A couple days ago Samantha Nelson wrote an article for USA Today titled Study Finds Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity is Not Imagined.  She started the article by saying something I actually experienced on Friday in my clinic.  Although I had one patient who had been diagnosed with NON-CELIAC GLUTEN SENSITIVITY that the doctors had actually tested for, I had another who had been treated more like a hypochondriac than anything else, never given a diagnosis.  She eventually used my website to diagnose herself, largely solving her problems.  Why did this happen?   Nelson hit the nail on the head when she wrote, "As gluten-free diets become popular, many critics of the trend say gluten and wheat allergies or sensitivity are imagined."   Unfortunately, ignoring those who do not test positive for Celiac Disease is an all too COMMON PHENOMENON (or HERE or HERE).

The study Nelson was writing about, published in this month's issue of the medical journal Gut (Intestinal Cell Damage and Systemic Immune Activation in Individuals Reporting Sensitivity to Wheat in the Absence of Celiac Disease), had any number of interesting things to say on the topic.  We will get to them, but first I want to talk a bit more about Nelson's article as it relates to those without Celiac, who nonetheless have issues with wheat (Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity or NCGS).  Nelson writes.....

"A recently released study found that the uncomfortable symptoms some people experience after eating wheat and related products aren’t in their heads, but in their intestines.  The study's findings suggest that those who experience symptoms such as abdominal pain, bloating and fatigue after eating wheat and related products have a weakened intestinal barrier."

A weakened intestinal barrier?  Might this be talking about the INCREASED INTESTINAL PERMEABILITY better known by its layman's term --- Leaky Gut Syndrome?  Of course that's what's being discussed here!  For those who are not aware, Leaky Gut Syndrome is the hallmark of many CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY DEGENERATIVE DISEASES --- most particularly AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES (either link will give you a list of the diseases we are talking about).  Furthermore, it was the brilliant dentist, Royal Lee, who first wrote about the connection between Autoimmunity, LGS, and Gluten Sensitivity clear back in the 1930's (HERE).  Before we go any further, I want to show you the definition given by Nelson of what Celiac Disease really is, and how it relates to NCGS (everything is cherry-picked).

"Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder that damages the small intestine of an individual upon eating gluten. Those with NCGS experience symptoms similar to celiac disease but lack the blood, tissue and genetic markers that come with the autoimmune disorder.   An explanation for NCGS offers that exposure to wheat, rye or barley grains sets off a severe systemic immune response instead of a localized immune response in the intestine.  The researchers discovered that although the NCGS group did not have cytotoxic T cells found in those with celiac disease, they had markers of intestinal cellular damage related to a severe systemic immune activation."

Let's slightly shift gears for a moment.  When it comes to digestion, everything is about creating surface area.  Allow me to explain.  The small intestine is a tube that is about as big around as your finger and somewhere between 21 and 23 feet long.  However, if you could spread out its inside surface area, it would cover a tennis court.  In other words, because of its AMAZINGLY-DESIGNED internal structure, the surface area on the inside of your small intestine allows a 23 foot tube to function as the equivalent of being almost 2.5 miles long.  It's all due to the anatomical structures known as Villi and Microvilli.  Let me explain what Villi and Microvilli do by giving you an example from the United Arab Emirates city of Dubai.

It's no revelation that people want to live on the water.  In the desert city of Dubai, there is only so much coastline, making it some very expensive real estate.  With people clamoring for ocean-front property and willing to pay big bucks for it, investors needed a way to come up with more of it --- lots more of it.  Thus the creation of the Palm Islands.  To make the Palm Islands, sand was dredged up from the floor of the ocean (the Persian Gulf) and formed into long finger-like islands, with a ring of sand islands around the entire outside (see below left).  What did this do?  It created a huge amount of space (surface area) for people to pay big bucks to live on the water.

The Villi and Microvilli work in similar fashion.  Imagine millions of tiny finger-like projections into the lumen (the space inside the tube) of the small intestine, each of which are covered with similar but smaller finger-like projections.  The Villi are about a millimeter long (i.e they can barely be seen with the naked eye), with the Microvilli being about 1 micrometer in length, or 1/1,000th of a millimeter (extremely microscopic).  The resultant surface area allows much more work (in this case DIGESTION and absorption of nutrients) to get done much quicker.

The most well-known feature of Celiac Disease is that it atrophies and destroys the villous mucosal lining of the small intestine.  This leads not only to Villi / Microvilli that don't work properly, but a swelling / thickening of the crypts between them.  Because surface area is dramatically affected (decreased), there is not nearly as much digestion and absorption taking place as their should be. As you have probably figured out, this isn't a good thing.

Furthermore, due to CHRONIC SYSTEMIC INFLAMMATION, the gaps between the cells of the lining of the small intestine expand.  This causes a "leakiness," allowing all sorts of things access to the blood stream that would normally be kept out (bacteria, PARASITES, YEAST, large fragments of partially digested or undigested food, etc).   As it is supposed to, the Immune System recognizes these particles as foreign invaders and mounts responses against them.  Huge amounts of this process are driven by an AUTOIMMUNE RESPONSE to GLUTEN --- the protein found in wheat, rye, and barley --- against one's own small intestine.

As you might guess, because digestion and absorption are so fouled up, the symptoms of Celiac Disease are a veritable grab-bag (HERE is a extremely scary example), going far beyond what most people think of when they think of gluten-related problems --- typically IBS, bloating, and gas .  And although there are now blood tests for Celiac Disease, the gold-standard for diagnosis remains the intestinal biopsy.  The problem is, diagnosis of Celiac (let alone NCGS) is not always very easy or accurate.  According to Wikipedia (which cited 10 studies in this short paragraph)........

"Diagnosis is typically made by a combination of blood antibody tests and intestinal biopsies, helped by specific genetic testing.  Making the diagnosis is not always straightforward.  Frequently, the autoantibodies in the blood are negative and many people have only minor intestinal changes with normal villi. People may have severe symptoms and be investigated for years before a diagnosis is achieved.  Increasingly, the diagnosis is being made in people without symptoms as a result of screening."

Because Gluten and Leaky Gut are so commonly seen in those with chronic and difficult to explain illnesses (or sometimes in people who are for all intents and purposes, asymptomatic), and because the tests for NCGS (and even Celiac Disease for that matter) are not what they have been made out to be, I always suggest an ELIMINATION DIET over testing.  Why?  If you do it correctly, the Elimination Diet is far more accurate, accounts for CROSS REACTORS, FODMAPS, and even nightshades, and doesn't cost you anything.  If you go all-in do it right the first time, it's done.  You'll get the information you need as far as food sensitivities are concerned, and like I said, it won't cost you anything to do it.

The study from Gut (it was done at New York's Columbia University) and also had something to say about this phenomenon of Gluten's diagnostic difficulty.  "Some individuals experience a range of symptoms in response to wheat ingestion, without the characteristic serological or histological evidence of coeliac disease. The etiology and mechanism of these symptoms are unknown, and no biomarkers have been identified.  In contrast to coeliac disease, investigations of small intestine biopsies in NCGS subjects in this and other studies have not found villous atrophy or mucosal architectural abnormalities, even if significant inflammatory changes are seen."  Because there are not biomarkers, this is where things can start getting crazy.

We know that according to peer-review, Celiac is associated with any number of Autoimmune Diseases --- one of the most common being those of the THYROID.  We also know that Celiac Disease is an Autoimmune reaction against one's own small intestine.  But what if your body could undergo gluten-induced autoimmune reactions against other tissues as well?  Listen to what that bastion of truth, Wikipedia, has to say about this phenomenon.  "Celiac Disease is associated with other autoimmune diseases, such as diabetes mellitus type 1 and thyroiditis, among others.  Upon exposure to gluten, an abnormal immune response may lead to the production of several different autoantibodies that can affect a number of different organs."   What about making antibodies against one's own BRAIN?

All you have to do is to look at the "scary" example I gave you earlier to see that this is not only possible, but exceedingly common.  Again, from Wikipedia.  "Celiac disease is associated with.... cerebellar ataxia, peripheral neuropathy, schizophrenia, and autism."  Now, realize that ALL OF THESE AND MANY MORE can occur without having Celiac Disease.  The reality is that NCGS can be just as bad --- or sometimes even worse --- than having Celiac.

The truth is, gluten can fire up autoimmune reactions to any number of tissues, cells, enzymes, proteins, etc, within the body that have nothing whatsoever to do with the small intestine.  The problem is, we haven't really figured out fail-safe methods of testing for them yet.  This is why people with certain genetic traits, a family history of chronic illness, or unexplained illnesses in themselves, need to take a long hard look at Gluten as a causal or contributing factor (NOT THIS WAY).

In fact, those of you who are really struggling can go a step further.  Want to see what else you can do to potentially solve this problem.  Take a look at THESE POSTS.  No; I realize that not all of it will pertain to each person reading this post.  However, it is a good starting point, and the information may prove invaluable in light of the MEDICAL MERRY-GO-ROUND you've been riding for the past who-knows-how-long.

If you've followed the section of my site filed under "EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE," you are aware that for quite some time I've been showing you that medical research, as well as medical practice itself, is often anything but.  A recent article in Vox (The 7 Biggest Problems Facing Science, According to 270 Scientists) has put fresh legs to this fact.  Enter Julia Belluz, Brad Plumer and Brian Resnick.

The three authors sent out a survey to scientists around the world asking them what single thing they would change in their profession.  They heard back from 270 of them.  Their top-seven list was largely made up of points that I myself have been trying to make for the better part of three decades.  The top complaint won't surprise you a bit --- science is whatever the person with the most money says it is.  In simpler terms, the highest bidder runs the show; probably why the authors concluded, "based on our survey, funding appears to be at the root of many of the problems facing scientists."

"To do most any kind of research, scientists need money.  The way money is handed out puts pressure on labs to publish a lot of papers, breeds conflicts of interest, and encourages scientists to overhype their work."  Overhyped?  You don't say.  This is something I have written about over and over again (links to follow later).  And as for CONFLICT OF INTEREST, the relationship between BIG PHARMA, our UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, and government (can anyone say FDA?) is frequently nothing short of incestuous. 

BRIBERY is the norm, although it's not usually done with straight cash handouts.   The money is 'laundered' the very same ways our politicians do it --- via speaking fees, consulting fees, outrageous Per Diems, under the table, etc, etc, etc.  And as for financial COA's, the authors tell us what most of us already knew about concerning the field of NUTRITION --- yet another of the arenas that the medical community either chooses to ignore, or gives out information that is OUTDATED and literally 180 degrees backwards. "Much of nutrition science, for instance, is funded by the food industry — an inherent conflict of interest. And the vast majority of drug clinical trials are funded by drug makers."  It's no wonder those who understand how things really work have lost faith in the system to look out for their best interests and protect them.

The authors go on to state that, "Scientists often learn more from studies that fail. But failed studies can mean career death. So instead, they’re incentivized to generate positive results they can publish."  But what do we do here in America with "failed" studies?  We bury them in hopes that they never see the light of day.  This practice is so common that it actually has a name --- INVISIBLE & ABANDONED RESEARCH.  When studies that don't turn out they way the drug company hoped they would, they are either ditched prior to completion or simply not published.  Either way said research dies a quiet death, while perpetually skewing results to always make products or procedures look better and safer than they really are.  

Along these same lines, the authors discussed poorly designed studies.  Be aware that this is a sleight of hand that's usually done on purpose in order to pull the wool over people's eyes.  My favorite (simple) example of this phenomenon is THE CUPCAKE STUDY.  Just remember that when research is criticized for being poorly designed, the poor design is rarely by accident.  Why?  "Many of our survey respondents noted that perverse incentives push scientists to cut corners in how they analyze their data."  This commonly used tactic is widely known as "DATA MINING" and is another of the many ways you can make study results say whatever you want them to say.  What are the consequences of Data Mining?  For one, you have people who are wildly excited and optimistic over things they should literally be terrified of (HERE is a great example).  But it goes much deeper than this.  Listen to the authors....

"The consequences are staggering. An estimated $200 billion — or the equivalent of 85 percent of global spending on research — is routinely wasted on poorly designed and redundant studies, according to meta-researchers who have analyzed inefficiencies in research. We know that as much as 30 percent of the most influential original medical research papers later turn out to be wrong or exaggerated."

In case that didn't hit you upside the head like a sledge hammer, re-read it until it does.  But the fun and games don't end there.  One of the things that makes science "scientific" is that because research results are true, they can be validated / verified or falsified by repeating the experiment.  Would it shock you to learn that huge numbers of studies cannot be replicated?  "A landmark study published in the journal Science demonstrated that only a fraction of recent findings in top psychology journals could be replicated. This is happening in other fields too."  

Scientific journals don't like to publish studies that repeat previous research.  The authors said that the chief reason for this, "is to discourage scientists from checking each other's work."  It's sort of like used to happen do in school when you and your best friend graded each other's math homework.  Even though you may both have been complete dunces mathematically speaking, you always seemed to get 100% on your homework assignments.  This phenomenon is very similar to their next bullet point --- peer review.

Peer review is the process of having a board of your "peers" look at research prior to publishing and see if it has problems. If all appears well, the research is accepted for publication.  Sounds simple doesn't it?  Yet this was the point the authors said, "over and over again in our survey, respondents told us this process fails. It was one of the parts of the scientific machinery to elicit the most rage among the researchers we heard from."  According to those who know best (scientists), it seems that peer review is full of bias, jealousy, procrastination, then sloppily rushing things through as deadline appears, are the norm.  The result?  "Numerous studies and systematic reviews have shown that peer review doesn’t reliably prevent poor-quality science from being published.  I think peer review is, like democracy, bad, but better than anything else."  Which brings us to the next point --- the cost of purchasing studies for your own research needs.

As someone who likes to put my money where my mouth is by backing up what I write about with current research (HERE is a great example concerning Autism), I hate the fact that, "too much science is locked behind paywalls"  In other words, numerous journals don't provide anything other than abstracts unless you pay for the study.  At $30 to $50 bucks a pop, who can afford it?  "A single article in Science will set you back $30; a year-long subscription to Cell will cost $279. Elsevier publishes 2,000 journals that can cost up to $10,000 or $20,000 a year for a subscription.  Journalist John Bohannon recently described the plight of a PhD candidate at a top university in Iran. He calculated that the student would have to spend $1,000 a week just to read the papers he needed."  What does this ultimately mean for science?  Frequently it means that doctors are not staying abreast of the latest scientific literature, leading them to conclusions that are half a century behind the times (HERE and HERE are two of hundreds of examples).  Unfortunately, when science actually does get thing correct, they are not good at letting the public know about it in ways that can be understood.

The sixth point the authors make is that, "Science is poorly communicated to the public.  Far too often, there are less than 10 people on this planet who can fully comprehend a single scientist's research."  This lack of communication is not only due to an inability to communicate, but something the authors mentioned earlier --- overhyping their results via outrageous claims and press releases  that are purposely made to look like legitimate news stories.  They went on to discuss a couple of last year's infamous debacles ---- "The University of Maryland issued a press release claiming that a single brand of chocolate milk could improve concussion recovery.  One review in BMJ found that one-third of university press releases contained either exaggerated claims of causation (when the study itself only suggested correlation), unwarranted implications about animal studies for people, or unfounded health advice."  It's why I have dealt with Press Releases on my site at least twice (HERE and HERE).

I'll not take the time to cover the author's seventh point, having to do with the fact that life as a researcher --- particularly a recent grad ---- is "stressful".  What can I say?  Life is stressful.  But allow me to give you a tiny glimpse into the reason(s) these seven issues are such a huge problem by using four of our medical community's most popular drugs and procedures --- true sacred cows if you will --- as examples.  Testing procedures, Vaccinations, Antibiotics and Statin Drugs.

What happens when we can't trust our medical research?  We end up with entire classes of medications and procedures that are not scientifically valid (HERE).  This is because not only does the medical profession via their sponsor --- Big Pharma --- lie and cheat when it comes to much of their research, but beyond that, they simply ignore whatever they don't like or agree with.  One of the biggest areas this is seen in concern examinations.  When it comes to common testing procedures (PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS, WOMEN'S ANNUALS, CT SCANS, COLONOSCOPIES, MAMMOGRAMS, PROSTATE EXAMS, etc, etc, etc), what are we told?  We are told that these procedures save lives and if we don't regularly receive them, we are likely to die in an untimely fashion.  This is such a well known "fact" that few people question such recommendations.  But a quick click on the links shows that despite the hubris surrounding this topic, the research has been clear for years -- in some cases for decades.  The truth is that due to a phenomenon known as OVERDIAGNOISIS & OVERTREATMENT, these tests are not saving lives --- or at least not to the degree we have been told.

This brings us to Vaccinations.  Everyone knows how great vaccinations are.  After all, it was VACCINATIONS and Antibiotics, that according to LBJ's "Great Society," were going to wipe sickness and disease off the face of the planet.  Some of our vaccinations have obviously helped with this.  Because of a few successes, the resultant cry for more vaccinations and "forced vaccination" is becoming increasingly loud.  Just a few days ago, Slate ran an article by Phoebe Day Danziger and Rebekah Diamond (medical students) called The Vaccination Double Standard: Despite Years of Research, There’s No Good Way to Convince Anti-vaxxers of the Truth --- It’s Time to Make Vaccination Mandatory for All Kids.  Why don't parents want their kids to receive the government-mandated schedule of vaccines?  According to these extremely pro-vaccination authors.....

"The roots of the anti-vaccination movement are deep and multifaceted. There is mistrust of the medical establishment and its historically unseemly ties with large industry. There is awareness of the long history of unethical conduct in both scientific research and everyday medical practice, which has led often to the exploitation of vulnerable populations. There is, above all, a profound discontent with the current medical and cultural landscape, marked by over-medicalization of normal processes; nonholistic care fixated on signs and syndromes rather than whole people shaped by their social, emotional, and physical environments; a national food system that relies on the industrial and heavily processed; and broad social and economic policies that fail to support children, families, and communities."

I've shown you repeatedly (HERE and HERE are two of them) that our vaccination policies as they exist today are not only over-hyped (see my earlier link on Flu Vaccines), but are causing us to trade yesterday's childhood illness --- illnesses that most kids got and got over without any sort of medical intervention (developing their immune systems in the process), for today's epidemics of AUTOIMMUNE and CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY DEGENERATIVE DISEASES. 

And really; where will it end?  Big Pharma currently has OVER 300 VACCINES in R&D --- some of them actually designed to create autoimmune reactions within your body such as THIS ONE or THIS ONE.  The vaccination issue is such a hot-button issue right now, there is no way an American dare publish anything contrary to the status quo.  if you don't toe the line when it comes to your research, you can kiss your career --- no matter how illustrious ---- goodbye (HERE).  Which brings us to the next leg of the journey; antibiotics. 

Proper use of ANTIBIOTICS has undoubtedly saved countless lives.  However, on the other end of the spectrum, their overuse has proved to be horrendously harmful.  If you flip through my content filed under GUT HEALTH (LGS, DYSBIOSIS, etc), you'll quickly realize that antibiotics are a double-edged sword that have decimated our collective health as severely as almost anything other than our national SUGAR ADDICTION.  Despite the medical research community continuing to shout this fact from the roof tops, little changes.  It's one of the big reasons I've told you that the gap between the two sides of medicine (research and practice) is the size of the Grand Canyon (HERE).

And finally we get to STATIN DRUGS.  Without going into incredible detail, suffice it to say that Statins are not all they seem.  There are any number of EXPERTS or scientists from other countries (HERE) who have been beating the drum that not only are Statin Drugs not safe, they don't even begin to get to the source of the problem of clogged arteries ---- INFLAMMATION.   But one thing is for certain --- they are a cash cow!

This article is yet another indictment as to the reasons we can't trust science to be unbiased ---- especially not with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake.  Even though the authors of today's article say that it's all going to be OK eventually, right now things are bad --- far worse than the general public has any real idea of.  And frankly, that's exactly how Big Pharma wants things.  If you are looking to break free from the chains of Big Pharma, get off the MEDICAL MERRY-GO-ROUND, and GET YOUR LIFE BACK, for many of you it's as simple as following the information on THIS POST.

"The benefits of knee repair procedures in older adults for painful arthritic knee or torn meniscus are short-lived and “inconsequential” compared with the potential harms. Older patients who have knee pain but do not have osteoarthritis - a chronic disease of the joint cartilage and bone - should not be recommended the procedure."  Sabriya Rice from Modern Healthcare

According to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, there are 719,000 total knee replacements done each year in the United States.  And this doesn't count the millions of arthroscopies (scopes) that doctors do.  In light of what science has revealed over the past decade, this is way too many surgically-repaired knees.  And here's the thing; the medical community knows this but still continues these surgeries unabated.  My goal is to help you halt --- or at least dramatically slow down --- your current knee problem before it gets to that point.  It's not like any of this is new information.

Back in September of 2008, the New England Journal of Medicine published twin studies showing the same thing ---- that there are way too many knee arthroscopies taking place here in the US.  The two categories that these unnecessary surgeries were taking place in?  OSTEOARTHRITIS (Degenerative Arthritis) and MENISCUS TEARS.  The most prestigious journal for orthopedic surgeons (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery) followed this up in 2011 with Increase in Outpatient Knee Arthroscopy in the United States: A Comparison of National Surveys of Ambulatory Surgery....  This study showed that knee scopes in America were, "more than twofold higher than in England or Ontario, Canada, in 2006. Our study found that nearly half of the knee arthroscopic procedures were performed for meniscal tears."  And now this....

This month's issue of the British Medical Journal (Exercise Therapy Versus arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy for Degenerative Meniscal Tear in Middle Aged Patients) agreed.   The authors started the ball rolling by saying that in the middle-aged population (average age, 49.5 --- exactly my age), "most meniscal tears are degenerative and might be regarded as the first sign of osteoarthritis".  What should this statement lead you to ask?  It should leave you wondering if it is possible to prevent --- or even reverse --- arthritis symptoms or meniscus tears.  We'll get there, but first I want to discuss a sentence found in this study.

The authors state that, "Considering the large amount of surgery performed worldwide, and the inconsequential short term additional pain relief seen from surgery in addition to exercise, randomised controlled trials are needed to explore the comparative treatment effect of partial meniscectomy alone with supervised exercise therapy alone."  Did you catch that?  The pain relief from knee surgery is "inconsequential".   They backed this statement up by citing a significant number of similar studies showing that arthroscopic surgery on knees for arthritis or meniscal tears does not work well --- a fact I have noted in my clinic for decades.  Here is what was done in this particular study.

"In the exercise group, 61% of participants completed the exercise therapy program (25 sessions on average) with satisfactory or excellent compliance.   19% in the exercise group crossed over to receive surgical treatment between three and 16 months. Of these, approximately half had completed at least 19 exercise sessions.   Owing to persistent knee pain and catching of the knee 3% in the meniscectomy group were reoperated on, and one participant who had crossed over underwent another operation six months after the primary operation."

The surgical group underwent PHYSICAL THERAPY but not a strengthening protocol per se.  Thus, when comparing groups of people who received knee scopes to those who underwent strengthening protocols only, we saw that, "No clinically relevant difference was found between the two groups at two years.  Exercise therapy showed positive effects over surgery in improving thigh muscle strength, at least in the short term. Our results should encourage clinicians and middle aged patients with degenerative meniscal tear and no definitive radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis to consider supervised exercise therapy as a treatment option."

But make no mistake about it, it wasn't all champagne and roses for either group of participants in this study --- surgical or strengthening alone.  Here's the proof that you are better off preventing  arthritis that trying to do something about it after the fact.

"From baseline to the two year follow-up, 23% of the participants in each group experienced pain, swelling, instability, stiffness, or decreased range of motion in the index knee that was serious enough to seek consultation. Similar symptoms in the opposite knee were experienced by 21% of participants in the exercise group and 14% in the meniscectomy group."

This is an important study because it shows yet again that exercise is virtually indistinguishable from arthrosocpy for the two most common knee problems.  Why is this such a big deal to grasp?  Firstly, because we know that the incidence of KNEE PROBLEMS is literally exploding here in America (HERE).  And secondly, STUDIES HAVE REVEALED that if you have your knee scoped (even if there is no surgery done), your chances of developing arthritis skyrocket after only one year.  Fortunately for most of you with knee problems / pain, there's a better solution.

Are you interested in getting your knee(s) better without dangerous or invasive procedures or products?  There are large numbers of practitioners of all sorts who are selling knee pain relief with huge up-front case fees.   Want to hear something really cool?  Most of you can do these protocols on your own.  The doubly cool thing is that it won't really cost you anything other than some time, energy, and effort.  Follow the blueprint found in THIS POST to see how most of you can solve your own knee pain.  Always remember; not making changes until they are forced to is the typical way that the practice of medicine works, and why the "BEST EVIDENCE" is either not followed or anything but.

Chiropractors are an interesting lot.  They typically spend a lot of time talking about "maintenance," yet all too frequently, don't seem to understand what this term really means (HERE).  What it doesn't mean is lots and lots of visits simply because ENDLESS ADJUSTMENTS are the only thing that seems to help you.  The problem is, the adjustments (or THERAPY for that matter) never seem to last very long, and the problem always returns in the exact same way.  If you want to get off the MEDICAL MERRY-GO-ROUND and get out of pain, pay attention.  Here is a quick threebie for you --- particularly those of you struggling with CHRONIC NECK PAIN and / or HEADACHES.

• SOLVE THE INFLAMMATION:  Let me start by saying that inflammation is a vital and necessary part of any healing process (HERE).  Unfortunately, Inflammation (aka "itis") always (that's "always" as in always) leads to Scar Tissue (HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE). Thus, if you can't at least diminish the amount of CHRONIC SYSTEMIC INFLAMMATION coursing through your body (hopefully without drugs like THESE or THESE), fixing your problem is much more likely to be a non-starter.  Although a PALEO DIET is the first step in the process, depending on what is driving the inflammation in your body and how severe your problems are, you might need to GO A STEP OR TWO FURTHER.

• INITIATE FIBROBLASTIC ACTIVITY:  Fibroblasts are the cells that manufacture the collagen that becomes new soft tissues (BONES, MUSCLES, LIGAMENTS, TENDONS, FASCIA). Although you can accomplish this on some level with certain types of exercises or stretches; in order to stimulate Fibroblastic activity, your mode of treatment might need to have some "BITE" to it.  To learn more about the importance of Fibroblasts, take a look at THIS and THIS. Just be aware that initiating Fibroblastic activity is like playing the HIGH STRIKER CARNIVAL GAME --- you are either ringing the bell or you aren't.  There is no middle ground.

• CAUSE TISSUE DEFORMATION:  This last point strikes directly at the heart of what I discussed in the opening paragraph.  Contrary to WHAT SOME MIGHT SUGGEST,  numerous people with hardcore serious problems are not going to solve their pain and restriction by getting adjusted over and over and over again --- particularly if their problem's foundation is the SCAR TISSUE that the medical community commonly refers to as "FIBROSIS".  You are going to have to do some stretching.  The problem is that in order to cause restricted connective tissue to elongate ("TISSUE DEFORMATION"), you are going to have to hold stretches longer than you ever thought --- way longer.  To understand what I am talking about, follow the link.

Don't get me wrong; there are other reasons people have CHRONIC PAIN and dysfunction (HERE'S AN ALL TOO COMMON ONE).  However, for people who not only have pain, but a significant amount of joint restriction, this post will provide a good starting point.  And here's the kicker --- you've already tried EVERYTHING ELSE.   Hey; if covering symptoms with DANGEROUS DRUGS actually worked, you wouldn't be reading this post at 3:00 am.  The only way to actually "SOLVE" health issues is to get to the root cause --- something our medical community has not proved very adept at in many cases.

Huge themes in the Bible are forgetfulness and remembrance (i.e. forgetting or remembering what God has done for you). Isn't it interesting how as a society we tend to forget?  One of the many forgotten aspects of health --- although it's been making a comeback as of late --- pertains to GUT HEALTH.   Never forget that the health of your digestive tract, will, to a large degree, determine your overall health.  We shouldn't be surprised considering that the Gut is where a whopping 80% of your body's Immune System resides (HERE), largely being made up of bacteria. 

The people of bygone eras understood this quite well.  Not only was an enema one of the first forms of treatment against a wide array of health issues, but until about 50 or 60 years ago, it was that way in our hospitals as well.  Talk to some old-timers.  They'll tell you that virtually no matter why you were admitted to the hospital, the first thing you got was an enema. Why?  Doctors had not yet forgotten that the body's ability to heal is directly proportionate to what what's going on in the Gut.  My how things have changed.

Because we live in a society that has been brainwashed to believe that the practice of medicine must always be high-tech and involve lots of DRUGS AND DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, not only are enemas not done in the average hospital setting today, they are looked upon with eye-rolls by the average practitioner.  When might an enema or colonic be a good idea for those not so inclined to follow a "medicine-first" approach?  Follow along as I walk you through a primer on Gut Health.

Both ANTIBIOTICS and NUMEROUS OTHER DRUGS destroy the good bacteria that make up what's commonly referred to as your "MICROBIOME".  When you have an abnormal ratio of 'good' bacteria to 'bad' bacteria (or other organisms such as YEAST, MOLD, PARASITES, etc, etc), the end result is something called "DYSBIOSIS".  Although doctors certainly check for acute infections such as C. DIFF, they do not care much about Dysbiosis (which are technically chronic infections), nor do they test for it even though there are some great tests out there (the link on parasites tells you how said testing is done).  Why not?  Because, as I just showed you, most Dysbiosis begins with a medical intervention --- usually in the form of drugs.  Once you understand what dysbiotic infections eat, you can start thinking about defeating them.

If you want to dry Dysbiosis up at it's source, you'll have to quit feeding it.  Unfortunately, if you are a dysbiotic bacteria living in the average American Gut, every day is Thanksgiving and Christmas combined.  Allow me to explain.  In 1900, the average American consumed less than five pounds of sugar per year, and almost zero processed carbohydrates.  Today  people are eating about 160 pounds of sugar per annum.  This constitutes a 3,200% increase in annual sugar consumption in the past 120 years.  This doesn't even begin to touch on the mass quantities of processed carbs and white flour we are collectively consuming.  Why is it such a big deal?  Because the food-of-choice for the nasties mentioned in the paragraph above is --- you guessed it --- sugar and highly processed carbs (carbs that rapidly convert to sugar in your body.  In other words, sugar feeds infection (HERE). 

Beyond the obvious Gut-related problems with your Immune System and DIGESTION, Dysbiosis is going to lead to any number of equally as serious, but less well-known problems.  For instance, were you aware that 90% of your body's neurotransmitter Serotonin is made in the Gut (HERE)?  Or what about the fact that the vast majority of T4 (the inactive form of thyroid hormone) is converted to T3 (the active form) in the Gut (HERE)?  There are any number of others (HERE).  Conclusions are not difficult to draw.  If you have problems in your Gut, it's going to affect your health in one fashion or another --- always adversely. 

The obvious solution to this problem is to feed your Microbiome what it needs.   For most of you --- particularly those of you who are struggling with CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY DEGENERATIVE DISEASES, AUTOIMMUNITY, or CHRONIC PAIN ---- this is going to require a LOW CARB approach of some sort (for numerous reasons I am a huge fan of the PALEO DIET or the many similar), with plenty of the right kind of fiber (HERE).  You also might, depending on the severity of your problem, need to be looking into the new frontier in healthcare --- FMT.  However, you might also benefit from enemas or colonic irrigation.

Immediately upon graduating from Logan Chiropractic College, I went to Nebraska to work with Dr. James Teachworth for a couple of months prior to settling in beautiful MOUNTAIN VIEW, MISSOURI.  Dr. Teachworth had a library in his house that was nothing short of amazing; probably containing thousands of volumes.  One of those books was from the 1930's, and pertained to the practice of colonic irrigation (otherwise known as "Colonics") --- something that used to be done by a fair number of Chiropractors.  The thing I remember most about the book was the pictures.

There were dozens of "before" and "after" pictures --- the "before" images being of people with wide assortments of SKIN CONDITIONS --- some of them incredibly nasty.  The "after" picture would show the 'stuff' that came out of the colon as well as the change in the person's skin --- usually dramatic and usually within a matter of weeks.  The material that came out of the bowel might remind you of a shed snake skin, only, as you might imagine, far thicker and usually quite disgusting (these are the 'mucoid plaques' that attach themselves to the wall of your colon). 

True Story: A person I know quite well suffered from MIGRAINE HEADACHES from the time she was in grade school until about 10 or 12 years ago (three decades).  A series of Colonics solved her problem.  The material that was washed from her bowel was, in her words, "orange and fuzzy" --- obvious characteristics of a CANDIDA OVERGROWTH.   All of this raises a simple question --- what is the difference between an enema and Colonic Irrigation?

An enema typically works via gravity feed (DIY bags or kits range from $10.00 to $70.00 and are available online or at your local drugstore) or by using a special syringe or bulb to insert / 'inject' water into the bottom part of the bowel.  The bulbs are more commonly used with infants or younger children (plenty of info on YouTube).  The thing is, a colon is five feet long.  Thus, with the 'Colonic', various means are used so that the entire length of the colon can be reached / cleaned with water, not just the lowest portion.  There are numerous approaches to health and wellness, as well as solving chronic health issues.  No matter which approach(s) you take to dealing with LEAKY GUT SYNDROME, IBS, Dysbiosis, or others, Colonic Irrigation is a therapy that can easily be integrated into THIS or other protocols.

Before I really begin today's post, I want to refresh your memory concerning an under-reported aspect of the practice of medicine --- underreporting.  Failing to report the adverse effects (aka side effects) of DANGEROUS DRUGS AND PROCEDURES is so widespread and common that two huge meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed scientific literature said that at the very best, 1 in 10 serious side effects is ever reported to the proper authorities, with most studies putting that number closer to 1 in 100 (HERE).  Furthermore, we know that the incidence of adverse events in laboratory trials is about 1/8 the number reported in real-world trials on the general population (HERE).  Unfortunately, none of this seems to be changing very much (HERE).

Now; allow me to introduce you to Dr. Beatrice Golomb.  Dr. Golomb (MD / Ph.D) is a professor, author, and researcher at the University of California's San Diego School of Medicine.  Her CURRICULUM VITAE reads like a venerable Who's Who of research medicine.  Among other things, Dr. Golomb heads up the The UCSD Statin Study Group.  If you recall, her team of scientists published 2008's shocking Statin Adverse Effects: A Review of the Literature and Evidence for a Mitochondrial Mechanism in the April, 2008 issue of the American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs (HERE).

The aspect of this study that left most readers so shell-shocked was not only the frequency and severity of the reactions to STATIN DRUGS, but the fact that her team reviewed 892 studies to come to their conclusions.  What conclusions? 

"Statins are a widely used class of drug, and like all medications have potential for adverse effects.  We hypothesize, and provide evidence, that the demonstrated mitochondrial mechanisms for muscle adverse effects have implications to other nonmuscle adverse effects in patients treated with statins.  Converging evidence supports a mitochondrial foundation for muscle adverse events associated with statins, and both theoretical and empirical considerations suggest that mitochondrial dysfunction may also underlie many non-muscle statin adverse events. Evidence from trials and studies indicate the existence of additional statin-associated adverse events, such as cognitive loss, neuropathy, pancreatic and hepatic dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction. Physician awareness of statin adverse effects is reportedly low even for the adverse events most widely reported by patients."

This cherry-picked paragraph is not to difficult to decipher.  After digging through almost 1,000 studies on the subject, Golomb's team found that beyond their most common and well-known side effect --- STATIN-INDUCED MUSCLE PAIN --- there are a wide variety of others nasty side effects as well.  Because these side effects are believed to occur primarily in the mitochondria --- the part of your cells responsible for manufacturing energy, and because each and every cell in your body contains thousands of these organelles --- the side effects of Statin Drugs can affect virtually any and all parts of your body.  Furthermore, doctors continue to promote CHOLESTEROL as the problem, while touting Statins as the cure, yet always underplaying their ugly side effects.

A recent issue (July 1) of the oldest scientific journal in America, Scientific American, asked a question via the title of an article in their "Neurosciences" section --- Do Statins Produce Neurological Effects?  The article's author?  Dr. Beatrice Golomb.  Because the article is so short (literally a one minute read), I am giving you the link (HERE).   But this is not where I want to stop discussing Dr. Golomb's work.

Because I deal with so many people who have various forms of CHRONIC PAIN --- often times related to the FIBROSIS or SCAR TISSUE that develops in FASCIA (the mucousy cellophane-like membrane that surrounds muscles and other tissues) due to trauma, POSTURAL CONSIDERATIONS, or Inflammation (HERE) --- I have been fooled in the past by musculotendinous pain caused by Statin Drugs.  Unfortunately, Statins are not the only drug that cause these sorts of adverse events; not by a long shot.  Enter Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics.

If you've followed my site for very long, you already realize the importance I put on GUT HEALTH.  There is probably nothing greater you can do to foul your family's health (often times permanently) than to give them ANTIBIOTICS on any sort of regular basis.  What do I mean by "regular" basis?  HERE'S THE ANSWER.  And while all antibiotics are bad news, there is one kind of antibiotic that is particularly bad news because of its propensity to cause debilitating (and often permanent) muscle and tendon pain / degeneration --- FLUOROQUINOLONE ANTIBIOTICS.  There is little research going on in trying to figure out why. 

Just over a year ago, the author of the website My Quin Story: Life After Levaquin, A Challenging Journey published a post called Fluoroquinolone Academic Research Update – Dr. Beatrice Golomb UCSD.  THE AUTHOR, who was "Floxed" (debilitated by Flouroquinolone Antibiotics) in 2007 at age 47, wrote that.....

"Dr. Golomb has been tenaciously trying to get a paper of case studies published on a group of floxies for several years. Her attempts have been met with rejection. She acknowledges that the rejection comes from the nature of questioning pharmaceuticals in the current research environment, but she remains undaunted and will continue."

Dr. Golomb is actually trying to get enough people (10,000) for a study (HERE) that will help to explain why some people end up essentially crippled after taking this kind of antibiotic.  Considering what I know about this class of drug, whose side effects are grossly under-reported as well (they are usually blown off by the medical professionals who treat them as unrelated or arthritis), what she is doing is super extra cool.  But Dr. Golomb is studying an equally cool topic as well --- the fact that there are more problems with vaccines than meet the eye.

If you are interested in seeing some of Dr. Golomb's work in the area of vaccines (BTW, she is also one of the world's foremost experts on Gulf War Syndrome), take a look at the symposium she spoke at a few years ago in Jamaica (THE VACCINE SAFETY CONFERENCE). It seems that Dr. Golomb is raising the same issues I have been raising with my numerous VACCINE POSTS for over two and a half decades.  All I can say is bully for her!  Any brilliant physician who is willing to lay it all on the line in order to ask the hard questions is nothing short of a hero.  Remember that as much as questioning vaccine policies in modern America can get even the most credentialed professional blacklisted (HERE is a prime example).

Below are a couple of videos of Dr. Golomb's presentations, much of which center around the fact that WE CANNOT TRUST MEDICAL RESEARCH to have our best interest in mind.

According to the HYGIENE HYPOTHESIS, your MICROBIOME is the most important part of your Immune System.  A failure to be exposed to "critters" in early life greatly improves your chances of developing things like ASTHMA, ALLERGIES, and any number of other problems, including AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES.  This month's issue of the medical journal Pediatrics ran a fascinating study on this subject called Thumb-Sucking, Nail-Biting, and Atopic Sensitization, Asthma, and Hay Fever. 

Researchers quizzed parents to see if their children (over 1,000 children born in 1972-73 were part of New Zealand's  Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study) were thumb-suckers or nail-biters (approximately 1/3 were) when they were young.  They then looked at medical records to see what sort of problems these individuals were prone to as adults.  After controlling for pets, parents with allergies, breast-feeding, and numerous other factors, the authors concluded that, "Children who suck their thumbs or bite their nails are less likely to have atopic sensitization [allergies] in childhood and adulthood."

How does the Hygiene Hypothesis work?  Babies are born relatively sterile.  Their first environmental bacterial exposure comes from MOTHER'S VAGINA & MOTHER'S MILK (as well as skin-to-skin contact with family members).  Without exposure to a wide array of bacteria and other microorganisms from a young age, the Immune System --- 80% of which RESIDES IN THE GUT --- is much more likely to view non-pathological organisms as a threat.  This ramps up the Immune System to the point that people (both children and adults) start reacting against things they should not react to; mounting Immune System responses against dust, pollen, animal dander, etc, etc, etc.  The end result is increased amounts of eczema (atopy), asthma and allergy. 

Are we too clean as a people --- as a nation?  For many of us, the answer is a resounding yes (HERE).  There are any number of articles floating around the world wide web of people who are "curing" allergies, eczema, dandruff, as well as a wide array of SKIN PROBLEMS simply by bathing / showering way less frequently, for a much shorter duration, and / or not using soap or shampoo when they do bathe. 

This concept of "over-cleanliness" affects you on the inside as well, and is a big reason why giving your children / babies antibiotics can destroy their health --- potentially for the rest of their lives (HERE).  It also helps explain why the absurd numbers of VACCINES being given today --- particularly worthless vaccines such as those for the FLU --- not to mention the DRAMATICALLY INCREASING NUMBERS of vaccines on the horizon, while certainly helping contain short-term childhood illnesses (measles, mumps, WHOOPING COUGH, etc, etc) are unfortunately trading them for long term CHRONIC DEGENERATIVE INFLAMMATORY DISEASES.  Allow me to show you some interesting studies on Atopic Sensitization as it relates to the Hygiene Hypothesis.

• Let's hit Atopic Sensitivity as it pertains to Vaccines first.  A 2009 study (Allergic Disease and Atopic Sensitization in Children in Relation to Measles Vaccination and Measles Infection) that was published in the journal Pediatrics came to some rather amazing conclusions.  After comparing the rate of allergies in nearly 15,000 children who contracted the measles to children who did not (these are the same 15,000 you'll see in the next study), the authors determined that, "In the whole group of children, atopic sensitization was inversely associated with measles infection.....   .....inverse associations were observed between measles infection and "any allergic symptom" and "any diagnosis of allergy by a physician.""  In other words, Measles is protective against Atopic Sensitization.
  

• In the April, 2006 journal Allergy (Allergic Diseases and Atopic Sensitization in Children Related to Farming...), children who grew up on farms were compared to children who did not.  After looking at at almost 15,000 children from the same general parts of Europe, researchers concluded that, "The prevalence of allergic diseases has increased rapidly in recent decades, particularly in children.  Growing up on a farm was found to have a protective effect against all outcomes studied, both self-reported, such as rhinoconjunctivitis, wheezing, atopic eczema and asthma and sensitization.  This study indicates that growing up on a farm.....  may confer protection from both sensitization and allergic diseases in childhood."
  

• This is not surprising after looking at a study that came out two years later, in August of 2008. Researchers published their study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology called Prenatal Exposure to a Farm Environment Modifies Atopic Sensitization at Birth.  This study of almost 1,000 Austrian, Finnish, French, German, and Swiss women / babies, compared the cord blood from those who lived on farms to those who did not.  "Previous cross-sectional surveys have suggested that maternal exposure to animal sheds during pregnancy exerted a protective effect on atopic sensitization in children lasting until school age.  There was an inverse relationship between maternal exposure to animal sheds and cord blood IgE levels against seasonal allergens.  Maternal exposure during pregnancy influences atopic sensitization patterns in cord blood. The (microbial) context of allergen contact possibly modifies the risk of atopic sensitization."
  

• Probably no study shows the Hygiene Hypotheseis clearer than The Role of Atopic Sensitization in Flexural Eczema: Findings from the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood, which was published in a 2008 issue of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.  Researchers compared rates of asthma, eczema, and allergies in people from third world nations, to those in Westernized nations.  Although people from the third world might have any number of other health-related problems, "The age- and sex-adjusted odds ratios for a positive association between eczema and atopy [had] a significantly stronger association in affluent compared with nonaffluent countries. The combined population attributable fraction for atopy in flexural eczema was 27.9% for affluent and 1.2% for nonaffluent-country centers."  This is more than a 2,300% difference!
  

• Not quite three years ago, the Dermatology Times published an article called Probiotics May Decrease Atopic Sensitization, which dealt with a study from the journal Pediatrics.  In their article the authors stated, "When administered prenatally and postnatally, probiotics significantly reduced the risk of atopic sensitization.  Probiotics effectively reduced total immunoglobin E."   Interesting to be sure, but pay very close attention to this next sentence.  "Administration of Lactobacillus acidophilus was associated with increased risk of atopic sensitization compared to other strains, researchers noted."   This  helps explain why people can actually develop DYSBIOSIS from taking too much of one strain of good bacteria, including acidophilus (HERE and HERE).   It's also why people with a really messed up Gut might have to look into FMT in order to improve their health.

What to do next?  THIS POST gives a few pointers on things to do in order to normalize your immune system.  By "normalize," I mean normalize.  We see lots of articles on supplements or diets that claim to "boost" one's Immune System.  In some cases, this is well and good.  However, never forget that it is an overactive Immune System that attacks things it should not, including your own body.  It's why TREGS (T-Regulatory Cells, previously known as T-Suppressor Cells) are such a critical part of a properly-functioning Immune System.

"Adverse drug reactions are common. Identifying true drug allergy, however, can be challenging. Complicating factors of drug reactions include the myriad clinical symptoms and multiple mechanisms of drug-host interaction, many of which are poorly understood."  From the November, 2003 issue of American Family Physician (Adverse Drug Reactions: Types and Treatment Options)

"More than 150 million people around the world take the antidiabetic drug metformin each year. Despite its widespread use, the drug's mechanism of action is poorly understood and controversial."  From a 2014 issue of the Journal of Biological Chemistry (Antidiabetic Drug Metformin Suppresses Gluconeogenesis)

"Antidepressants are widely prescribed in the treatment of depression, although the mechanism of how they exert their therapeutic effects is poorly understood."  From the March 2004 issue of Brain Research (Mechanisms of Action of the Antidepressants Fluoxetine......)

"Diprivan Injectable Emulsion is an intravenous sedative-hypnotic agent for use in the induction and maintenance of anesthesia or sedation.  As with other rapidly acting intravenous anesthetic agents, the mechanism of action, like all general anesthetics, is poorly understood."  From the Rx List's header for Diprivan

"Beyond this, its relatively low efficacy, high risk of side effects (especially when taken with alcohol) and lack of knowledge about how it works has given some experts pause. For women who are trying to decide whether the benefits will outweigh the risks, they’ll certainly have their work cut out for them, as they sift through the hype to get to the science.  Sprout and its fans are celebrating a drug with low efficacy, significant side effects, and a poorly understood mechanism of action."  From an August 2015 issue of Forbes (Why Libido Drug Addyi Is Not The 'Female Viagra')

"Malaria is a major health burden in tropical and subtropical countries. The antimalarial drug primaquine is extremely useful for killing the transmissible gametocyte forms of Plasmodium falciparum and the hepatic quiescent forms of P. vivax. Yet its mechanism of action is still poorly understood."  From April's issue of Redox Biology (The Antimalarial Drug Primaquine......)

"Combination chemotherapies have been a mainstay in the treatment of disseminated malignancies for almost 60 years, yet even successful regimens fail to cure many patients. Although their single-drug components are well studied, the mechanisms by which drugs work together in clinical combination regimens are poorly understood."  From the January 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Defining Principles of Combination Drug Mechanisms of Action)

"Diuretics are drugs that increase the rate of urine flow. There are several classes of diuretic drugs. These agents are used in the management of edema and hypertension.  Thiazide diuretics....  cause Ca2+ excretion to be decreased via a poorly understood mechanism."  From the online syllabus for Dr. Piascik's advanced pharmacology class at the University of Kentucky (The Pharmacology of Diuretic Drugs)

"Pyrazinamide is an important sterilizing drug that shortens tuberculosis (TB) therapy. However, the mechanism of action of pyrazinamide is poorly understood."   From a 2003 issue of the Journal of Antimicrobial Therapy

"How confident are you that the drugs you take, whether they're over-the-counter or prescription, are totally understood by the companies who make them?  After all; drug makers know what their products do when they enter your body, right?  You shouldn't assume that.   Today we are going to talk about everything from Tylenol to fen-phen to Viagra and why you should probably think hard before you take any drug at all."  Luke Timmerman and Meg Tirrell from STAT's daily podcast, Signal (Before You Pop that Tylenol, Tune in to this Podcast) --- the article we are discussing today

"Not understanding a drug's mechanism of action sets the table for a vast array of side effects."  Dr. Russell Schierling

I receive several different daily medical news publications in my inbox.  My two favorite are MedPage Today and STAT.  Make no mistake about it, both are medical publications, meaning they routinely pick on alternative medicine, while spending their time, energies, and money (think advertising dollars here) extolling the virtues of drugs, surgeries, and tests.  So when I saw the title of STAT's recent podcast, I had to have a listen.

Timmerman & Tirrell start out by talking about ACETAMINOPHEN (Tylenol), revealing that even though it has been around for over six decades, no one really knows how it works.  We shouldn't be surprised that John Q Public has no idea how it works, but the real surprise is that no one --- including the drug companies themselves ---- knows what its mechanism of action is.  Furthermore, the authors went on to say that this is not an uncommon phenomenon --- not surprising after looking at the quotes above.  In fact, they described the mechanisms of many of the drugs we use as, "mysterious and unpredictable".  Probably why Tylenol no longer uses their old slogan, 'Nothing Safer'.   None of this is new information.

"A jury found Tylenol to be a cause of 5-year-old Lacy Keele's death, but it let Tylenol’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, off because her parents were adequately informed of the risks. Risks with Tylenol? The product’s advertising slogan, after all, was: “Nothing’s safer.”   In the eight years since Lacy died, there have been hundreds of fatalities and serious liver injuries attributed to acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol. J&J has paid out millions of dollars in legal settlements. A handful of these cases have drawn coverage in newspaper and television stories. The word is beginning to get out that, safe though it is in proper doses, Tylenol can be very dangerous indeed in doses not much greater."   From Thomas Easton's piece in Forbes (Johnson & Johnson's Dirty Little Secret) written almost two decades ago (Jan of 1998).

Part of the problem is that as I have shown you repeatedly (including just THE OTHER DAY), drug reactions are absurdly under-reported.  In fact, Underreporting has become such a huge problem, that it has actually become it's own entity known as (drum roll please) UNDERREPORTING.  But this is far from the only reason that drugs aren't as safe as we've been led to believe.  Another reason is that people are just plain different, not only from each other, but from lab animals and test tubes.  Listen to what T&T said on their podcast (I am loosely quoting here).....    "The sheer unpredictability of biology is the reason so many drugs fail....   The fact is, we don't know how drugs are going to react in the body until we give them to lots of people."

But 60 years? Think about the sheer numbers of people who have taken Acetaminophen in that time period, not realizing what it's doing to them.  In the words of the Fox Football crew, "C'mon Man".  What does all this really mean for you, the consumer?  Plain and simple; you are the GUINEA PIG.   Some of the reasons the authors give for this are some of the same things I talk about regularly on my site --- GENETICS, MICROBIOME, DIET, etc, etc.  Viagra was an example they used of this sort of 'guinea pigging'.

When Viagra was being developed as a vasodilator (blood vessel opener) for people with congestive heart failure back in the early-mid 1990's, the animal studies were so poor that, "it almost did not make it to human trials".  But make it it did, and when researchers found out it caused raging erections in the college-aged males who volunteered (they were paid) to test the drug for short-term side-effects, the company got a proverbial "erection" of its own.  Interestingly, it seems that accidents are the norm in this arena --- probably why the podcast said, "There's still a huge amount of luck at work in drug discovery."  The example I always tend to think of when discussing this all-too-common phenomenon is Rogaine (Minoxidil); a drug that was originally developed to treat ULCERS back in the 1950's.

Later on (in the 1970's), it was used to treat high blood pressure.  The doctors who worked on it for this purpose "discovered" that this new BP DRUG had the ability to grow hair (HERE) in a certain percentage of the population.  Oh; and by the way, if you read Wikipedia's entry on the stuff, it says "The mechanism by which minoxidil promotes hair growth is not fully understood."  When mechanisms are not understood, according to the authors you are much more likely to end up with drugs like, "Thalidomide, Fen-Phen, or Vioxx".  Another drug they mentioned by name was Enbrel.

Enbrel is a drug given to suppress one of the markers of inflammation called Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha or TNF-α.  When Enbrel first hit the market, it was considered a wonder drug.  According to the authors, the side-effect profile was "pristine".  But as time went on, increasing numbers of serious problems came to light (a common theme in this podcast).  

INFLAMMATION is a vital and necessary part of the healing process.  Certain things, however, cause it to climb to exceedingly high levels.  This is commonly seen in RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, as well as other AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES.  However, suppressing TNF-α carries it's own set of side-effects --- one of the chief being CANCER.  If your body can't kill (necrosis) mutating cells that can become cancer, they tend to become just that.  Thus, it's not surprising that Enbrel's side effect profile has gone from "pristine" to something VERY DIFFERENT.

"We tend to assume that anything approved by the FDA is inherently safe, and that's just not true." Timmermann and Tirrell from their podcast.

All of this begs a couple of simple questions; how can these sorts of things happen if the drug was approved by the FDA, and what does FDA approval really mean?  The authors of this podcast delved into this topic.  Amazingly, the one and only factor that determines whether or not a drug is going to be approved is the risk-to-benefit profile.  In other words, do the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived harms?  Sounds logical on the surface, but there are any number of problems with this approach, considering the way we do things here in America.

The first thing you have to understand is that just like other governmental regulatory agencies, the FDA is prone to all sorts of bribery and cannot be trusted (HERE and HERE).  Related to this is the fact that the drug companies are doing their own research (i.e. the fox is guarding the hen house).  This is how debacles like THIS and THIS can occur.  If you want a picture of how corrupt this system is from top to bottom, simply take a moment and browse the titles of THESE POSTS.

The authors go on to say that, "The evidence evolves over time.  It happens with a lot of drugs.  We could sit here listing them all night.  Lab models are inherently flawed.  A Petri dish is not the same as a cell in a live human being."  What might this sort of "evolution" lead to?  It often leads to drugs being taken off the market years, or even decades, after they were released to the public.  But just as often, dangerous drugs are never removed from the public.

The authors mentioned that some drugs are almost impossible to pull off the market or even have their safety label changed.  In similar fashion to the way certain substances were approved for human use decades ago (think MSG under GRAS --- Generally Regarded As Safe, or MERCURY / ALUMINUM IN VACCINES), doing much of anything about drugs like Acetaminophen is all but impossible.  Ultimately, this means that you cannot trust the drug companies --- or the government --- to to look after your best interests as far as your health is concerned (or anything else for that matter).  They are too busy figuring out new ways to fleece and control you.

The image above was done by Karl Thienemann in 1842.  It is of a traveling huckster, surrounded by curious onlookers as he challenges all comers to a game of thimblerig, otherwise known as "the shell game".  A popular online encyclopedia says of the Shell Game......

In the shell game, three or more identical containers are placed face-down on a surface. A small ball is placed beneath one of these containers so that it cannot be seen, and they are then shuffled by the operator in plain view. One or more players are invited to bet on which container holds the ball – typically, the operator offers to double the player's stake if they guess correctly.  The shell game is notorious for its use by confidence tricksters who will typically rig the game using sleight of hand to move or hide the ball during play and replace it as required.

Shades of the 'Shell Game' can be seen in Sharon Begley's fantastic June 15th article in STAT called What are the Odds that your Medication will Help you get Better?  I've frequently written about the difference between absolute risk and relative risk.  If you want to understand this concept better, which will help you understand the potential risks of certain medications, as well as how effective (or ineffective) they might be, you need to read Begley's article.

One of the things she spends ample time on is the concept of NNT (Number Needed to Treat).  This is the number of people who will have to take a particular medication in order to see a benefit.  Begley says (cherry-picked).....

"An NNT of 5 or less was probably associated with a meaningful health benefit, while an NNT of 15 or more was quite certain to be associated with at most a small net health benefit.  Yet interventions with NNTs above 15 are common.  Statins, which have become synonymous with heart-attack-and-stroke-preventing have an NNT of 104 for heart attack and 154 for stroke: That’s how many healthy people have to take statins for five years for those respective outcomes to be prevented.  The NNT for aspirin to prevent cardiovascular calamities is even higher. A whopping 1,667 healthy people need to take aspirin every day for a year to prevent one stroke or heart attack."  

Again, none of this is new information.  If you follow my STATIN POSTS or what I've written about ASPIRIN, you have seen this any number of times --- a nightmare once you understand the magnitude and seriousness of side effects and their GROSS UNDERREPORTING.  If you are curious about the difference in relative risk and absolute risk for drugs that you or your family are taking, you can take a look at THE NNT SITE.  The more you learn about "EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE", the easier it is to recognize BIG PHARMA'S tricks.  After all, figures never lie but liars figure. 

"Doctors who perform routine pelvic exams have vigorously defended their worth against previous criticism, but on Tuesday their organization, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, backed away from that firm stance, acknowledging there is little to no evidence that the exam benefits asymptomatic women."  From last week's issue of STAT (Millions of Women Undergo Pelvic Exams with No Proven Benefit, US Panel Concludes)

"The exams can also cause harm (in addition to discomfort, for some women). Their rate of “false positives” — finding an apparent problem that isn’t there — ranges up to 46 percent. For instance, when a pelvic exam “detects” ovarian cancer, the chance that the woman actually has that often-fatal disease is 0 percent to 3.6 percent. But a woman given that frightening news, or the less dire news that she has a less serious condition such as ovarian cysts or fibroids, will typically undergo additional, sometimes risky, tests, including biopsies and even surgery for something that might never have affected her."  Ibid

 
There are few things that women --- especially young women or adolescents --- look forward to less than their "annual" (annual pelvic exam).  Not surprisingly, the medical community no longer recommends annual pelvic exams for women who are not having visible / tangible female problems.  It seems that the "annual" has gone the way of the ANNUAL PHYSICAL EXAM, regular PROSTATE EXAMINATIONS, annual MAMMOGRAMS, REGULAR COLONOSCOPIES, and others.

Two years ago this month, the Annals of Internal Medicine published a study (Screening Pelvic Examination in Adult Women: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians) revealing the 'The Annual' had gone the way of the Dodo Bird.  Crunching all data on the subject since WWII ended (1946), the authors concluded that (all results are cherry-picked).....

"The American College of Physicians recommends against performing screening pelvic examination in asymptomatic, non-pregnant, adult women.....   With the available evidence, we conclude that screening pelvic examination exposes women to unnecessary and avoidable harms with no benefit (reduced mortality or morbidity rates).   The total annual cost of preventive gynecologic examinations and associated laboratory and radiologic services in the United States is estimated to be $2.6 billion.  These costs may be amplified by expenses incurred by additional follow-up tests, including follow-up tests as a result of false-positive screening results; increased medical visits; and costs of keeping or obtaining health insurance.  The studies combined found only 4 cases of ovarian cancer over 1 year, with positive predictive values from 0% to 3.6% indicating that 96.7% to 100% of abnormal pelvic examinations did not identify ovarian cancer.   The evaluated harms included false reassurance, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and diagnostic procedure–related harms.  Indirect evidence from 1 study on the use of pelvic examination to detect ovarian cancer showed that pelvic examination led to unnecessary surgery in 1.5% of women screened (29 out of 2000)."

The second to the last sentence sums up the reason(s) that these exams are no longer recommended for women who are exhibiting no outward problems.

• FALSE REASSURANCE:  Simple; even though a routine pelvic exam provides virtually no valuable information as far as scary diseases like ovarian cancer are concerned, because the test is negative your doctor tells you that everything is fine, which may or may not be the truth.
• OVERDIAGNOSIS & OVERTREATMENT:  Because "False Positives" are such a common occurrence across the board in medicine, lots of people end up being treated for problems they don't really have.  Many of these people (way more than you ever would have dreamed) actually end up dying from their medical treatment.  When you factor out the death rate for OVERDIAGNOSIS & OVERTREATMENT for any number of health-related preventative screenings (see the short list at the top of the post), we see that said screenings are not really saving lives.
• DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE-RELATED HARMS:  You can go online and read more about these, but this particular study mentioned several.  "Many false-positive findings are associated with pelvic examination, with attendant psychological and physical harms, as well as harms associated with the examination itself. Harms of pelvic examination include unnecessary laparoscopies or laparotomies, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pain, and discomfort. Women with a history of sexual violence, and particularly those with PTSD, may experience more pain, discomfort, fear, anxiety, or embarrassment during pelvic examination."

But it's not like any of this is new information.   Just days ago, the United States Preventative Services Task Force published their recommended guidelines (Draft Recommendation Statement: Gynecological Conditions: Screening With the Pelvic Examination) --- guidelines that will soon be officially recognized, even if your doctor decries them --- WHICH THEY WILL.  Below are their cherry-picked conclusions and recommendations.

"Pelvic examination is a common part of the physical examination; in 2010, 62.8 million pelvic examinations were performed in the United States.  The USPSTF found inadequate evidence on the accuracy of pelvic examination to detect a range of gynecologic conditions. Limited evidence from studies evaluating the use of screening pelvic examination alone for ovarian cancer detection generally reported low positive predictive values.  A few studies reported on false-positive rates for ovarian cancer, ranging from 1.2% to 8.6%, and false-negative rates, ranging from 0% to 100%.  The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of performing screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women for the early detection and treatment of a range of gynecologic conditions."

Did you catch that?  With false positive rates of almost one in ten, and false negatives potentially in the 100% range, it's no wonder doctors aren't able to determine much from these tests.   CANCER is a complete bummer.  But the medical community may finally be starting to realize that "PREVENTION" entails much more than trying to perpetuate the myth of early detection by foisting unnecessary tests on you and your family.  If you are interested in cutting the root of most pain and disease from your life and getting healthier, you may want to take a look at THIS POST.

I make my living off the Evening News
Just give me somethin', somethin' I can use
People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry

You don't really need to find out what's goin' on
You don't really want to know just how far it's gone
Just leave well enough alone, eat your dirty laundry
 - Eagles front man, Don Henley, from 1982's solo effort, Can't Stand Still (Dirty Laundry)

One of our inalienable rights as Americans is Freedom of the Press.  In fact, it's so important that the very first provision of our Bill of Rights says....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A free press is critical to the political process.  That way, we the public can (hopefully) be properly informed about the important events that shape our nation.  The problem is that our press is not really free.  Beyond being beholden to certain ideologies or causes (conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, socialism / communism, capitalism, etc, etc, etc), the big media outlets are all in bed with corporate America.  Don't believe me?  Let's talk advertising dollars for a moment.

Whether you're a fan of Fox News, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, or something similar, they're all beholden to their corporate sponsors.  Sponsors pay to play via direct to consumer advertising,ridiculous PSA'S, and PRESS RELEASES disguised as news stories.   Although estimates vary wildly, if you thumb back through my posts on EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, you'll see that BIG PHARMA'S annual spending on advertising is thought to be twenty times more than what they spend on research and development --- an estimated 60 billion dollars. 

Sure, the press might run a story about a new study showing HOW DANGEROUS a certain drugs is, while rubbing their pointer fingers together and saying, 'shame, shame, shame'.  But doggedly sticking with it and following the money trails to THE GOVERNMENT; not so much. They know that in our short-attention-span society, nothing says yesterday's news like "yesterday's news".  There's always that next story to make people forget about what happened today.   And after all, few people or business have enough integrity to bite the hand that feeds them too hard.  Here are a few of those "forgotten" stories.

• A study published 12 years ago (HERE) said that medicine is the number one cause of death in America.  Just two months ago, one of the oldest and most prestigious medical journals on the planet (British Medical Journal) admitted that these numbers are at least in the ball park.  The truth is, the practice of medicine is dangerous to your health (HERE), but you're hearing very little about this.
• Researchers continue to manipulate their endgame by publishing only those studies that show their products in a good light, while burying the rest (HERE).
• The medical community is weighted down by a constant stream of BRIBERY.
• As few as 1% of medical errors or adverse events are ever reported to the proper authorities (HERE and HERE).
• Evidence-Based Medicine is decreasingly based on science, and increasingly based on the highest bid (HERE or HERE).
• The individuals that run the government entities created to protect the public from BIG PHARMA have their collective hands in the cookie jar (HERE).

Simply browse titles on my EBM PAGE and you'll see that this is just scratching the surface.  If you want the truth about drugs, you'll have to dig a bit.  And if you want to solve your health issues or lose that weight without drugs, I have just the thing for you --- and it's completely free (HERE).