Marc Joseph Nutrition - Blog

Earlier this month, I wrote a post about the potential of curcumin, the yellow pigment found in tumeric, a common ingredient in curry, to protect against cognitive decline and slow the development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

A recent study reaffirms curcumin’s anti-inflammatory properties and found that it significantly reduced inflammation in rats with rheumatoid arthritis. As the study abstract notes:

Turmeric has been used for centuries in Ayurvedic medicine as a treatment for inflammatory disorders including arthritis. On the basis of this traditional usage, dietary supplements containing turmeric rhizome and turmeric extracts are also being used in the western world for arthritis treatment and prevention.

To-date, this study has been one of the few in-vivo (in animal or people) studies performed using curcumin.

It’s believed that curcumin inhibits the NF-KappaB inflammation pathway, which acts as the innate immune system’s master-switch. However, the authors of this study, as well as the authors of this review of curcumin’s effects, mention the NF-kappaB inflammatory pathway may be just one of many that curcumin helps to control:

Modern science has revealed that curcumin mediates its effects by modulation of several important molecular targets, including transcription factors (e.g., NF-kappaB, AP-1, Egr-1, beta-catenin, and PPAR-gamma), enzymes (e.g., COX2, 5-LOX, iNOS, and hemeoxygenase-1), cell cycle proteins (e.g., cyclin D1 and p21), cytokines (e.g., TNF, IL-1, IL-6, and chemokines), receptors (e.g., EGFR and HER2), and cell surface adhesion molecules.

Hopefully we’ll see some controlled intervention human studies in the future to provide even better evidence of curcumin’s effects in inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, as well as in other diseases with significant inflammatory components, such as inflammatory bowel disease, asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, and even cancer.

The American Dental Association (ADA) recently released new guidelines that significantly reduce the recommended amount of exposure to fluoride for infants and small children.

The guidelines were changed to reduce the risk of developing fluorosis (pictured below). Fluorosis can occur with excessive fluoride exposure, and leads to permanent pitting and discoloration of the teeth.

This Environmental Working Group article summarizes the primary ADA recommendations:

Infants
- Feed infants breast milk whenever possible.
- For infants who get most of their nutrition from formula, choose ready-to-feed formula over formula mixed with fluoridated water.
- If liquid or powdered concentrate infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, mix with water that is fluoride free, including water that is labeled purified, demineralized, deionized, distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water.

Children
- Stay away from fluoride toothpaste before two years.
- No fluoride mouth rinse or supplements unless prescribed by a dentist.
- Check with your water supplier to make sure the fluoride level in your drinking water does not exceed the recommended 1.2 parts per million.

There is significant debate over the health effects of fluoride and whether or not it is really even effective in reducing tooth decay. Here’s a good site that presents perspectives on both sides of the issue:

Second Look - Fluoride

I side with the anti-fluoride crowd, and this site provides ample evidence to support that position:

FluorideAlert.org

There you’ll find:

• Ten interesting facts on fluoride.
• A list of fluoride sources in the diet and environment.
• An overview of the chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water.
• A discussion of fluoride’s detrimental health effects, including those on the teeth, kidneys, brain, thyroid gland, pineal gland, bones, and more.
• A good FAQ with answers to common questions.

Clearly, there are plenty of good reasons why the National Academy of Sciences earlier this year concluded that current water fluoridation levels are not protecting human health, may be dangerous, and should be lowered.

Disturbing post on Huffington Post by author David Kirby (Evidence of Harm) regarding the federal government efforts to seal the courtroom proceedings for next year’s autism vaccine trial:

You may not know it, but there is an official federal “vaccine court,” where some 4,750 autism-related cases have been pending for years. Claimants believe the mercury-based vaccine preservative, thimerosal, and/or the MMR vaccine, contributed to their children’s autism, and they are seeking compensation from a special vaccine injury fund administered by the federal government.

The long-awaited autism vaccine trial will commence on June 11 in the courtroom of Special Master George Hastings. The plaintiffs and their attorneys have asked for complete transparency in every aspect of the tribunal, including public disclosure of all evidence and unhindered media access to the hearings. The few autism families whose medical records will be scrutinized as legal examples are waiving their right to privacy and confidentiality, so that their stories may finally be told in an open court of law.

But the DOJ (technically, the “defense”) has other plans. On November 3rd, the Department wrote to Hastings saying it “would oppose public access to the courtroom and public broadcast of the trial,” because such an arrangement. “would pose security and privacy concerns” for those in attendance.

Can you smell something rotten? Kirby (and I’m sure many others can):

Exactly whose privacy are they trying to protect? It can’t be the parents, because they don’t want privacy. The only party fretting about privacy is the DOJ itself, and presumably, the vaccine makers. (As for “security” concerns, isn’t that why we have court officers?).

The government may call this privacy, but I call it secrecy. In fact, there has been a long and unseemly history of secrecy when it comes to federal data on thimerosal and autism.

And let’s face it: People don’t hide something unless they have something to hide. (emphasis added)

Check out the entire post, as well as the many comments of parents who are on top of the issue.

It’s pretty clear that heavy metal toxicity plays a key role in many, if not most, autism cases. The site Put Children First provides good background on the connection.

Hopefully public outcry will help to ensure the court proceedings are public. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

(For those people who think environmental toxins such as mercury may have played a role in a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting themselves or people they know, there are effective biomedical approaches to healing and recovering.)

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic’s Molecular Neuroscience Program recently published research that suggests common picornaviruses, including rhinoviruses (e.g., common cold) and enteroviruses, may infect the brain and lead to ongoing damage to areas of the brain involving memory.

The study was an animal study that infected mice with Theiler’s encephalomyelitis virus, which is an enterovirus similar to the human polio virus. Mice were then tested using a maze test. Some mice were not affected much at all, while others had great difficulty in navigating the maze. When researchers dissected the mice, they found that the performance on the test directly correlated to the amount of viral damage to the hippocampus, which is the brain structure primarily responsible for learning and memory.

The researchers hypothesize that some cases of human cognitive impairment and memory loss may be the result of the cumulative effect of multiple viral infections over the course of one’s lifetime.

Obviously, more research remains to be done to prove this hypothesis, but the general idea of reducing one’s viral load is a good one. Both prescription drugs (e.g., Valtrex) and natural substances (e.g., olive leaf extract) can be very effective in doing just that.

Couple of new studies out that highlight what many likely intuitively know: Many Americans want to eat better and be more healthy, but they want it to be easier and more convenient to do so.

ACNielsen - LifeChoices

NPD Group - Eating Patterns in America

The AC Nielsen study notes that most people (82%) acknowledge that the responsibility for weight gain lies with the individual. And yet, despite the fact that approximately 6 out of 10 people perceive as effective some of the important steps they can take to control weight, such as:

• Reducing frequency of eating junk food
• Taking up a sport, hobby, or exercise program
• Substituting water for sugary drinks
• Reducing meal sizes
• Increasing exercise intensity or amount of exercise

even smaller percentages of people actually take action.

(The fact that approximately 4 out of 10 people don’t perceive the steps above as potentially helpful is a separate, slightly scary issue. But let’s focus on the other 6 out of 10 first.)

For example, 65% of people perceive reducing junk food consumption as effective in losing weight. Yet, only 64% of those people have actually tried that. And what’s really interesting is that 86% of those who tried it found it to be effective.

Likewise, 62% of people thought taking up a sport or exercise program would be effective, but only 32% of them actually tried it. Of those who tried it, 88% found it to be effective!

Easier, But Better?

Clearly, something is holding people back. And that ‘thing’ seems to be convenience. When asked why consumers don’t follow through on healthy lifestyle changes, the top three responses were lack of exercise (29%), easy availability of junk food (19%), and the ease of modern life (18%).

According to the NPD study,

“The driving force in our eating habits has always been convenience. The only surprise is how that will manifest in our behavior.”

For example: The top 5 reasons people chose a dish for dinner

1. Required little effort or easy to make = 53%
2. Took little/no planning = 50%
3. Made with foods that are on-hand = 39%
4. Everyone would like = 35%
5. Easily cleaned up = 34%

It’s true a healthy lifestyle can require more effort. Exercise take time. Healthy food alternatives aren’t always easily available, especially when eating out. Nor are fresh foods as quick and easy to prepare as packaged foods.

Life is busy for many Americans. It’s often just easier to go for the convenient alternatives.

Yet, the health of many Americans continues to decline, in large part because of their own dietary and lifestyle choices. My guess is that behavior changes won’t really take hold until the health care costs resulting from these dietary and lifestyle choices are more directly borne by the individuals making the decisions. That’s certainly beginning to happen today and will only accelerate going forward as the health care system changes. It’s a topic that we’ll revisit often.

Autism is getting more much needed attention in the mainstream press. For example, it’s the cover story in this week’s issue of Newsweek.

And it certainly deserves to be. More than 500,000 people under 21 are diagnosed with autism. Approximately 1 out of every 166 children (and 1 out of every 100 boys) is diagnosed with autism (versus 1 out of every 10,000 children twenty years ago). 1 out of 6 children today is diagnosed with a developmental disorder.

The article discusses the efforts of parents and advocacy groups to pass the Combating Autism Act, which passed unanimously in the Senate and sets aside nearly $1B for autism research. Currently the bill is blocked by Rep. Joe Barton, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who says the legislation conflicts with his own proposal to reform the National Institutes of Health.

The bill approved by the Senate designated $45M for special centers that would focus on environmental research. Barton’s proposed revisions would eliminate this mandate. Also, some advocacy groups wanted the legislation to specifically include vaccines on the list of environmental factors to be assessed. The pharmaceutical industry lobbyists made sure that wording was removed in the Senate version of the bill.

(Update: Negotiations continue on the House version of the bill. Currently, the bill still includes the environmental language. Also, the last sentence in the paragraph above is incorrect. The $45M for environmental research still includes wording for research on vaccines and their components.)

The primary focus of the article, though, is on the absence of social services for people affected by autism once they become adults.

A few states like California and Connecticut, newly aware of the crisis, have launched efforts to meet adult needs. But until programs are widely available, families are left to cobble together a patchwork of solutions—from informal day care to hourly caretakers to private residential programs. But these are stopgap measures. Parents worry that they will run out of money to pay for these services—and that they won’t be around forever to arrange them for their children.

The entire article is worth reading and eye-opening to say the least.

Some Still in Denial

Amazingly, some practitioners and government representatives continue to suggest that the increase in autism rates may be the result of better diagnosis. This isn’t an issue of diagnosis. Anyone who has ever met a person affected by autism knows that the symptoms can’t be hidden.

Where are all the 40, 50 and 60 year-old autistics? Most people over the age of 30 would have trouble remembering if they met even one autistic person in school. Today, entire classes and special schools are being set up in school districts around the country to handle the dramatic increase in autistic and developmentally disabled children.

This is an epidemic, an epidemic that destroys lives and families, both health-wise and financially. And without better research into causes (including environmental factors such as mercury exposure) and effective treatments, the immense financial costs of taking care of autistic individuals, estimated to be in the trillions, will be felt by everyone.

Getting the Real Story

Unfortunately, the real story, examining the environmental influences and how biomedical treatments can help to restore function, isn’t being told by most folks in the mainstream press. There are, though, journalists, such as David Kirby and UPI’s Dan Olmstead, who have fought tirelessly to uncover what’s really going on, as well as many parents, organizations, scientists, healthcare practitioners, and even a few politicians.

Hopefully the word will continue to spread…

In news that you certainly didn’t see on the evening news, the organization Put Children First commissioned a survey of 9,000 individuals regarding the use of mercury in flu shots and got some very interesting results, e.g.:

• 76% of respondents are unaware that most flu shots contain mercury (the vaccine’s preservative, thimerosal, contains 50% mercury).
• After learning that mercury is an ingredient, 74% are less likely to get a flu shot and 86% say they are less likely to get their child a flu shot.
• 77% believe mercury should not be an ingredient in flu shots given to pregnant women and children.
• 73% believe the government should warn pregnant women not to get a flu shot if it contains mercury.
• More than 70% agree that Congress, doctors and medical groups (e.g., the American Academy of Pediatrics) should take responsibility for ensuring vaccines do not contain mercury.
• 80% of respondents and 84% of parents are willing to pay the $2.50 additional cost for a mercury-free flu shot.

Check out the results overview page here. Put Children First includes many eye-opening items of interest, including:

• 90% of the flu shots distributed this year for both adults and children will contain mercury (in the form of thimerosal, as will many other adult vaccines, such as some tetanus/diptheria booster shots).
• A mercury-containing flu shot contains 50,000 ppb (parts per billion) of mercury. If liquid contains more than 200 ppb, it is classified by the government as a hazardous waste. Drinking water cannot contain more than 2 ppb. Simply amazing.
• Mercury is estimated to be 1000 times as toxic as lead. Could you imagine the uproar if lead were included in vaccines? According to the Material Data Safety Sheet for thimerosal, no safe occupational exposure level has been determined.
• Links to recent articles published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) questioning the effectiveness of flu vaccines.
• Links to studies documenting thimerosal’s extreme toxicity.

Certainly some information to consider before getting that next vaccination…

Increasing vegetable and fruit consumption has been shown to help reduce the risk of developing many chronic diseases, including Alzheimer’s, colon cancer, stroke, heart disease, and more.

As you increase produce consumption, though, you may also increase your risk for exposure to pesticides. Small levels of pesticide exposure over prolonged periods of time may increase the risk of damage to the nervous and endocrine systems.

Should you only buy organically grown produce? That’s a tough call. Organically grown produce is becoming more widely available,and prices are falling. But for many people, organic produce is still prohibitively expensive and not easy to obtain.

The truth is that pesticides are used more heavily in growing some crops than others. The Environmental Working Group has put together a useful guide showing the produce with the highest and lowest pesticide levels, including:

• HIGH: Apples, pears, nectarines, peaches, berries of all kinds, leafy greens, celery, bell peppers, etc.
• LOW: Onions, avocados, mangoes, papayas, bananas, cabbage, broccoli, etc.

You can find the complete list here.

Note that the testing results took into account how most people prepare these produce items before eating them. For example, apples were washed before testing.

Your best bet is to buy organic if possible for those vegetables and fruits that show higher pesticide levels, but not to worry so much about buying organic for produce that shows lower levels.

And even if you can’t find or afford organic produce, you’re better off eating more non-organic produce than no produce at all. Just wash all non-organic produce as well as you can. You can also remove the peel (e.g., with an apple or pear), but then you lose some of the good nutrients contained in it. It’s a trade-off.

A somewhat sad commentary on the slow adoption in the U.S. of a simple, inexpensive, and effective way to help prevent and treat heart disease using fish oil:

Every patient in the cardiac care unit at the San Filippo Neri Hospital [Rome, Italy] who survives a heart attack goes home with a prescription for purified fish oil, or omega-3 fatty acids.

“It is clearly recommended in international guidelines,” said Dr. Massimo Santini, the hospital’s chief of cardiology, who added that it would be considered tantamount to malpractice in Italy to omit the drug.

In a large number of studies, prescription fish oil has been shown to improve survival after heart attacks and to reduce fatal heart rhythms. The American College of Cardiology recently strengthened its position on the medical benefit of fish oil, although some critics say that studies have not defined the magnitude of the effect.

But in the United States, heart attack victims are not generally given omega-3 fatty acids, even as they are routinely offered more expensive and invasive treatments, like pills to lower cholesterol or implantable defibrillators. Prescription fish oil, sold under the brand name Omacor, is not even approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in heart patients.

“Most cardiologists here are not giving omega-3’s even though the data supports it — there’s a real disconnect,” said Dr. Terry Jacobson, a preventive cardiologist at Emory University in Atlanta. “They have been very slow to incorporate the therapy.”

The article goes on to note that since the prescription fish oil is not licensed in the U.S. to prevent heart disease (only to treat high triglycerides), community doctors don’t learn of its potential preventive use and insurance companies don’t provide reimbursement.

Amazing, isn’t it?

The majority of Americans, not just heart attack patients, don’t get adequate intake of omega-3 fatty acids. Fish is by far the best food source of these healthy fats, but there are clearly toxicity risks. Supplements are a much safer route and help to ensure that you get a regular supply.

The prescription fish oil capsules are fine. They’re concentrated to have about three times more omega-3 fatty acids than most non-prescription products. But they’re also a lot more expensive and require a prescription.

Non-prescription products, as long as they’re tested for contaminants, are just as good. And some manufacturers even make concentrated formulas to reduce the number of necessary pills.

Most brands of fish oil are tested for contaminants. You can check many brands here.

Given the many benefits of omega-3 fatty acids in helping to prevent and treat disease, hopefully we’ll their use increase in medicine going forward — and not just in Europe.

A couple of weeks back, I wrote a post about the historic rejection of the FDA’s dental mercury filling safety report by its panel of outside experts. Rep. Diane Watson, who has pushed for legislation banning mercury use in dentistry, wrote an excellent article on where things currently stand:

The FDA has already taken numerous steps to limit human and animal exposure to mercury. To date, it has banned mercury in disinfectants and thermometers, warned against mercury in certain foods, and prohibited the presence of mercury in all veterinary products.

Many governments around the world, however, have gone a step further by either limiting the use of or banning mercury fillings. The UK, for example, prohibits pregnant and lactating women from receiving amalgam fillings, and Scandinavian countries are phasing out the product. Canada has also restricted its use.

Despite growing scientific evidence and public awareness of the dangers of exposure to even small amounts of mercury, the FDA, the federal agency charged with regulating dental amalgam, still permits the sale of a dental product that has not been proven safe and classified as the law requires and is used inches from the brain. It continues to sanction commerce in silver fillings without disclosing to the American people that they contain a significant amount of mercury and emit mercury vapor during the entire life of the filling.

The FDA’s past silence on mercury amalgam is all the more curious given the fact that both the Centers for Disease Control, in 2005, identified amalgam as a source of “major exposure” to mercury, and the U.S. Public Health Service warned, in 1999, that mercury amalgam is one of the two greatest sources of mercury exposure to humans.

And what remains to be done:

(1) Disclosure: The FDA must immediately take the simple step of requiring dentists to inform their patients that amalgam is 50% mercury, it constitutes exposure to a neuro-toxin, and alternative fillings are available.

(2) Environmental Impact: The FDA has the legal duty to conduct an environmental impact study of dental amalgam, which it has never done, before properly classifying the material.

(3) Proof of Safety: Manufacturers of amalgam should have the burden of proving its safety. To date, they have never sought nor been given pre-market approval for their product. The FDA must hold amalgam manufacturers accountable.

(4) Children and Pregnant Women: Ten years ago, Health Canada directed its dentists to cease placing mercury fillings in the teeth of children, pregnant women, and persons with kidney disease, mercury hypersensitivity, or braces. The FDA should implement a similar ban in the U.S.

Hopefully last week’s changes in Congress will help to make such changes and legislation a reality.