I was toying briefly with the idea of giving this post a provocative title like "For Men Only" but the content makes it quite clear that such a title would be inappropriate. Not because such a title might be thought inappropriately teasing (or evocative) but because it would be inaccurate. You see, the enquirer whose question appears below is a woman concerned with her own hormone status and that of a male friend.
Rather than edit the post down to simply focus on the hormone content I have left it intact (as received by me) because it illustrates a quality of interaction not seen in many newsletters. I have also left an embedded link to a medical laboratory report that you may care to read after perusing the content below.
Question: From Libby. (Subject: Sleep… and more…)
I am about to use your new Neuro-Natural Sleep formula. Should I still be taking my Melatonin to go with it?
I can fall asleep really fast and I usually go to bed like at 10.30 as I am getting up at 5.45 for work. But then I wake up at 2 or 3 and then again at 4 or 5!
I am having dreams every night. Is it OK to have so many dreams? Is it good sleep when I do have them or is my brain not resting and working overtime?
You probably do remember me as I am the one who wrote you about all the supplements I was taking, about 25 a day. I am also taking half of 25 mg DHEA in the morning with L-Tyrosine and L-Taurine 500 mg each. And I am on Estratest HRT now as I heard that Testosterone in it improves menopausal women’s libido. I am also using Progesterone cream once a day to massage into my skin.
On your suggestion I discontinued most of my supplements, but is it possible that I may still be over supplementing?
I am not taking that many pills as I used to but still taking many. Also CLA, Omega 3 (of course), Flax oil capsule (one a day), Borage. And I take Ginseng too, and your sleep formula.
Please let me know what you think.
I also have a 59 year old male friend, also in better than average shape, but I would want him to gain some more muscle mass. Do you think a guy at that age can still grow muscles? We heard that supplementing Testosterone for men is not a good idea, that a man’s body senses there is Testosterone and shut down its own production.
I will let you know if that sleep formula works for me.
Answer: From Warren.
Melatonin could cause the excessive dreaming that you are having. I suggest that you try phasing it out for a few weeks whilst using the sleep formula and see what difference it makes.
I would also suggest that you try discontinuing the Estratest HRT for a while. You may indeed be overdosing in hormones. Just maintain the 12mgs a day of DHEA in the meantime with 6 tablets of the sleep formula for a month, taking 3 tablets around the time of your evening meal and the other three just before you go to bed.
You might find it beneficial to replace your L-Taurine and L-Tyrosine with the Total Balance Women’s Plus and our Neuro Natural Sleep formula. They both contain L-Tyrosine and the Sleep formula contains L-Taurine. But… most importantly the Total Balance contains a full spectrum of other important nutrients.
Let me know how you get on.
With regard to your male friend, indeed he can still grow muscles at his age. I will be 59 this year and have no difficulty maintaining my muscle mass with minimal weight training…about 60 minutes a week. You are right, supplementing with testosterone is not a good idea for men as it can affect their own production and still not raise levels. The problem is for most men is not that they have stopped producing testosterone but rather that a high percentage of it is converted to estrogen.
What men need to do is inhibit this conversion process. This can be done safely and effectively without taking any hormones. In that regard the full daily dose of our Total Balance Men’s Plus is a viable option. Amongst other things it contains Chrysin which helps prevent the conversion of testosterone to estrogen. Have a look at my testosterone levels which I have attached (please note that this is a .PDF and may take a few moments to open up). I don’t take hormones of any sort… only our own products of which the foundation is Total Balance Men’s Plus.
He could add our Male Rejuvenator to his regime as it contains other ingredients which will help boost the production of his testosterone.
This brief interaction is taken from a part of the Xtend-Life newsletter. It offers a diverse, balanced, very well researched and informed, quite frank communication to subscribers. If informative articles and an opportunity for individual, personalized advice (not all of which is published of course) interests you then I suggest you subscribe.
You can follow the link on the Nutraceutical products page at HealthProductsSite.com. It is on the right hand side of the page. Subscription is free, quite safe from spam and you can unsubscribe at any time. Well worth giving a try.
Here is a short excerpt from a quick update sent to subscribers of the Xtend-Life newsletter that I highly recommend you subscribe to. A subscriber has asked a question and Nicolien, Xtend-Life’s qualified medical herbalist provides an answer. Perhaps it answers a question you’ve been wondering about too.
Question: From Tony. (Subject: Cooking oils?)
I just ordered your fish oil for the first time and was reading the latest newsletter and you mentioned in response to someone’s question that canola oil is man made and could be carcinogenic. What kind of cooking oil do you recommend and why?
Answer: From Nicolien.
For cooking, grape seed oil is the one of choice as it does not get converted to a trans fatty acid [Ed]when it is heated. For salads, cold-pressed extra virgin olive oil or flax seed oil are the best. None of these oils have any potential carcinogenic properties.
To subscribe to the newsletter, which is both free and safe from spam, go to the Nutraceuticals page at HealthProductsSite.com and find the link part way down the page on the right side of the screen. You can unsubscribe at any time, but you will probably find it too valuable to do that.
Once again the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a Public Health Advisory in a manner that appears decidedly grudging and half-hearted. One can only imagine how well drug company management and investors must sleep at night, knowing that even if highly reputable medical journals publish adverse findings about their products, their friends at the FDA are there to protect them. Too bad for consumers though, isn’t it.
This Advisory is remarkable. While acknowledging that adverse findings have been reported from two different studies in two different medical journals, the Advisory itself begins a critique of those studies in such a way as to undermine their credibility. Here is the main FDA release but some interesting things can be found in other versions released below.
FDA Public Health Advisory
Aprotinin Injection (marketed as Trasylol)On January 26, 2006, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article by Mangano et al. reporting an association of Trasylol (aprotinin injection) with serious renal toxicity and ischemic events (myocardial infarction and stroke) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG). Another publication (Transfusion, on-line edition, January 20, 2006, Karkouti, et al.) suggests an association between aprotinin administration and renal toxicity among patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. FDA is evaluating these studies, along with other studies in the literature and reports submitted to the FDA through the MedWatch program, to determine if labeling changes or other actions are warranted.
While FDA is continuing its evaluation, we are providing the following recommendations to healthcare providers and patients:
- Physicians who use Trasylol should carefully monitor patients for the occurrence of toxicity, particularly to the kidneys, heart, or central nervous system and promptly report adverse event information to Bayer, the drug manufacturer, or to the FDA MedWatch program, as described at the end of this advisory.
- Physicians should consider limiting Trasylol use to those situations where the clinical benefit of reduced blood loss is essential to medical management of the patient and outweighs the potential risks.
The study reported in the NEJM was an observational study of patients undergoing CABG who received either Trasylol, one of two other drugs intended to decrease peri-operative bleeding (aminocaproic acid or tranexamic acid), or no specific drug treatment.
A limitation of the study was that patients were not assigned at random to receive the treatments, but rather had their treatment chosen by their physician as part of their standard medical care. Consequently, patients receiving Trasylol may have been at higher risk to begin with for these serious adverse events compared to patients receiving no treatment or treatment with another drug intended to decrease bleeding. This possibility prevents a direct assessment of whether Trasylol altered the risk for serious adverse events. The study investigators used statistical procedures (multivariable logistic regression and propensity-score adjustment) to try to adjust for known differences between the treatment groups. Using these procedures, their study concluded that Trasylol was associated with more adverse outcomes. Other findings in the study suggested that patients receiving higher Trasylol dosages were at greater risk than those receiving lower dosages.
The study reported in the on-line edition of Transfusion was also an observational study that used statistical methodology to compare outcomes from patients undergoing CABG. The patients in this study received, at physician direction, either Trasylol or another drug intended to decrease the risk for perioperative bleeding. This study suggested that Trasylol administration increased the risk for renal dysfunction. This study has some of the same limitations as the NEJM publication.
In pre-marketing clinical studies conducted among approximately 3,000 patients undergoing CABG, the risks and benefits of Trasylol were determined in clinical studies that randomized patients to either a placebo or Trasylol. In these studies, the risks for serious renal toxicity and cardiovascular events were determined to be similar between patients receiving Trasylol and those receiving placebo. However, in one study assessing coronary graft patency, Trasylol administration was associated with an increased risk of graft closure. The FDA will work with the authors of the publications and the manufacturer of Trasylol to carefully evaluate the risks and benefits associated with use of Trasylol in CABG. The FDA anticipates the public presentation of the recently reported information and other data at an advisory committee in the near future. The FDA will notify health care providers and patients in a timely fashion as new information becomes available.
The FDA urges health care providers and patients to report adverse event information to FDA via the MedWatch program by phone (1-800-FDA-1088), by fax (1-800-FDA-0178), or by the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/index.html.
In material evidently intended for more limited circulation, namely to cardiovascular and other healthcare professionals, the FDA takes a more conservative stance and does not attack the source of its obvious irritation.
Trasylol (aprotinin)
Audience: Cardiovascular and other healthcare professionals
[Posted 02/08/2006] FDA issued a public health advisory and other advisory information to notify both healthcare professionals and consumers of recently published studies of serious renal and cardiovascular toxicity following Trasylol administration to patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG). An observational study published in The New England Journal of Medicine reported that Trasylol may be associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and renal dysfunction. Another publication (Transfusion, on-line edition, January 20, 2006) has reported that Trasylol administration may increase the risk for renal toxicity.The FDA is working with the authors of the publications and the manufacturer of Trasylol to carefully evaluate the risks and benefits associated with use of Trasylol in CABG. The FDA anticipates the public presentation of the recently reported information and other data at an advisory committee in the near future. The FDA will notify health care providers and patients in a timely fashion as new information becomes available.
Source: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/2006/safety06.htm#Trasylol
In an FDA Alert we can again see, even through the measured bureaucratic language, a tone somewhere between irritation and disdain. I have highlighted the text that appears included to convey a put-down to the authors of the studies and, by association, the journals involved (editors and peer reviewers).
Aprotinin Injection (marketed as Trasylol) Information
FDA ALERT [2/2006]
FDA is issuing this alert to provide notice of recently published reports of serious renal and cardiovascular toxicity following Trasylol administration to patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG). An observational study published on January 26, 2006 in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), reported that Trasylol may be associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and renal dysfunction. Another publication (Transfusion, on-line edition, January 20, 2006) has reported that Trasylol administration may increase the risk for renal toxicity. Neither study was randomized, and both compared Trasylol to products that are not FDA approved for use in the management of cardiac surgery patients.
FDA is evaluating these reports in the context of the pre-marketing clinical studies supporting the safety and efficacy of Trasylol and the post-marketing reports submitted to the MedWatch program.
This information reflects FDA’s preliminary analysis of data concerning this drug. FDA is considering, but has not reached a final conclusion about, this information. FDA intends to update this sheet when additional information or analyses become available.
Source: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/aprotinin/default.htm
Only fools believe that FDA approval means a drug or medical device is safe. The drug prescribers and device operators are in a precarious position. Manufacturers produce drugs and devices to make money, they are not humanitarian aid organizations. The FDA theoretically filters their greed by establishing the bona fides of their claims and seeks to establish the safety of products when used for the stated purpose. Provided the FDA does indeed approve them, the prescribers and operators should be able to employ the products with confidence, and by and large, they do. But what if the filter isn’t good enough? Where does that leave everyone?
Both the number and nature of the problems associated with approved drugs and devices are enough to allow any intelligent observer to conclude that the current system doesn’t work. It is far from safe. The FDA appears quite defensive about the present arrangement and I suppose that is simply to be expected. However, it definitely seems to be increasingly easy to obtain approvals and much harder to persuade the FDA to revise or revoke its own decisions. If concerned medical practitioners and researchers are subjected to overt or subtle pressure not to criticize FDA findings then current dangerous situation will lurch into full crisis. Perhaps we are getting perilously close to that now.
My occasional cautionary comments about vaccination are the source of frustration for some parents who find in them reminders that they felt coerced into vaccinating their children. I know many regret not taking a stronger stand, but I think it is made quite difficult for parents to buck systems that are well organized and quite powerful and designed to secure conformity with approved immunization schedules.
The problems caused by vaccination are many but one statistic I saw today quite shocked even me. It was the rate of autism in children in the U.S. It comes from the January/February issue of Mothering Magazine, which is dedicated to autism. The promo for this issue says:
With a US autism rate of 1 in 166 children, Mothering reports on hopeful treatments that work. Autism has been proclaimed an incurable disease. But many families have found hope and healing with a variety of methods, from vitamin supplementation to boosting the immune system.
Dr. Lewis Mehl-Madrona shares a concise round up of everything from vitamin and nutritional therapies to an alternative form of applied behavioral analysis in "Successful Treatments for Autism." "The Hope of Homeopathy" by Amy Lansky and "The Promise of Chelation" by Sarah Bridges explore in-depth two of the most popular treatments for autism.
Amy Lansky first heard about homeopathy in the pages of Mothering and she intuitively knew that the healing art could help her son Max. After a series of several remedies, the symptoms of Max’s autism entirely disappeared. Lansky was so astounded by her son’s transformation that she gave up her career as a computer scientist to become a homeopath herself. She went on to write about her experience in Impossible Cure, one of the top-selling books in the US on homeopathy.
Sarah Bridges shares additional compelling stories of recovery, these via chelation, a treatment that cleanses the body and brain of mercury and other heavy metals. Bridges discusses the elements of successful, responsible treatment, including vitamin supplementation, lab testing, and finding a good healthcare provider willing to perform the procedure. Most of the practitioners featured in Bridge’s article are affiliated with Defeat Autism Now! (DAN!), an initiative of the Austism Research Institute.
We hope these articles inspire and inform everyone, but especially those families courageously facing the challenge of autism. We dedicate this issue to them.
For more information and resources, read the January/February 2006 Mothering Magazine.
Mothering is a bimonthly magazine that reports on natural family living. Articles cover pregnancy, childbirth options, midwifery, breastfeeding, educational alternatives, and family health issues. Check out http://www.mothering.com
Their current issue is only available in print but on their website I found quite a good article by Peggy O’Mara in Issue 134 titled Vaccinations: Why All The Fuss? In it Peggy says:
Two other vaccines began to be questioned in the 1990s: measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and hepatitis B. The MMR vaccine, added to the vaccine schedule in 1979, is a live vaccine and does not contain a preservative. Research reported in 1998 by British physician Andrew Wakefield, and since confirmed by others, showed the presence of a persistent measles infection in the guts of some autistic children who had never had measles. It has been theorized that combining measles and mumps viruses in a single vaccine may cause gastrointestinal problems that could lead to autism.
Source: http://www.mothering.com/guest_editors/quiet_place/quiet_place.html
One thing is certain, no one can trust the FDA or CDC to provide much, if any, protection from the dangers of vaccination. They are, right along with the vaccine manufacturers, the chief promoters of the practice. Read that autism rate again — 1 in 166 children. That is quite astonishing. What I want to know is, why are people putting up with this?
Here is a story about a breakthrough in medical science. It is actually part of a sales page for a specialized investment adviser’s service. I will place a link to the full copy below but please note that I am not affiliated with this service in any way and I am not endorsing it by sharing this with you. The copy is so well written and inherently interesting however, I thought you might find it worth your time. If you are an investor it may well be well worth your time to read the full pitch.
Gloria Richards never expected to go blind.
But like 20% of all men and women over 65, she had macular degeneration, which often leads to age-related blindness.
No more reading. No more golf. No more weekly bridge parties with the girls.
Life as Gloria knew it, would be over.
Then her doctor told her about a brand-new treatment — a breakthrough technology so important to the medical community that it was recently featured over 1,625 times in scholarly scientific journals, like Scientific American, Science magazine, and in the academic reports of The National Academy of the Sciences.
Gloria’s doctor asked if she wanted to be one of the first to try this new treatment. Without hesitation, Gloria jumped at the chance.
The result?
Put simply, Gloria experienced a miracle.
She can see… with no drugs, no lasers, no surgery, and no side effects.
Dr. Philip A. Sharp, MIT professor and Nobel Prize-winner in medicine says of this technology, called RNA interference, “It’s the most important and exciting breakthrough of the decade, perhaps multiple decades.”
In fact, RNA interference is so powerful that Technology Review magazine listed it as one of the “10 emerging technologies that will change your world.” That’s because RNA interference doesn’t treat just macular degeneration — it can be used to shut off nearly any disease in the human body — just like shutting off a light switch.
Sounds unbelievable, right? I’d agree, but I’ve seen the proof for myself. This technology is as real as they come — because it’s being put to practical use right now.
I’ll tell you all about how it works in just a moment.
You see, I’ve spent the past 3 years investigating this new technology first hand. I’ve met with over a half-dozen infectious disease experts, attended dozens of industry conferences, and visited top-level executives and CEOs. In short, this new technology is so powerful — its applications are practically unlimited…
— Hereditary Disease Foundation, Official Website
— Financial Times, September 2005
— Biotechnology Magazine, April 2005
It all began in a tiny greenhouse just outside San Francisco…
In 1986 a scientist named Richard Jorgenson was attempting to make the world’s most dazzling flower — the deepest purple of petunias.
To do this, he added an extra purple-making gene to an already purple petunia.
Sounds logical, right?
But, unexpectedly, after adding the extra gene for purple, the flower turned bright white.
This tiny white petunia caused one of the biggest scientific mysteries in recent history. The world’s best and brightest scientists scurried to solve the puzzle…
Why does a purple flower turn white when an extra gene for purple is added?
This riddle went unsolved for more than a decade.
Then in 1998, 2 scientists, Dr. Craig Mello of The University Massachusetts and Dr. Andrew Fire of the Carnegie Institute in Washington, finally figured it out — putting an end the decade long puzzle.
The riddle is solved!
When Richard Jorgenson added that extra purple gene to the petunia, he unknowingly activated an ancient defense mechanism that exists in every living cell.
Two scientists — doctors Craig Mello and Andrew Fire — discovered this process in 1998 — solving the “great petunia riddle” — and coined the term RNA interference.
How does RNA interference work?
When Jorgenson inserted that extra purple-producing gene into the tiny petunia, he activated a secret security device — an enzyme, scientists call “the dicer.” It’s called “the dicer” because it can literally “chop up” any disease, virus, bacteria, or fungus.
And that was the secret to discovering RNA interference. The dicer (or RNA interference) has to be activated to work — or spurred into action. That’s why it took so long to discover this medical technology.
Back in Jorgenson’s white petunia, the dicer was activated when the unfamiliar invader (the extra purple gene) invaded the cell. Thinking it was a virus, “the dicer” kicked in — and literally shut down all color producing genes to protect the flower from the foreign substance. Likewise, Jorgenson got a white flower — one with no color.
In 2002, Thomas Tuschl, working out of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Gottingen, Germany, discovered that RNA interference works in human cells.
Remember how Richard Jorgenson destroyed ALL color producing genes in a flower by inserting an extra color-producing gene? Well, Tuschl discovered that this same process works to destroy real human diseases.
According to The London Times, “The diseases that stand to benefit from RNA interference include Alzheimer’s, breast cancer, leukemia, schizophrenia, and many, many more.”
The prestigious journal, Science magazine, hailed this discovery the #1 scientific breakthrough of the year.
It boils down to this: “An ancient immune system hiding in our genes has the power to switch off genes at will. We could soon be harnessing this awesome force to stop cancer and viruses dead,” reports New Science magazine.
Tuschl found that if doctors want to destroy a particular disease, all they have to do is insert an “evil twin” of that disease to activate the dicer — just like Jorgenson did in the petunia.
Think of RNA interference as “a virus for the virus.”
Now, let’s say you want to treat macular degeneration.
Doctors simply insert an “evil twin” of the disease that reads, “make more blood vessels” underneath the retina — that’s what causes the vision impairment. The dicer will “come alive,” see that something is not quite right, and destroy genes that are making extra blood vessels.
And that’s exactly how Gloria Richard’s blinding eyes were healed.
Source: Sales copy for an investment advisory service run by Dave Lashmet available here:
It is very high-tech and interventionist treatment and Big Pharma will be all over it, I’m sure. However, it pays to maintain balance and an open mind so for now I think this is something well worth keeping an eye on. Some otherwise untreatable diseases may be dealt a blow by such therapies and if the unwanted side effects can be genuinely kept to a minimum then this may be very welcome indeed.
I do find it fascinating that an apparently natural intracellular defence system has been uncovered in this quite recent research. I wonder how many other natural systems there are that natural therapists have been activating with their treatments for thousands of years, not knowing exactly how their treatments worked, but knowing that they work. How many more are to be discovered and hopefully better appreciated and understood?
I must say too, that discovering a treatment that involves inserting an “evil twin” sounds very much like the homeopathic principle of “like cures like”. Who knows, perhaps homeopathic medicines have been activating this previously unknown intracellular “immune system,” or yet another one like it, at an energy level for years.