is ultimately deposited on the arterial walls.  And what does society continue doing (medical community included)?  The public is continually told, bad cholesterol, bad cholesterol, bad cholesterol, good statins, good statins, good statins.  And through all of this, there's another dirty little secret that I haven't even mentioned yet.

In similar fashion to our national war on BLOOD SUGAR (via gravy-sucking DIABETES DRUGS), we continue to viciously attack surrogate markers (in the case of statins, cholesterol), while the real markers of health (rates of morbidity and mortality) barely budge --- the whole relative risk -vs- absolute risk phenomenon (HERE).  In other words, even though statins frequently lower cholesterol like crazy, they have far less effect on improving your chances of having heart attacks, strokes, or an early death.  And let's be honest with each other for just a moment; who can trust our current cholesterol guidelines anyway (HERE)?

Just like the FLU VACCINE, which I have been spending a great deal of time on recently, statin drugs don't really do what's claimed of them.  Fortunately, however, if you have issues with cholesterol, there are ways to attack the inflammation that is at the very least, a significant contributing factor (HERE).  And as always, be sure and ask your doctor if it's safe to switch from a diet of TWINKIES and HYPER-PROCESSED GRAINS, to a diet of WHOLE FOODS, based on ANTI-INFLAMMATORY PROPERTIES (I've been a fan of those under the PALEO umbrella for a long time, although KETOGENIC is exciting for helping regulate cholesterol as well).  Dr. Golomb's ground-breaking study is one more proof that your doctor can't do it for you; that real health is largely on your shoulders.

Late last year I wrote about how the medical research community continues chasing after the elusive 'El Dorado' of flu shots --- the UNIVERSAL FLU VACCINE.  Just a couple of weeks ago the Virology Journal (Towards A Universal Influenza Vaccine: Different Approaches for One Goal) put it this way.  "There is currently an unmet need to develop an effective "broadly-reactive" or "universal" influenza vaccine capable of conferring protection against both seasonal and newly emerging pre-pandemic strains. A number of novel influenza vaccine approaches are currently under evaluation." 

If you read between the line you can guess that this statement was made in response to the continual  poor showing of pharmaceutically-induced methods of flu prevention.  Just how bad are modern flu vaccines?  Listen to what three researchers from St. Jude's Children's Hospital in Memphis wrote in last month's issue of Viral Immunology (Influenza Virus: Dealing with a Drifting and Shifting Pathogen).

"Numerous modern technological and scientific advances have changed the vaccine industry. However, nearly 70 years of influenza vaccine usage have passed without substantial changes in the underlying principles of the vaccine. The challenge of vaccinating against influenza lies in the constantly changing nature of the virus itself. This has forced frequent updates of vaccine antigens to ensure that the somewhat narrowly focused vaccine-induced immune responses defend against circulating strains. Few vaccine production systems have been developed that can entertain such constant changes. Although influenza virus infection induces long-lived immunologic memory to the same or similar strains, most people do not encounter the same strain repeatedly in their lifespan, suggesting that enhancement of natural immunity is required to improve influenza vaccines." 

Did you catch that?  Because the virus is in a continual state of mutation, the worn out method of  "guessing" what three or four strains of flu virus of the thousands circulating should be put into next year's vaccine, seven or eight months in advance, is a joke.  In fact, I've previously shown you that a "matched year" happens about once every 11 (what were you doing in 2007?).  But none of this prevents --- or even seems to slow down --- the onslaught of industry- and media-driven propaganda (HERE), warning us that without the flu shot, apocalypse is nigh.  And while there are, unfortunately, people who die from the flu (HERE and HERE), research continues to show that flu vaccines do little to prevent those specific deaths.  The problem is so significant that these authors suggest that getting there from here cannot be accomplished without "enhancement of natural immunity". Just realize that you must be extremely cautious when "BOOSTING" THE IMMUNE SYSTEM.

What I would like to do now is show you the latest updates to the biggest flu studies from the leader in the field, COCHRANE (formerly the Cochrane Review / Cochrane Collaboration).  Cochrane is the gold standard of medical review and meta-analysis --- renowned for their ability to take large numbers of studies, crunch the data, and come to some sort of logical conclusion or consensus. "For 20 years, Cochrane has produced systematic reviews of primary research in human health care and health policy, and these are internationally recognized as the highest standard in evidence-based health care resources.  Let's see what Cochrane said in several flu studies they published just last week.

• FLU VACCINES FOR THOSE WITH CANCER TAKING IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS:  I've said it before; IMMUNOSUPPRESSION is America's number one form of medical treatment, and not just for CANCER.  A brand new review from The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (updating their 2013 results --- Influenza Vaccines in Immunosuppressed Adults with Cancer) looked at six studies of 2,300 individuals and determined that while the vaccine provided "lower mortality and infection-related outcomes with influenza vaccination," the effects were not very large and the evidence was described several times as "weak". 

 

• FLU VACCINES FOR THE ELDERLY:  Also an update of an older Cochrane Review (2010), Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in the Elderly looked at eight studies of over 5,000 people over the age of 65, concluding that "Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may have a lower risk of influenza (from 6% to 2.4%), and probably have a lower risk of influenza-like illness) compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (from 6% to 3.5%). The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and influenza-like illness with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly."  Not exactly a ringing endorsement (more like a "wringing" endorsement).  Bottom line, if you are over 65, a flu shot is going to decrease your chance of flu or flu-like symptoms by a whopping threeish percentage points.

 

• FLU VACCINATIONS IN HEALTHY ADULTS:  Are you a "healthy" adult? Then you might want to AVOID THE FLU SHOT.  Cochrane updated yet another study, this one from 2014, that came to about the same conclusions as previously (Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Adults).  The results are almost shocking if you've never seen them before.  After looking at "52 clinical trials of over 80,000 people assessing the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccines," the authors concluded that "Healthy adults who receive inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine [parenteral indicates a shot since the FLU MIST has been 0% effective for five years and counting] rather than no vaccine probably experience less influenza, from just over 2% to just under 1%."  Did you catch that?  Pathetic!  They go on to make PREGNANT WOMEN question why they would ever get the shot.  "Protection against influenza and influenza-like illness in mothers and newborns was smaller than the effects seen in other populations considered in this review..  The protective effect of vaccination in pregnant women and newborns is also very modest."   This is a nice way of saying that the vaccine results on this population were slightly better than negligible.  In layman's terms, they suck.  And lest you forget, "Vaccines increase the risk of a number of adverse events....."  This is why the old review said that between 70 and 80 "healthy adults" would need to be vaccinated to prevent a single case of flu or influenza-like illness --- a stat that probably increased in this recent review.  And to top it all off, almost a third of these studies in this review were done by industry.  Knowing what we know about the myth of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE and what happens when THE CORRUPT FDA lets the fox guard the hen house, imagine how much worse it would have been if all the research had come from unbiased third parties?

 

• HEALTHY CHILDREN AND FLU VACCINES:  Once again, this is a Cochrane Review --- this one (Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Children) updating a review from 2011.  Working from Oxford University, four authors (including Dr. Tom Jefferson, who was instrumental in exposing just how crappy and dangerous OSELTAMIVIR / TAMIFLU really is, as well as how it was approved via rank fraud) looked at 41 studies of over 200,000 "healthy children under 16 years old," concluding that "In children aged between 3 and 16 years, live influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza (moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce ILI (low-certainty evidence) over a single influenza season. In this population inactivated vaccines also reduce influenza (high-certainty evidence) and may reduce ILI (low-certainty evidence). For both vaccine types, the absolute reduction in influenza and ILI varied considerably.  Adverse event data were not well described in the available studies."  The severe adverse events that were described included NARCOLEPSY and cataplexy ("a sudden loss of muscle tone triggered by the experience of an intense emotion") as well as high fevers.  How much did the vaccine, on average, lower children's chances of developing flu or flu-like illness (note that we are not talking about severe flu such as what we are seeing this year)?  Although it's hard to tell for sure because everything kind of ran together in the abstract thanks to the crazy variation in individual study results, but it appears to be about 15 to 18 percentage points.   Note however, that as stated, these results were for a given year (a single influenza season).  Just yesterday I showed you how studies continue to prove that flu shots in consecutive seasons diminish their effectiveness the subsequent year(s).

If, LIKE DR. OZ, you decide not to have your family immunized against the flu due to any number of reasons (including the progressive BUILDUP OF NEUROTOXIC ALUMINUM in the brain), there are steps you could be taking to improve your odds of not only not getting the flu, but of surviving the severe / virulent forms of the flu that the vaccines are known to provide little protection against (HERE).  Although much of it revolves around eating a healthy diet, unfortunately, this is becoming less and less common here in America, especially in our nation's HYPER-INFLAMED children.  To see a complete "get healthy" protocol that includes addressing Gut issues, just follow THIS LINK.

"This year’s shot isn't much help in protecting people from one of the most active, severe strains circulating: the H3N2 virus.  Dr Michael Osterholm, who directs The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told Business Insider that the vaccine is, at best, around 10% effective on H3N2."  Hilary Brueck for the December 8, 2017 issue of Business Insider (This Year's Flu Shot is Not as Effective Against One of the Nastiest Strains — But You Should Still Get it Anyway)

"A midseason glimpse of flu vaccine effectiveness in Canada shows that protection against the H3N2 strain is very low...  Protection against H3N2 was even lower, at 10%."  Yesterday's press release from the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (Canadian Data Show Low Flu Vaccine Protection Against H3N3)

"So the Flu Shot is Only 10 Percent Effective: 5 Reasons to Still Get It"  The title of one of last week's articles from KevinMD that could not be described as anything other than a pure propaganda piece, with reasons that are excuses why it won't work, not reasons to get it.

Back in September things were shaping up for this to be a bad flu season.  No, not because of the MEDIA AND MEDICAL PROPAGANDA that we hear prior to every flu season.  The experts predicted (correctly) this would be a bad year because Australia was at the end of a particularly nasty season.  What were we told about this "Australian Flu"?  Clear back on September 14, Susan Scutti wrote an article for CNN revealing what flu expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the United States National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, had to say on the matter (What Australia's Bad Flu Season Means for Europe and North America).

"Does Australia's bad flu season bode ill for Northern Hemisphere nations, including the US, Canada and across Europe?  In general, we get in our season what the Southern Hemisphere got in the season immediately preceding us.   An intelligent guess, therefore, is that the north will probably have a bad flu season."

I'll not belabor the fact that something similar was run by each and every news outlet across the nation.  The October issue of the medical journal Eurosurveillance (Low Interim Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness, Australia, 1 May to 24 September 2017) confirmed this warning, then revealed that, "Overall vaccine effectiveness was 33%. This estimate appeared to be skewed by the very low estimate for A(H3), which was 10%."  That's why our own TRUST-US CDC (the governmental organization that's been warning that this year's virus is particularly nasty because it's an Influenza A, H3N2 strain) likewise warned citizens that "so far this flu season, influenza A (H3N2) viruses have been predominant in the United States -- a fact that is troubling because in previous flu seasons, H3N2-predominant seasons have been more severe.  Vaccine effectiveness against H3N2 viruses also is typically lower...  It's not uncommon for a flu shot to have an effectiveness of about 30 percent against H3N2 viruses." 

I'll make you a promise that you can take to the bank.  When the actual level of vaccine effectiveness is published sometime in June or July, it will be much lower than 30%.  And as for the part of the vaccine that protects against the severe strain --- the H3N2 strain?  The CDC has been talking out of both sides of their mouth, admitting in several other places that this year's H3N2 portion is no better than 10% effectiveness, confirming what Canada confirmed yesterday.  So let's all be honest with ourselves for a moment.  In light of what we know about the ineffectiveness of the FLU VACCINE in general (not according to me but according to mountains of peer-review), shouldn't we all have the right to decline it without being browbeat as "antivaxxers"?  Seems not.  A recent editorial in the Boston Globe (Mounting A Ground War Against Anti-Vaxxers) is just one more biased article in a long line of biased articles full of misinformation and outright deception.

The piece starts with the author picking on Brian Kilmeade for making a statement on Fox & Friends that would make you would think he was personally unleashing Black Death on the world.  Kilmeade was accused of telling his 1.6 million viewers that not getting a flu shot is a great way of building their immune system.  While this is not technically correct (not getting the flu shot is great way to keep from weakening your immune system), his overall point was spot on. 

Kilmeade was put in somewhat of a pickle by an MD that was a guest on the show (THE 20 SECOND CLIP).  After admitting that he had not been vaccinated, the good doctor sort of jokingly threatened to give Kilmeade a Flu Shot once they were off the air, telling him that he essentially needed take one for the Gipper (actually he chided Kilmeade, saying that he needed to get one because he could expose his daughters / wife).  Kilmeade then uttered his now infamous response, "Right. Alright, but they’ve got to build up their immunity, too."

What's not mentioned in the Globe's article is that not two seconds before the sentence above, Kilmeade was starting to give the Doctor Siegel some statistics.  He got as far as "only 30 percent" before being cut off.  Haley Miller of HuffPo (Fox And Friends Host Goes Anti-Vaxxer Amid Deadly Flu Epidemic) described this exchange thusly.  "Kilmeade dismissed the medical professional’s advice, instead echoing a debunked talking point of conspiracy theorists known as anti-vaxxers."  Both articles went on to talk about the NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO DIE EACH YEAR FROM THE FLU, with the Globe discussing everything from measles to Robert Kennedy (the ANTI-POLLUTION / ANTI-MERCURY & ALUMINUM ADJUVANT activist), referring to both Kilmeade and Kennedy as "anti-vax luddites".

The Globe stopped just short of saying that 20th century mass vaccination campaigns (they started around 1960) were responsible for a greatly reduced death rate due to microbial infections.  But then again, if the Globe would have made that sort of allegation even the CDC may have been forced to admit the story was an exaggeration (SEE CDC GRAPH).  As far as exaggerations and half-truths are concerned, Haley has this fun little paragraph in her story.

"Vaccines boost your immune system ― not weaken it. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, vaccines help your immune system fight infections 'faster and more effectively.' They also often provide 'long-lasting immunity to serious diseases without the risk of serious illness,' the HHS website reports. So it’s important to get a flu shot every year."

Firstly, vaccines (including the flu vaccine) unarguably "boost" your immune system.  But in our modern age of rampant and runaway autoimmunity, I've warned people repeatedly that REPEATEDLY "BOOSTING" THE IMMUNE SYSTEM is, in many cases, the absolute last thing you want to do.  Secondly, the part of the vaccine that actually does the "boosting" is not the antigen (the germ component) but the adjuvant (the part included for the express purpose of causing an inflammatory reaction), which in most vaccines (INCLUDING THE FLU VACCINE), is NEUROTOXIC ALUMINUM.  Thirdly, studies show time and time again that if you get a flu shot this year, next year's shot won't work (stick around because at the bottom of the page I'll show you yet another example of this phenomenon), and that the immunity provided by the Flu Shot is anything but "long-lasting," usually lasting a grand total of about six weeks (HERE and HERE).  And lastly, who really trusts what our government's alphabet soup of regulatory agencies say anymore anyway?  For Pete's sake, it was just 16 short months ago that one of the most prestigious journals on the planet, the British Medical Journal, accused the FDA of having a "REVOLVING DOOR" between it and BIG PHARMA. 

What other business / industry could create a product that was only 10% effective at whatever it was advertised to do, yet have the media eating out of their hands, warning everyone and their brother to purchase their product anyway.  Hey we know that product X sucks, but you and your family should rush right out and buy, buy, buy.  By definition, this is propaganda, and it's exactly what's happening in our nation's influenza paranoia-driven media coverage.  No thought process or logic in the reporting, just knee jerk reactions.  It's Big Pharma's wet dream come true.  Speaking of Big Pharma, how about another flu / vaccine study?

Just a few weeks ago, the journal PNAS published a study called Infectious Virus in Exhaled Breath of Symptomatic Seasonal Influenza Cases from a College Community.  The nine authors (all from the University of Maryland), along with 29 collaborators, tested the microscopic particles in the vapor of people's breath to see if it was possible that flu could be spread not only by touch or coughing / sneezing, but by simply breathing the same air that someone with flu had breathed.  After undergoing a thirty minute breath test on people with confirmed flu, the authors "recovered infectious virus from 39% of the fine aerosols."   Among other interesting conclusions, the authors stated "Fine-aerosol viral RNA was also positively associated with having influenza vaccination for both the current and prior season."  Let's talk for a moment about what this really means by looking at a cherry-picked paragraph from the study.

"Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples. Vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models. In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons.  Cough was not necessary for infectious aerosol generation in the fine aerosol fraction."

Did you catch that?  They sort of brushed right over it even though the vaccinated population shed virus at a whopping 630% greater rate than the unvaccinated population --- after adjusting for confounders.  Do you grasp the implications of what these government authors (that's right folks; PNAS stands for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) are saying?  The people spreading flu are not necessarily doing it via coughing, but simply by breathing.  The 630% means that the "Typhoid Marys" actually spreading flu virus are the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated.   And remember that I just showed you how getting immunized against the flu last year means that this year's immunization won't work properly?  Like numerous other studies before it --- confirmed yet again.

"The association of current and prior year vaccination with increased shedding of influenza A might lead one to speculate that certain types of prior immunity promote lung inflammation, airway closure, and aerosol generation. This first observation of the phenomenon needs confirmation. If confirmed, this observation, together with recent literature suggesting reduced protection with annual vaccination, would have implications for influenza vaccination recommendations and policies."

Unfortunately, this last sentence inadvertently shows what and how massive the problem really is.  How so?  No matter how many studies are published SHOWING JUST HOW CRAPPY THE FLU SHOT REALLY IS at protecting virtually every single "at risk" group (not to mention average citizens), the evidence continues to be ignored, and people like Miller continue to refer to those waving red warning flags as conspiracy theory kooks ("Luddite" was the word she actually used). 

It's not really any different than what we continually see in politics or other large industries (oil, coal, food, tobacco, etc, etc).  When there is this much money at stake, you don't have to look very far to find "conspiracies".  In fact I've collected A FAIR NUMBER OF THE MORE ABSURD EXAMPLES of this phenomenon taking place all around us on a daily basis.  It's business as usual, with the media outlets mentioned today playing the part of the industry lackey simply because they failed to do their own research, trusting instead on industry PRESS RELEASES or "experts" who are nothing more than shills.

Honestly, what we really need is a public debate --- maybe myself, MY BRO, and DR. ERIC, taking on whoever (DR. MONTO would be a nice choice).  On a slightly different note, if you want to get healthy and stay that way, I have a completely FREE PROTOCOL to help you do it.  I won't promise you that you won't get the flu because like they say, stuff happens.  What I will promise is that if you'll start taking some baby steps concerning your health, you're less likely to end up a government statistic!

Although there are dozens of songs about yearning to go back in time (HERE'S ONE), how many times have you heard someone say, "If I could go back and do it all again, I wouldn't change a thing"?  Every time I hear that I think to myself, wow, are you ever stupid.  There are so many things I would change that I'm not quite sure where I would start.  For one, I would love to go back and change how I ate thirty years ago. I would certainly train much differently as well.  And that's just for starters. I'm doing OK at ALMOST FIFTY ONE, but as probably everyone laments at some time or another, had I known then what I know now, things could certainly be better.  But that's how life works; you play the hand you're dealt, you work hard, pray even harder, and roll with (or battle against) whatever life happens to throw at you.

Whether you attribute it to chance, fate, providence, or plain dumb luck, life is full of twists, turns, and what-might-have-beens.  A recent story about Nick Saban, the coach of Alabama's national champion football team, is the perfect example.  The gist of the story was that after winning a national championship for LSU back in 2003 (the Tigers beat the Sooners that my KSU Wildcats had beat like a drum a month earlier in the Big 12 Championship --- THANKS DS!), Saban parlayed his rising star into a big money coaching gig with the Miami Dolphins. 

It seems that during that period, the Dolphins were looking at signing Drew Brees, the amazing quarterback of the New Orleans Saints, who at the time was with the San Diego Chargers.  They didn't pull the trigger because Brees was coming off of shoulder surgery and the thought was that he would never be the same player --- interesting considering the guy is 40 and can still spin it with the best of them.  Although that was a decade and a half ago, Brees is still a stud, while the guys the Dolphins chose in his stead (Dante Culpepper: best known for being the average and oft-injured Q involved in the Vikings cruiseboat sex scandal, Gus Ferotte: best known for injuring his neck head-butting a stadium wall after a touchdown, and Joey Harrington: best known for being a great guy with a not so great lifetime QBR) didn't exactly burn up the stat sheet or the win column.

The point of this tale was that Coach Saban, whom many would argue is college football's GOAT (greatest of all time), would not even be in the conversation if Dolphins owner, Wayne Huizenga, had chosen Brees as his quarterback.  The thought was that with a good QB, Saban would have won enough games to at the very least be relevant in the NFL, likely never returning to the college ranks.  It's certainly interesting speculation, but don't we all have stories that we could argue are similar?  In fact, I would argue, AS DID DR. SATURDAY, that some really terrible calls in the second half helped cement Saban's legacy just as much as the walk-off touchdown pass by freshman sensation, Tua Tagovailoa, on the second play of Alabama's OT possession.  And to top it all off, Saban, who was the defensive backs coach for the Houston Oilers back in 1988, never even planned on going into coaching in the first place.  Isn't it funny how life happens?

I mention 1988 because it was three decades ago (I was 21).  Do you know what you were doing thirty years ago today?  I do, but it's a strange story why.  I've been a fan of James Taylor since my high school days (Mexico, Every Day, Shower the People, Up on a Roof, Her Town Too, Smiling Face, etc), and although I rarely stayed up late enough to watch late night television, thirty years ago I happened to be studying and watching Carson on the evening J.T. happened to be Johnny's musical guest.  He played Never Die Young --- the cover of his brand new album --- and I was mesmerized (I went out the next day, bought the cassette, playing it until it eventually fell apart).  After recently seeing the video on YouTube, I realized that this happened thirty years ago this evening; February 2 of 1988.

Speaking of music, one of my favorite songs of all time is Nik Kershaw's 1984 hit, Wouldn't it be Good ---- a song that I used in my post on PROFESSIONAL BURNOUT and what can be done to prevent it.  A few years ago Kershaw wrote an incredible song for his nine year old daughter called The Sky's the Limit that I also embedded below.   What's the point other than I like cool songs?

It's simple; JESUS' BROTHER JAMES' ANALOGY of life essentially being a "vapor" is spot on.  The proof is how quickly the past thirty years have flown by.  Since both change and the passing of time are inevitable, use the time given you to your advantage.  No matter your age or current physical condition, you can improve your health.   Like so many people I have worked with over the years, you have the power to change your situation; to turn your life around.  SYMPATHY OR EMPOWERMENT --- your doctor can't do it for you.  You can choose to live in the hurts and/or glory of the past (LIKE NAPOLEON'S UNCLE RICO) or you can live in the present, striving to make a difference by touching lives in whatever way(s) you are gifted. 

It's kind of like the late Henry Blackaby said in his book, Experiencing God: How to Live the Full Adventure of Knowing and Doing the Will of God --- "We don't choose what we will do for God; He invites us to join Him where He wants to involve us.  Find out where God is at work and join Him."  Just look around, see where God is doing amazing things, and get busy (HERE is an example).

And while I realize that there are many who struggle with painful and even debilitating physical or emotional issues, I believe that God wants us to strive to be as healthy as we can given our individually unique circumstances --- to live up to the potential created in us simply because we are created in His image --- to do our best to live up to the image that's imprinted on all of us.  And to never stop searching for solutions to those chronic issues.  Someone out there has the answers you are looking for --- it's just a matter of making that connection.

There could be any number of things holding you back from reaching your potential.  It could be a dead end job.  For some of you it might be bad habits.  For others it might be laziness.  Resolve what it's going to take for you to reach your goals / dreams / potential, sit down and develop an DEVELOP AN EXIT STRATEGY, and then act on it.  My desire is that you leverage the free information in THIS POST to your advantage.  Figure out what steps you need to take to make your health the best it can be and get started --- today!  Do what you can so that your next thirty years are as good or better than the last thirty (HERE).  After all, the sky's the limit.

"Cancer cells rewire their metabolism to promote growth, survival, proliferation, and long-term maintenance. The common feature of this altered metabolism is increased glucose uptake and fermentation of glucose to lactate. This phenomenon is observed even in the presence of completely functioning mitochondria and together is known as the Warburg Effect. The Warburg Effect has been documented for over 90 years with thousands of papers reporting to have established either its causes or its functions."  From the March 2016 of Trends in Biochemical Sciences (The Warburg Effect: How Does it Benefit Cancer Cells?)

"The Warburg effect states that the main source of energy for cancer cells is not aerobic respiration [oxygen], but glycolysis-even in normoxia [normal levels of oxygen]. Anaerobic metabolism of cancer cells [without oxygen] promotes cell proliferation, local tissue immunosuppression, resistance to hypoxic conditions, and metastatic processes."  From last March's issue of Nutrition and Cancer (Glucose Metabolism in Cancer and Ischemia: Possible Therapeutic Consequences of the Warburg Effect)

A few weeks ago Dr. Chandler Marrs wrote an awesome GUEST POST on mitochondrial function.  Part of what she discussed was the fact that scientists are chasing their proverbial tails on the 'genetic' side of the research equation, spending inordinate amounts of time, effort, and resources searching out and mapping the almost limitless number of "RANDOM" GENETIC MUTATIONS, instead of focusing on what's causing said mutations.  Her point was well taken; particularly considering these mutations are not nearly as random as the scientific community has led the public to believe (see link).  This, friends, is the field of EPIGENETICS (the way that bad environments / habits can turn on "mutant" genes so that they start expressing bad traits) and is critical to understand if you want to stay healthy, let alone stay free of CANCER.

Why do I mention Mitochondria?  Listen to what a popular online encyclopedia says about the relationship of Mitochondria to O2.  "A dominant role for the mitochondria is the production of ATP, by oxidizing the major products of glucose.  This type of cellular respiration known as aerobic respiration, is dependent on the presence of oxygen. When oxygen is limited, the glycolytic products will be metabolized by anaerobic fermentation, a process that is independent of the mitochondria."  Cancer lives and eats in a completely different fashion than normal tissues.  Instead of using oxygen to create energy via the mitochondria (aerobic metabolism), cancer hijacks the cell's metabolic machinery, forcing it to make energy in an extremely inefficient manner --- without oxygen (anaerobic metabolism).   This is called the 'Warburg Effect,' named after Nobel Prize winner (1931), DR. OTTO WARBURG, who back in the early 1920's, figured out that cancer feeds itself by fermenting sugar (anaerobically), even in the presence of adequate amounts of oxygen and properly functioning mitochondria.

In the same way that all diseases share common bonds (HERE), all cancers share a common bond as well --- the ability to commandeer metabolism and ferment sugar.  French and American authors, writing in one of last year's issues of Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry (The Warburg Effect and the Hallmarks of Cancer) stated "It is a longstanding debate whether cancer is one disease or a set of very diverse diseases. The goal of this paper is to suggest strongly that most of (if not all) the hallmarks of cancer could be the consequence of the Warburg's effect."  In other words, the debate around cancer cannot diverge from the fact that the primary trait that makes cancer, cancer, is the 'Warburg Effect.'

Today we are going to revisit the Warburg Effect ("SUGAR FEEDS CANCER") for many different reasons.  One of those has to do with the lies being propagated by the medical profession. Although "lies" sounds rather harsh, the average cancer doctor (let alone GP) never mentions the Warburg Effect to their patients, either by name or description.  In fact, the link shows that the biggest of the big of the heavy-hitters in cancer treatment (Johns Hopkins, MD Anderson, Mayo, etc) all have official statements on their clinic's websites denouncing the relationship between sugar and cancer.  It's essentially like waving a scared, trusting, and often gullible public right on through a red light and into heavy traffic --- OR THE DONUT SHOP.  Follow along as I make my case, showing you a few of the specific types of cancer that have been associated with increased sugar.

• DIABETES AND CANCER:  As we could write a book on this topic, I am only going to give you one study --- an Italian study that was published just days ago in the journal Metabolism (Adverse Glycemic Effects of Cancer Therapy: Indications for a Rational Approach to Cancer Patients with Diabetes).  "Diabetes and cancer are common, chronic, and potentially fatal diseases that frequently co-exist. Observational studies have reported an increased risk of cancer in patients with diabetes. Furthermore... coexisting diabetes confers a greater risk of mortality for many malignancies."  In July of last year the CDC revealed a shocking statistic via an article title on their website (New CDC Report: More than 100 Million Americans Have Diabetes or Prediabetes).  That's about 1/3 of our total population, and for the record, prediabetes, also known as CARDIOMETABOLIC SYNDROME, is almost the equivalent of having diabetes.  According to Diabetes dot org, the disease kills over 250,000 people a year and currently sits just outside the "Top 5" causes of death, looking to move up.  And as reported by the American Cancer Society, Cancer is now number one in mortality (recently surpassing heart disease), responsible for over 600,000 annual deaths in the U.S.

 

• SUGAR IGNITES CANCER STEM CELLS:  November's issue of the British Journal of Cancer (Glucose Insult Elicits Hyperactivation of Cancer Stem Cells....) showed that sugar does exactly what the study's title says it does --- it hyper-activates cells that are already primed to become cancerous.  "Meta-analysis shows that women with diabetes have a 20% increased risk of breast cancer and also an increased risk for distant metastasis and mortality.  Hyperglycemia leads to hyperactivation of cancer stem cell pool and enhances invasive ability of breast cancer cells."  The great bastion of truth and knowledge (gulp, Wikipedia) says of CSC's, "Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are cancer cells that possess characteristics associated with normal stem cells, specifically the ability to give rise to all cell types found in a particular cancer sample. CSCs are therefore tumor-forming."  These are the creatures that chemo often fails to completely kill off.  "The population of CSCs, which gave rise to the tumor, could remain untouched and cause relapse."

 

• COLON CANCER AND SUGAR:  This is probably the type of cancer that has the greatest number of studies attesting to this unholy relationship.  Less than two months ago, BMC Cancer (High Blood Glucose Levels are Associated with Higher Risk of Colon Cancer in Men: A Cohort Study) stated what we already know.  "High levels of blood glucose are thought to be associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) and hyperinsulinemia, an interstage in the development of CRC."  Did their study show this to be true as many others have?  After looking at the records of 6,000 patients, 145 of whom developed CRC, the authors (from Sweeden's Lund University) concluded that "High levels of blood glucose in men are associated with risk of colon cancer."  According to the American Cancer Society, over 50,000 Americans are expected to die of colon cancer in 2018.

 

• BREAST CANCER AND SUGAR:  In October of last year, Cancer Prevention Research (Early Exposure to a High Fat/High Sugar Diet Increases the Mammary Stem Cell Compartment and Mammary Tumor Risk in Female Mice) showed that there are certain times in developing mouse pups that increased sugar intake dramatically increased their chances of developing BREAST CANCER.  My opinion is that this study needs to be repeated with sugar alone, as the crappy dietary fats used in many scientific studies are confounders.  Just days ago, Matrix Biology published a study called UDP-Sugar Accumulation Drives Hyaluronan Synthesis in Breast Cancer.  Listen to how this phenomenon affects an important component of connective tissues, including FASCIA, HYALURONIC ACID (Hyaluronan). "Increased uptake of glucose, a general hallmark of malignant tumors, leads to an accumulation of intermediate metabolites of glycolysis.  The results reveal for the first time a dramatic increase of UDP-sugars in breast cancer, and suggest that their high supply drives the accumulation of hyaluronan, a known promoter of breast cancer and other malignancies. In general, the study shows how the disturbed glucose metabolism typical for malignant tumors can influence cancer microenvironment through UDP-sugars and hyaluronan."  For more on this relationship, check out my post called FASCIA & CANCER.  It also helps explain why sugar is one of the major risk factors in the thickening of fascia known as "DENSIFICATION".  For the record, Breast Cancer dot org says that there will be 266,000 new cases of invasive breast cancer this year, with 41,000 individuals expected to die of the disease.

 

• LIVER CANCER AND SUGAR:  Primary Liver Cancer (PLC) --- cancer that starts in the liver, as opposed to cancer that ends up there due to metastasis from somewhere else --- carries a poor prognosis.  Last October's issue of the British Journal of Cancer (The Association Between Fasting Blood Glucose and the Risk of Primary Liver Cancer in Chinese Males...) carried a study by 17 Chinese researchers that followed almost 110,000 Chinese men for over a decade, determining that, "Compared to the males with normal fasting blood glucose, the males with impaired fasting glucose and diabetes had a 60% and a 58% higher risk of incident PLC, respectively.  Increased fasting blood glucose may be an important and potentially modifiable exposure that could have key scientific and clinical importance for preventing PLC development."  According to Cancer dot org, about 42,000 Americans are diagnosed with PLC each year, with about 75% of those dying.  Just last month the journal Cancer published a study on survival rates that concluded "Some progress has occurred in survival for patients with liver cancer, but 5-year survival remains low, even for those diagnosed at the localized stage."  BTW, the number one cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is obesity, both of which are heavily linked to liver cancer (primary and metastatic).

 

• SUGAR AND BLADDER CANCER:  This past November, the British Journal of Nutrition published an Italian / Canadian collaboration (Associations of Dietary Carbohydrates, Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load with Risk of Bladder Cancer) by a team of a dozen researchers showing that high glycemic index carbs (carbs that convert rapidly to blood sugar) are associated with increased risk of bladder cancer --- a disease that kills over 17,000 annually here in America, most of them men.  "This case-control study showed that bladder cancer risk was directly associated with high dietary glycemic load and with consumption of high quantity of refined carbohydrate foods, particularly bread. These associations were apparently stronger in subjects with low vegetable consumption."  BTW, pasta was listed just under bread.

 

• SUGAR AND GASTROESOPHAGEAL CANCERS:  A study from November's issue of the European Journal of Epidemiology (Dietary Sugar/Starches Intake and Barrett's Esophagus: A Pooled Analysis) showed that developing the pre-cancerous condition known as Barrett's Esophagus (BE) could be slowed down by controlling blood sugar.  "Adjusting for age, sex, race, total energy intake, study indicator, body mass index, frequency of gastro-esophageal reflux, and fruit/vegetable intake, both studies showed intake of sucrose [table sugar] and added sugar were higher in cases than controls. BE risk was increased 79% and 71%, respectively.  Intake of sweetened desserts/beverages was associated with 71% increase in BE risk. Limiting dietary intake of foods and beverages that are high in added sugar, especially refined table sugar, may reduce the risk of developing BE."  December's issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology (A Pooled Analysis of Dietary Sugar/Carbohydrate Intake and Esophageal and Gastric Cardia Adenocarcinoma Incidence and Survival in the USA) concluded that sugar is the reason that, "During the past 40 years, esophageal/gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (EA/GCA) incidence increased in Westernized countries, but survival remained low.  Limiting intake of sucrose, sweetened desserts / beverages, and foods that contribute to a high glycemic index, may be plausible EA risk reduction strategies."  Cancer dot net estimates that almost 16,000 Americans will die of Esophageal Cancer in 2018.

 

• SUGAR, STOMACH CANCER, AND THE WARBURG EFFECT:  The February 2016 issue of the World Journal of Gastroenterology (Glucose Metabolism in Gastric Cancer: The Cutting-Edge) revealed that, "Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide and ranks second in cancer-related deaths.  Glucose metabolism in gastric cancer cells differs from that of normal epithelial cells. Upregulated gycolosis (Warburg Effect) in gastric cancer meeting the demands of cell proliferation is associated with genetic mutations, epigenetic modification and proteomic alteration."  We know what GENETIC MUTATIONS are, and we've already discussed epigenetics --- but what are "proteomic alterations"?  This term indicates that cancer is deranging the stomach's protein structure, which often means that it will be trying to hijack the stomach's PROTON PUMP MECHANISM as well (in similar fashion to heartburn drugs), CREATING A LOW-ACID ENVIRONMENT in the stomach where H. Pylori (a bacteria associated with both gastritis and gastric cancers) can grow and thrive.  "Compared with normal cells that mainly generate energy via mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, cancer cells predominantly obtain energy via increased glycolysis even under aerobic conditions. Converting glucose into lactate via glycolysis is inefficient in generating ATP, but it produces a large number of intermediate products driving cell proliferation.  The accumulation of lactic acid causes acidic microenvironment, and has a protective effect on tumor cells.  The prognosis of advanced gastric cancer is still poor."  In the last link I show you the normal / healthy relationship (inverse relationship) between stomach pH and the pH of the body in general.

 

• OTHERS:  If you notice, these studies are all rather new (most no older than 3-4 months).  Had I spent the time or gone far enough back, I could have come up with any number of others.   Bottom line: find me a disease --- any disease, including cancer --- and in some form or fashion it can usually be linked back to BLOOD SUGAR.
  

The last study specifically mentioned above (WJG) contains one tidbit of information that everyone and his brother (and maybe even your pets -- no pun intended) should be familiar with.  Pay attention, because if you ever have a doctor trying to brush aside the assertion that sugar has nothing to do with cancer, bringing up this paragraph will cause copious amounts of stuttering, stammering, blushing, frowning, growling, and hopefully, backpedaling.

"Altered glucose metabolism is a hallmark of gastric cancer.  About 80 years after Warburg presented his hypothesis on aberrant glucose metabolism in cancer cells, his viewpoint has been confirmed using positron emission tomography (PET) with the glucose analog tracer in clinical oncology.  Based on the increased glucose uptake in cancer cells, PET/CT scan can reflect cancer cell glucose metabolism using 18F-FDG as a tracer and has been widely used in the diagnosis and monitoring of human cancers. 18F-FDG is the most commonly used radio-labeled glucose analog in clinical practice."

When I plugged the term "18F-FDG" into PubMed, I saw that there were over 28,000 studies on this specific subject.  Read that again and let it sink in.  It's why no one knows better than cancer doctors that sugar feeds cancer.  PET Scans (a type of CT SCAN which are actually themselves a significant cause of cancer) use glucose laced with a radioactive dye ("tracer") to make it 'glow' on the CT Scan.  Because tumors or areas of metastasis metabolically require mass quantities of sugar (anaerobic metabolism is 1,300% less efficient than aerobic metabolism), they appear as "hot spots" on the scan (HERE) as the cancer sucks up glucose the way that Joey Chestnut sucks up hotdogs (HERE).   Thus, when a cancer doctor or website of a cancer treatment facility says that dietary sugar doesn't matter in the big scheme of things, it can't be chalked up to 'Aw shucks, I wasn't aware of that'.  It can only be classified as lying.

How is your metabolism being hijacked by sugar?  In May of 2016, Oncotarget (Role of Multifaceted Regulators in Cancer Glucose Metabolism and their Clinical Significance) provided a number of the different metabolites / pathways that are affected by as well as affecting the process.  "Aberrant glucose metabolism or 'Warburg effect' is a hallmark of human cancers. There is a cluster of 'multifaceted regulators, which plays a pivotal role in the regulation of glucose metabolism."  Although I found numerous studies listing more of these regulators and intermediates than you can shake a stick at, I'll only bother to talk about one; AGES.  AGES (Advance Glycation Endproducts) are a significant factor in tumorgenesis as confirmed by a study from November's issue of Seminars in Cancer Biology (Do All Roads Lead to Rome? The Glycation Perspective).  Just remember that glycation is the process that causes the tissue damage done by sugar. After kicking things off by saying "...glycative stress has gained substantial attention recently for... alleged influence on cancer progression," the authors talk about many of the complex pathways that get taken hostage by the process.  The bottom line is that it can all be tied back to INFLAMMATION due to over-consumption of sugar and processed carbohydrates.

Few things tick me off more than big fraud in big industry.  And as I have shown you in OVER FIFTY POSTS, the problem is rampant and getting worse instead of better.  You can cut off one of Hydra's heads, but with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake annually, two rapidly grow back to take it's place.  In other words, in far too many industries the potential rewards are worth the risks.  I twice wrote about this phenomenon concerning the sugar industry (they paid scientists from Ivy League and other big time universities to fake research, which  was then published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals --- HERE and HERE).  Below are a few sentences concerning "Project 259" from the November issue of PLoS Biology (Sugar Industry Sponsorship of Germ-Free Rodent Studies Linking Sucrose to Hyperlipidemia and Cancer: An Historical Analysis of Internal Documents).

"In 1965, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) secretly funded a review in the New England Journal of Medicine that discounted evidence linking sucrose consumption to blood lipid levels [CHOLESTEROL & TRIGLYCERIDES] and hence coronary heart disease (CHD).  A study comparing conventional rats fed a high-sugar diet to those fed a high-starch diet suggested that sucrose consumption might be associated with... bladder cancer in humans. SRF terminated Project 259 without publishing the results."

They got away with it folks.  Unfortunately, not publishing study results you don't like is so common in industry that it has its own moniker --- INVISIBLE & ABANDONED.  It also happens to be why I am the current world record holder for consecutively made free throws (HERE).  But seriously, aren't you curious about what else you might not be aware of concerning the sugar / cancer relationship?  Don't you wonder why the medical profession is not talking about Dr. Warburg?   Why not take ten minutes to read The Warburg Effect: 80 Years On from the journal Biochemical Society Transactions?  Or maybe you would like The Warburg Effect as an Adaptation of Cancer Cells to Rapid Fluctuations in Energy Demand from September's issue of PLoS One?  As the quote from the top of the page said, "The Warburg Effect has been documented for over 90 years with thousands of papers reporting to have established either its causes or its functions."  In other words folks, the jig is up.  There are no more excuses for doctors not sharing this information with their patients!

How detrimental are the effects of sugar on cancer treatment?  A study from the Polish journal, Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig (Glycemic Load and Carbohydrates Content in the Diets of Cancer Patients) revealed that after following the diets of "100 cancer patients aged 19-83 years, high glycemic load was observed in 76% of analyzed diets. The diets of men had higher glycemic load, energy and sucrose content than the diets of women. Men, in comparison to women, consumed more refined grain products, beverages, honey and sugar, and sweets  Analyzed diets were characterized by high glycemic load and simple sugars content. Men consumed more refined and sweetened products than women. The improvement of knowledge about proper nutrition is needed in... cancer patients."  Now ask yourself this.  Do you really believe that diets are better in the US than in Europe?   Not one chance in a million!

How can anyone, whether mainstream or ALTERNATIVE, successfully treat cancer, while consuming this much sugar?  That's just it; they can't.  This can be seen in several studies showing that drugs don't work well when one is consuming this mass quantities of sugar.  A study from the British Journal of Pharmacology (The Warburg Effect and Drug Resistance) showed shows why.  It also showed that the mainstream medical community knew of this almost a century ago!

"In 1924, Otto Warburg reported the observation that cancer cells used glycolysis more than mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation for their energy requirements.  More recently, data have emerged indicating that the Warburg effect could also influence drug efficacy.  Attrition rates for anticancer drugs are high compared with other therapeutic areas.  The fact that the effectiveness of drugs is tested in models that poorly simulate the tumour microenvironment should be considered as it is also likely to have a role in the attrition."

This is especially true of chemotherapy.  A study from the October issue of Anticancer Research (Effect of Hyperglycemia on Antitumor Activity and Survival in Tumor-bearing Mice Receiving Oxaliplatin and Fluorouracil) showed that, "Cancer chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and fluorouracil was less effective and survival was shorter in hyperglycemia."  Likewise, research from the November issue of the same journal (A Simple Method to Optimize the Effectiveness of Chemotherapy: Modulation of Glucose Intake During Chemotherapy) revealed that "the modulation of glucose intake during chemotherapy" could make said therapy far more effective. "The proposed scheme is simple, surely easier to follow than a strict chronic diet, and should avoid weight loss."

I guess the bottom line is that when it comes to cancer; whether talking prevention or treatment, you need to modify your immediate risk factors.  Everyone knows that things like SMOKING, OBESITY, CHEMICAL EXPOSURE, etc, are risk factors for cancer, but what about modifying intake of sugar and high glycemic (processed) carbohydrates?  The September issue of the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (Prevalence of Modifiable Cancer Risk Factors Among U.S. Adults Aged 18-44 Years) stated that "Carcinogen exposure and unhealthy habits acquired in young adulthood can set the stage for the development of cancer at older ages."  Among the 'preventative factors' listed included not consuming "sugar-sweetened beverages daily."  A starting point I guess, but rather wimpy in light of today's post.  Let me to show you something that's not wimpy.

Although I would never in a million years claim that I have the cure for cancer, I have a good generic protocol that's helpful for restoring health and preventing the loss of HOMEOSTASIS that can lead to so many chronic conditions (HERE).  I would also suggest that you start exploring the KETOGENIC DIET as well since it forces the body to burn fat instead of sugar (and be sure to watch the incredible anti-cancer video at the end of THIS POST).  As always, the research quoted in this post is cherry-picked, and nothing I write is meant to diagnose, treat, or cure anything, cancer included.  The FDA says.....