Breast Cancer Breakthrough - Cut Your Risk of Death in Half
According to the National Breast Cancer Foundation, 200,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed each year in the US, making it three times more common than other gynecological cancers.
Breast cancer will claim the lives of 40,000 people this year.
What is really disturbing is the speed at which breast cancer rates have risen over the past 5 decades. In 1960, one in twenty women were diagnosed—but today, it is one in seven.
The following are some important facts about this type of cancer:
• One woman in eight who lives to age 85 will develop breast cancer.
• Breast cancer is the leading cause of death for women age 40 to 55.
• Fifteen percent of all breast cancers occur in women under age 45; in this age group, breast cancers are more aggressive and have lower recovery rates.
• Eighty percent of breast lumps are NON-cancerous.
• Seventy percent of breast cancers are found through breast self-exams.
• About 80 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history of breast cancer.
Unfortunately, the current medical paradigm is relatively clueless about what causes breast cancer and how to effectively treat it. Most conventional cancer treatments actually add insult to injury by doing more harm than good—a fact that up to this point has been swept under the rug by the medical industry.
Fortunately, we're beginning to see the initial stirrings of change, as you will see from the latest research I'll be presenting later.
In the largest review of research into lifestyle and breast cancer, the American Institute of Cancer Research estimated that about 40 percent of U.S. breast cancer cases could be prevented if people make wiser lifestyle choices. I believe these estimates are seriously LOW, and it is more likely that 75 to 90 percent of breast cancers could be avoided by strictly applying the recommendations I will review below.
In fact, the latest paleoanthropological research shows that cancer was virtually nonexistent in humans before poor diet and pollution appeared, finally proving that cancer is a man-made disease.
My aim for this article is to provide you with a broad understanding of the factors that lead to the development of this deadly disease—as we now understand them—and what you can do preventatively to avoid becoming the next victim..If you happen to be a man, please read on since it actually does apply to you as well.
Men are NOT Immune to Breast Cancer
Breast cancer is not a disease exclusive to women. For every 100 women with breast cancer, one man will develop the disease. The National Breast Cancer Foundation estimates approximately 1,700 men will develop breast cancer and 450 will die from it each year.
The average age men are diagnosed with breast cancer is 67, versus 62 for women, meaning male cancers are often caught in a more advanced stage. If you work around petrochemicals, your risk is much higher. Men who work around gasoline and combustion products have a significantly higher risk of developing breast cancer.
Males and their doctors may be diverted from an accurate diagnosis due to enlargement of the breasts or gynecomastia, a common and benign condition, plus the fact that men are generally less vigilant about checking for breast lumps.
Types of Breast Cancer
Breast cancer is classified into two types, based on whether or not it is invasive:
• Noninvasive (in situ) breast cancer: Cancer cells have not spread to adjacent areas of your breast—they have remained in their place of origin. The most common type is ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which occurs in the lining of the milk ducts. Noninvasive breast cancer is sometimes called "stage 0" cancer.
• Invasive breast cancer. Cancer cells infiltrate or spread outside the membrane that lines a duct or lobule, into surrounding tissues. The cancer cells can then travel to other parts of your body. Invasive breast cancer can be stage I, II, III, or IV, depending on how advanced it is.
Breast cancer can be further classified according to what type of tissue it arises from:
• Milk ducts: Ductal carcinoma is the most common type of breast cancer.
• Milk-producing lobules: Lobular carcinoma originates in the lobules, where breast milk is produced.
• Connective tissues (muscles, fat and blood vessels): Rarely, breast cancer can originate from these breast tissues; in this case, it's called sarcoma
Inflammatory Breast Cancer: The Rarest and Most Aggressive Form
Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare form of breast cancer of sudden onset (weeks to months) and can easily be confused with a breast infection (mastitis). The affected breast is red, swollen, warm and tender because cancer cells have blocked the lymphatic vessels in your breast.
You might or might not have a lump.
IBC accounts for between 1 and 5 percent of all breast cancer cases in the U.S., and is more common among younger women and African American women. There have been some cases documented in men. IBC is the most aggressive form of breast cancer, and survival rates are worse than for other types of breast cancer.
You should seek medical attention immediately if you have the above symptoms—or if you are being treated for mastitis but your symptoms are not resolving as expected.
Signs and Symptoms to Watch For
The most common signs and symptoms of breast cancer include the following:
• A breast lump or thickening that feels different from the surrounding tissue
• Bloody discharge, or other unusual discharge, from your nipple
• A change in your breast's size or shape
• Changes in the skin on your breast, such as dimpling or indentation
• Redness or pitting of your breast skin—kind of like the skin of an orange
• Pain or tenderness in your breast
• An inverted nipple
• Peeling or flaking of the nipple
• Enlarged lymph nodes or swelling in your armpit
If you have any of these changes, you should consult your healthcare provider immediately. But don't panic—remember, the majority of breast tumors are benign. Many of the above signs can indicate other issues besides cancer, and your healthcare provider can help you sort it out.
What Causes Breast Cancer?
We now know that breast inflammation is KEY to the development and progression of breast cancer. Inflammation is not the cause, but rather is a key process that sets the stage for breast cancer to occur. There are certainly many aggravating factors, from foods to chemicals in the environment to lifestyle patterns and genetics—but it is the INFLAMMATION that these things cause that starts the wheel turning.
Scientists have shown that an inflammatory process within the breast itself promotes growth of breast cancer stem cells. That's the bad news.
The good news?
Researchers were able to inactivate this inflammation selectively, which reduced the activity of these stem cells and stopped breast cancer from forming. Although your genes are a factor in your breast cancer risk, it is not your genes that dictate your health but rather the expression of them, and that depends on what genes you "turn on and off" with your lifestyle and emotional state (epigenetic factors).
In other words, you have more power over your health than your genetics does!
Breast Cancer is Closely Tied to Estrogen Exposure
There are a number of studies that have given us clues about the factors contributing to breast cancer. But one of the most significant factors is synthetic hormone replacement therapy (HRT). According to a study published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of HRT. In Canada, between 2002 and 2004, HRT use dropped by 7.8 percent. During that same time, breast cancer rates also fell by 9.6 percent.
This further supports existing evidence that HRT is linked with breast cancer, which is an estrogen-related cancer. So it is no surprise that giving women potent synthetic estrogens will increase their risk.
However, there's a twist.
After remaining stable at around five percent between 2004 and 2006, breast cancer rates then began to rise again, even though HRT use remained low. The researchers claim this is an indication that HRT simply speeds up tumor growth, as opposed to directly causing it.
It's also important to remember that you are exposed to a large number of estrogen-like compounds daily, called xenoestrogens. Estrogen pollution is increasingly present all around you, from plastics to canned food and drinks, food additives, household cleaning products, and pesticides. And estrogen levels are rising in our waterways as a result of the runoff from factory animal farms.
Still, whether it's a promoter or a causative factor, there's good reason to be wary of using HRT to address natural menopause. There is no reason to subject yourself to synthetic hormones when you reach menopause—the risk is simply too great.
If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and does not wreak havoc on your system, which is a much safer alternative.
There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives—birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones—have been linked to cervical and breast cancers. Another aggravating factor in breast cancer is, unfortunately, the breast cancer screening tool itself.
Are Mammograms Fueling Breast Cancer Rates?
Mammography is a great example of a stubborn head-in-the-sand approach to cancer screening. Americans are already exposed to seven times more radiation from diagnostic scans than they were in 1980. It is well known that ionizing radiation increases the cellular mutations that lead to cancer—and mammograms aim a highly focused dose directly at your breasts, thereby increasing your cancer risk!
WHY would you want to do this?
Mammograms expose your body to radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than a chest x-ray, which we know poses a cancer risk. Mammography also compresses your breasts tightly, and often painfully, which could lead to a lethal spread of cancerous cells, should they exist. Dr. Charles B. Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute, said:
"Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasizing an existing growth."
Others have spoken out against mammography. Dr. Samuel Epstein, a top cancer expert who has been warning people for years about the dangers of mammography, explains:
"The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening..."
"The high sensitivity of the breast, especially in young women, to radiation-induced cancer was known by 1970. Nevertheless, the establishment then screened some 300,000 women with X-ray dosages so high as to increase breast cancer risk by up to 20 percent in women aged 40 to 50 who were mammogramed annually."
In July 1995, an article in The Lancet about mammograms read:
"The benefit is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous."
There is no solid evidence that mammograms save lives, in spite of the propaganda some organizations constantly parrot to the press. Mammograms are often touted as a "life-saving" form of cancer screening, responsible for reducing breast cancer death rates by 15 to 25 percent. But this reported benefit is based on outdated studies done decades ago.
In September 2010, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical journals, published the first recent study in years to look at the effectiveness of mammograms, and their findings are a far cry from what most public health officials and physicians would have you believe.
Their bottom line was that mammograms might have only reduced cancer death rates by 0.4 deaths per 1,000 women—an amount so small it may as well be zero. Put another way, 2,500 women would have to be screened over 10 years for a single breast cancer death to be avoided.
So, not only are mammograms unsafe, but they are NOT saving lives as many professionals believed they were.
Past research has also demonstrated that adding an annual mammogram to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not improve breast cancer survival rates over a physical examination alone.
False Positives are Alarmingly Common in Mammography
Another glaring problem with mammography is its unacceptably high rate of false positives. If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in a woman's breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves taking a small amount of tissue from the breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present. Estimates are that 17 percent of DCIS cases found through needle biopsy are misdiagnosed.
Mammograms carry a first-time false positive rate of up to 6 percent.
The problem is that early stage cancer like DCIS can be very hard to diagnose, and pathologists have a wide range of experience and expertise. There are no diagnostic standards for DCIS, and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise.
Dr. Shahla Masood, the head of pathology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the New York Times:
"There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin."
Unnecessary Mastectomies are More Common than You Might Think
False positives can lead to unnecessary emotional stress and expensive repeat screenings, exposing you to even more radiation, chemotherapy, and unnecessary invasive procedures including biopsies and major surgery. Women have actually undergone unnecessary mastectomies after receiving a false positive mammogram report.
After receiving a breast cancer diagnosis, most women are afraid and even frantic to do whatever it takes, as soon as possible, to fight and remove the cancer. And usually, that involves the "slash and burn" approach. Can you imagine what it would be like to go through surgery, having one or both of your breasts removed along with receiving debilitating radiation treatments and toxic drugs, only to later be told that you never had cancer?
This scenario happens more often than you might think; you can read about several women's terrifying ordeals with false breast cancer diagnoses here.
And there is new evidence that breast cancer might go away on its own a fair amount of the time. Yes—WITHOUT intervention. A group of researchers who track breast cancer rates found evidence to suggest that some tumors found by mammograms might naturally disappear on their own.
Mammograms will not prevent you from getting breast cancer, and the latest study shows they offer very little benefit in improving your chances of survival. Effective cancer screening methods are important, but mammography is simply NOT the answer.
But then, what is the answer?
The screening tool I recommend is breast thermography.
Thermography: Cancer's Best Kept Secret
By measuring the radiation of infrared heat from your body, thermographic screening can detect signs of breast cancer as much as 10 years earlier than either mammography or a physical exam—all without any ionizing radiation or mechanical pressure.
And thermography has NO damaging side effects.
Thermographic breast screening is able to predict the likelihood of breast cancer, before any tumors have formed, because it provides a snapshot of the early stages of angiogenesis—the formation of a direct supply of blood to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before they can grow into sizeable tumors.
This is the classic use of "preventative medicine" because you can detect negative changes before you develop the disease—while you still have time to turn things around.
Annual thermograms allow you to map changes in your body's heat patterns over time. If you would like to learn more about thermography, I invite you to download my FREE thermography report.
What About Breast Self-Exams?
Breast self-exams have long been recommended as a simple way for women to keep track of anything unusual in their breasts. Now, after studies have found that such exams do not reduce breast cancer death rates and actually increase the rate of unnecessary biopsies, many experts are recommending a more relaxed approach known as "breast awareness."
Breast awareness is really self-explanatory. It means you should regularly check your breasts for changes, but can do so in a way that feels natural to you. In other words, you don't have to do it on the same day each month, or using any particular pattern.
Simply be aware of what's normal for you so you can recognize anything out of the ordinary. Although breast cancer is much less common in men, it certainly wouldn't hurt for men to practice "breast awareness" as well.
One of the BEST Supplements for Breast Cancers
Dr. William LaValley from Austin Texas, is one of the top natural medicine cancer physicians I know and he recently shared this important information on curcumin which has the most evidence based literature for as a cancer support than any other nutrient. There are over 100 different pathways that curcumin has an effect on once it gets into the cell. Interestingly this also includes the metabolite of curcumin and its derivatives which are also anti-cancer. Curcumin appears to be safe in the treatment of all cancers.
In India where turmeric is widely used, the prevalence of four common U.S. cancers -- colon, breast, prostate and lung -- is 10 times lower. In fact, prostate cancer, which is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in U.S. men, is rare in India and this is attributed, in part, to the curcumin in turmeric.
Numerous studies have looked into this potential cancer-fighting link, with promising results. For instance, curcumin has been found to:
• Inhibit the proliferation of tumor cells
• Inhibit the transformation of cells from normal to tumor
• Help your body destroy mutated cancer cells so they cannot spread throughout your body
• Decrease inflammation
• Enhance liver function
• Inhibit the synthesis of a protein thought to be instrumental in tumor formation
• Prevent the development of additional blood supply necessary for cancer cell growth
And according to researchers from the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, curcumin blocks a key biological pathway needed for development of melanoma and other cancers.
The spice actually stops laboratory strains of melanoma from proliferating and pushes the cancer cells to commit suicide by shutting down nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kB), a powerful protein known to induce abnormal inflammatory response that leads to an assortment of disorders such as arthritis and cancer.
To get the full benefits that curcumin has to offer, you will want to look for a turmeric extract with at least 95% curcuminoids that contains only 100% certified organic ingredients.
The formula should be free of fillers, additives and excipients (a substance added to the supplement as a processing or stability aid), and the manufacturer should use safe production practices at all stages: planting, cultivation, selective harvesting, and then producing and packaging the final product.
Details on How to Use Curcumin
The unfortunate challenge as this time is that there are not really any very good formulations of curcumin available to use in cancer. This is because relatively high doses are required and curcumin is not absorbed that well. Typical anticancer doses are up to three grams of good bioavailable curcmin extract, three to four times daily.
One work around for this is to use the curcumin powder and make a microemulsion of it by combining a tablespoon of the powder and mixing it into 1-2 egg yolks and a teaspoon or two of melted coconut oil. Then using a high speed hand blender to emulsify the powder.
Another strategy you can use to increase absorption is to put one tablespoon of the curcumin powder into a quart of boiling water. It must be boiling when you add the powder as it will not work as well if you put it in room temperature water and heat the water and curcumin. After boiling it for ten minutes you will have created a 12% solution and you can drink this once it has cooled down. The curcumin will gradually fall out of solution over time and in about six hours it will be a 6% solution so it is best to drink the water within four hours. It does have a woody taste.
One caution to know is that you want to avoid the "yellow kitchen" syndrome. Curcumin is a very potent yellow pigment and can permanently discolor surfaces if you aren't careful. So you can perform the mixing under the hood of your stove with the blower on to make sure no powder gets into your kitchen.
Keeping Abreast of the Research
I mentioned earlier that we are beginning to see the stirrings of change. Let me clarify what I meant by that. New scientific research on old methodologies is challenging some of the long-held notions about conventional cancer treatments, and some of this research is making it into mainstream medical journals.
Cancer screening is finally getting some long-awaited scrutiny, as it should be. And that process has found some of the conventional breast cancer treatment methods to be significantly flawed and in need of revision. It's about time!
Here are some of the more significant recent findings related to conventional breast cancer treatment:
1. Needle biopsies
Needle biopsies are widely used as part of the traditional allopathic approach to diagnosing breast cancer. But they may accidentally cause malignant cells to break away from a tumor, allowing it to spread to other areas of your body.
According to a study from the John Wayne Cancer Institute, it appears that a needle biopsy may increase the spread of cancer by 50 percent compared to patients who receive excisional biopsies, also known as lumpectomies.
2. Lumpectomies
A 2010 study found, for certain women, a lumpectomy might not be necessary. The procedure was found to not prolong survival or prevent recurrence of breast cancer.
3. Lymph Node Removal
Lymph node removal might not be necessary after all. Today, the standard treatment for breast cancer patients whose cancer has spread to the sentinel lymph node is to surgically remove the other nodes as well—a procedure called axillary node dissection. (The "sentinel node" refers to the node closest to the tumor, or the lymph node that can be reached by metastasizing cancer cells first.)
However, according to this latest study, lymph node removal has virtually no impact on survival or disease recurrence, while it causes additional pain and debilitation. After five years, 82.2 percent of the women who had the axillary nodes removed were still alive and in remission, compared to 83.8 percent of the women who did not get the operation.
And, interestingly enough, the cancer recurrence was actually slightly higher in the group who had the operation, compared to those who didn't.
4. Chemotherapy and Radiation
In addition to the removal of lymph nodes, current conventional treatment also typically includes chemotherapy and radiation therapy.
Chemo is a standard recommendation for women whose cancer has spread to their lymph nodes, despite its magnificent failure rate and oftentimes lethal side effects. One study concluded that as many as 18,000 of the 45,000 women each year who undergo chemo for breast cancer could safely skip it.
Similarly, six or more weeks of radiation are also part of the standard treatment for most women with breast cancer. However, according to another recent study, just ONE dose of radiation, delivered with precision to the affected site directly after her lumpectomy, had the same rate of effectiveness as the extended radiation treatment.
Breast Cancer Prevention Musts
A healthful diet, regular physical exercise, appropriate sun exposure or oral supplements to optimize your vitamin D levels, and an effective means of managing your emotional health are the cornerstones of just about any cancer prevention program, including breast cancer.
Regular physical activity has been shown to decrease the likelihood of developing breast cancer, as well as decreasing your chances of dying from it by 50 percent, once diagnosed.
It is also important to watch out for excessive iron levels. Elevated iron is actually quite common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals in your body and thereby increasing your risk of cancer.
The best way to monitor your iron is to have your ferritin level drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If yours is elevated, you can reduce it simply by donating your blood.
The following lifestyle strategies will help you to further lower your breast cancer risk:
• Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. This is one of the most important steps you can take to protect yourself from cancer.
Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). When JoEllen Welsh, a researcher with the State University of New York at Albany, injected a potent form of vitamin D into human breast cancer cells, half of them shriveled up and died within days! The vitamin D worked as well at killing cancer cells as the toxic breast cancer drug Tamoxifen, without any of the detrimental side effects and at a tiny fraction of the cost.
If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, with no adverse effects.
I invite you to watch my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to find out what your optimal vitamin D levels should be and how to optimize them.
• Get plenty of natural vitamin A. There is evidence that vitamin A also plays a roll in preventing breast cancer. It's best to obtain it from vitamin A rich foods, rather than a supplement. Your best sources are organic egg yolks, raw butter, raw whole milk, and beef or chicken liver.
However, beware of supplementing as there's some evidence that vitamin A can negate the benefits of vitamin D. Since appropriate vitamin D levels are crucial for your health in general, not to mention cancer prevention, this means that it's essential to have the proper ratio of vitamin D to vitamin A in your body.
Ideally, you'll want to provide all the vitamin A and vitamin D substrate your body needs in such a way that your body can regulate both systems naturally. This is best done by eating colorful vegetables (for vitamin A) and by exposing your skin to sun every day (for vitamin D).
• Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried—has been found to increase breast cancer risk as well.
• Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
• Improve Your Insulin Receptor Sensitivity. The best way to do this is with exercise and a diet comprised of foods appropriate for your nutritional type.
• Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It's important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
• Drink a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information
• Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
• Curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful in the treatment of breast cancer. Concern must be addressed with the solubility though as it is not well absorbed. However it does show great therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.
• Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
• Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.
• Avoid wearing underwire bras. There is a good deal of data that metal underwire bras increase your breast cancer risk.
• Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
Other Research-Based "Dos and Don'ts"
The following is a list of various factors that have been scientifically found to impact breast cancer in one way or another. Many are isolated studies that offer food for thought and open up potential avenues for future research. For more information on each, simply click on the links provided.
• Depression can influence breast cancer survival. Women whose depression lifts in the first year after being told they have advanced breast cancer outlive by more than two years those whose depression symptoms worsened.
• SSRIs (a category of antidepressant drug) are associated with increased breast cancer risk.
• CoQ10 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/coenzymeQ10/Patient appears to be another useful tool. Ubiquinol would be the preferred form as it works better than the oxidized CoQ10.
• Black cohosh shows promise in fighting breast cancer by inducing apoptosis in human breast cancer cells.
• Artemisinin (a compound in wormwood) has been shown to be toxic to human breast cancer cells.
• A high carbohydrate diet may increase your breast cancer risk.
• Foods that have a scientific basis for fighting breast cancer include kelp, spicy foods, cruciferous vegetables (especially broccoli), and evening primrose oil.
• Three cups of tea daily may slash your breast cancer risk by 50 percent.
• If you eat a poor diet, it can cause DNA changes that may increase your daughters' and granddaughters' risk of breast cancer.
• Antiperspirants can increase your breast cancer risk due to their toxic metals, such as aluminum, which influence estrogen activity.
• Too much light at night was found to increase breast cancer by inhibiting melatonin in a study by the American National Cancer Institute.
• Women who have had an abortion are up to twice as likely to develop breast cancer, according to a British study.
If You're Diagnosed With Early Stage Breast Cancer
In the event that you are diagnosed with DCIS or another form of early stage breast cancer, always get a second—and possibly third and fourth—opinion. I cannot stress this enough, since the false positive rates are just too high and the diagnostic criteria too subjective.
Before you make any decision on treatment—and definitely before you decide to have surgery or chemotherapy—make sure your biopsy results have been reviewed by a breast specialist who is knowledgeable and experienced in that field.
The majority of breast cancer is preventable. But if you are hit with that diagnosis, don't lose hope! There is a great deal you can do to harness your body's own powerful healing abilities.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Cholesterol & Statins
Do YOU Take Any of These 11 Dangerous Cholesterol Drugs?
Two years ago, a study known as the JUPITER trial suggested the cholesterol-lowering statin drug might prevent heart-related death in many more people than just those with high cholesterol.
Now, however, researchers say that the JUPITER results are flawed -- and that they do not support the benefits initially reported.
Not only is there no "striking decrease in coronary heart disease complications", but a new report has also called into question drug companies' involvement in such trials.
ABC News reports:
"... major discrepancies exists between the significant reductions in nonfatal stroke and heart attacks reported in the JUPITER trial and what has been found in other research ... 'The JUPITER data set appears biased,' [the researchers] wrote in conclusion."
Sources:
ABC News June 29, 2010
Video Transcript
Tens of millions of Americans are taking cholesterol-lowering drugs—mostly statins—and some "experts" claim that many millions more should be taking them.
I couldn't disagree more.
Statins are HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, that is, they act by blocking the enzyme in your liver that is responsible for making cholesterol (HMG-CoA reductase). The fact that statin drugs cause side effects is well established—there are now 900 studies proving their adverse effects, which run the gamut from muscle problems to increased cancer risk.
For starters, reported side effects include:
• Muscle problems, polyneuropathy (nerve damage in the hands and feet), and rhabdomyolysis (a serious degenerative muscle tissue condition)
• Anemia
• Acidosis
• Sexual dysfunction
• Immune depression
• Pancreas or liver dysfunction, including a potential increase in liver enzymes
• Cataracts
Muscle problems are the best known of statin drugs' adverse side effects, but cognitive problems and memory loss are also widely reported. A spectrum of other problems, ranging from blood glucose elevations to tendon problems, can also occur. There is evidence that taking statins may even increase your risk for Lou Gehrig's disease.
Statins currently available on the U.S. market are:
• Advicor (lovastatin with niacin) – Abbott
• Altoprev (lovastatin) – Shionogi Pharma
• Caduet [atorvastatin with amlodipine (Norvasc)] – Pfizer
• Crestor (rosuvastatin) - AstraZeneca
• Lescol (fluvastatin) – Novartis
• Lipitor (atorvastatin) - Pfizer
• Mevacor (lovastatin) – Merck
• Pravachol (pravastatin) -- Bristol-Myers Squibb
• Simcor (niacin/imvastatin) – Abbott
• Vytorin (ezetimibe/simvastatin) – Merck/Schering-Plough
• Zocor (simvastatin) – Merck
Ninety-Nine Out of 100 People do Not Need Statin Drugs
That these drugs have proliferated the market the way they have is a testimony to the power of marketing, corruption and corporate greed, because the odds are very high— greater than 100 to 1—that if you're taking a statin, you don't really need it.
The ONLY subgroup that might benefit are those born with a genetic defect called familial hypercholesterolemia, as this makes them resistant to traditional measures of normalizing cholesterol.
And, even more importantly, cholesterol is NOT the cause of heart disease.
If your physician is urging you to check your total cholesterol, then you should know that this test will tell you virtually nothing about your risk of heart disease, unless it is 330 or higher.
HDL percentage is a far more potent indicator for heart disease risk. Here are the two ratios you should pay attention to:
1. HDL/Total Cholesterol Ratio: Should ideally be above 24 percent. If below 10 percent, you have a significantly elevated risk for heart disease.
2. Triglyceride/HDL Ratio: Should be below 2.
I have seen a number of people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who were actually at low risk for heart disease due to their elevated HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen many people with cholesterol levels under 200 who had a very high risk of heart disease, based on their low HDL.
Your body NEEDS cholesterol—it is important in the production of cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps your brain form memories and is vital to your neurological function.
There is also strong evidence that having too little cholesterol INCREASES your risk for cancer, memory loss, Parkinson's disease, hormonal imbalances, stroke, depression, suicide, and violent behavior.
Parents Beware: Outrageous New Push to Put Kids on Statin Drugs!
In a bold attempt to increase profits before the patent runs out, Pfizer has now introduced a chewable kid-friendly version of Lipitor. Its US patent for Lipitor expires in November 2011, and seeking to boost sales of the drug, children have become the new target market, and the conventional medical establishment is more than happy to oblige.
Researchers and many doctors are now calling for universal school screening of children to check for high cholesterol, to find those "in need of treatment." In addition, older siblings, parents and other family members might be prompted to get screened as well, the researchers say, which would uncover additional, previously undiagnosed adults in need of the drug.
This is clearly NOT the way to improve public health. On the contrary, it could produce a new, massive wave of extremely dire health consequences in just a few years time.
So rather than improving school lunches, which would cost about a dollar a day per child, they'd rather "invest" ten times that for tests and drugs that in no way, shape, or form address the root cause, which is an improper, unhealthy diet!
All they're doing is allowing all the industries to maintain or increase their profits: Big Pharma; Big Sugar; Big Corn and the processed food industry.
Who pays?
You, and your children! And in far more ways than one!
I will address this issue in depth in a future article, so please stay tuned…
If You Take Statins, You MUST Take CoQ10
If you take statin drugs without taking CoQ10, your health is at serious risk. Unfortunately, this describes the majority of people who take them in the United States.
CoQ10 is a cofactor (co-enzyme) that is essential for the creation of ATP molecules, which you need for cellular energy production. Organs such as your heart have higher energy requirements, and therefore require more CoQ10 to function properly.
Statins deplete your body of CoQ10, which can have devastating results.
Physicians rarely inform people of this risk and only occasionally advise them to take a CoQ10 supplement. As your body gets more and more depleted of CoQ10, you may suffer from fatigue, muscle weakness and soreness, and eventually heart failure.
Coenzyme Q10 is also very important in the process of neutralizing free radicals. So when your CoQ10 is depleted, you enter a vicious cycle of increased free radicals, loss of cellular energy, and damaged mitochondrial DNA.
If you decide to take a CoQ10 supplement and are over the age of 40, it is important to choose the reduced version, called ubiquinol. Ubiquinol is a FAR more effective form—I personally take 1-3 a day since it has such far ranging benefits.
Optimizing Your Cholesterol Levels, Naturally
There's really no reason to take statins and suffer the damaging health effects from these dangerous drugs.
The fact is that 75 percent of your cholesterol is produced by your liver, which is influenced by your insulin levels. Therefore, if you optimize your insulin level, you will automatically optimize your cholesterol.
It follows, then, that my primary recommendations for safely regulating your cholesterol have to do with modifying your diet and lifestyle:
• Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your diet. Eat the right foods for your nutritional type, and consume a good portion of your food raw.
• Make sure you are getting plenty of high quality, animal-based omega 3 fats, such as krill oil.
• Other heart-healthy foods include olive oil, coconut and coconut oil, organic raw dairy products and eggs, avocados, raw nuts and seeds, and organic grass-fed meats as appropriate for your nutritional type.
• Exercise daily. Make sure you incorporate peak fitness exercises, which also optimizes your human growth hormone (HGH) production.
• Address your emotional challenges. My favorite technique for stress management is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
• Avoid smoking or drinking alcohol excessively.
• Be sure to get plenty of good, restorative sleep.
Unlike statin drugs, which lower your cholesterol at the expense of your health, these lifestyle strategies represent a holistic approach that will benefit your overall health—which includes a healthy cardiovascular system.
GET THIS FREE REPORT NOW!
Download my FREE guide on The Low-down on Cholesterol: Why You Need It - and The Real Methods to Get Your Levels Right. Enter your email address to download the FREE report right now.
You also get FREE access to more than 250,000 health articles from Mercola.com and a FREE subscription to my Natural Health newsletter! You can unsubscribe any time and I guarantee your email privacy.
________________________________________
Related Articles:
New Bombshell of Disastrous Side Effects from Statins
The number of people on these hazardous drugs is staggering – as is the mounting evidence of catastrophic side effects… 900 studies so far. Cognitive decline, muscle decline, pancreatic and liver damage… which are you in line for?
Does High Cholesterol REALLY Cause HeartDisease
Eye-opening interview with Swedish health expert reveals the truth behind the cholesterol myth.
Can it Get Much Worse? Drug Company Now Claims Statins Recommended for Swine Flu
Has the drug company marketing machine gone into overdrive with their new onslaught of misinformation and confusion?
Why You Should Avoid Red Rice Yeast
This natural "supplement" may be just as hazardous to your heath as other prescription medications to lower cholesterol.
900 Studies Show Statin Drugs are Dangerous
6 Ways to Reduce Inflammation -- Without a Statin Drug
The science behind statin drugs is failing to prove a benefit; here's what can really do the trick.
Statin Drugs: Another Industry-Sponsored Study, Another Deceptive Result
Is it true that statin drugs can lower your risk of heart attacks by over 50 percent, or is this simply another deceptive marketing ploy?
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs Will Wreck Your Muscles
Researchers continue to find more reasons to avoid these drugs like the plague.
Cholesterol Pill Taken by Thousands Causes Cancer
Why increase your risk of dying from cancer when treating high cholesterol has nothing to do with taking a drug?
Why are Cholesterol Drugs Being Recommended for 8 Year Olds?
Are these dangerous drugs ever really necessary to protect kids' hearts?
1.5 Million More People to Be Prescribed Useless Cholesterol Drugs
Are you on the new drug "hit" list?
How You Have Been Fooled By Good and Bad Cholesterol
Even most physicians are confused about this important health concern.
How Statin Drugs Wreck Your Muscles
Yet another reason to avoid these drugs like the plague.
Popular Cholesterol Drug Found to Have No Medical Benefits
Lipitor Ads Spark Congressional Probe
Drug giant Pfizer is in hot water again over fraudulent peddling of their unnecessary, toxic solutions.
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs: What Are Drugmakers Hiding?
Another $4-billion scam resulting in nearly 1 million unnecessary prescriptions.
Why Doctors Often Dismiss Drug Side Effects
What Happens When Your Cholesterol Goes Too Low?
The Next Statin Scam: Preventing Strokes
Even if statin drugs prevent strokes from recurring, you'll still die earlier from other causes.
Fish Oil Works Better Than Statins at Improving HDL Cholesterol
Omega-3 fats do more to normalize your cholesterol than Lipitor and the other statin drugs, and are safer and less expensive as well.
Lawsuits Debate Lasting Lipitor Damage
Why use dangerous statin drugs when simple, highly effective alternatives that treat the true cause are readily available?
Will Statins Help ''Cure'' ED?
Statin drugs could improve ED -- but the solution is worse than the disease.
Could a Generic Zocor ''Hurt'' The Statin Market?
Statin drugs could improve ED -- but the solution is worse than the disease.
Statin Drugs do NOT Prevent Cancer
It has now been conclusively shown that the cholesterol-lowering drugs have no effect whatsoever on cancer, despite previous arguments to the contrary.
FDA Screws Up Again
The FDA rejected a petition to have the controversial cholesterol drug Crestor, linked to serious muscle damage, withdrawn from the market. How can this...
Lipitor, Severe Diabetes a Fatal Combination
If you struggle with high cholesterol, you will certainly want to review my latest comments on using Lipitor to treat it.
Generic or Name Brand: Do You Really Need a Statin Drug?
Cheaper statin drugs are not good news for you, even if they paid you to take these drugs you should refuse.
Lipitor No Better Than Other Cholesterol Drugs
In spite of the manufacturer's claims, Lipitor is not only not as effective but may also have worse side effects.
Statins do Absolutely Nothing for Alzheimer's & Dementia
Cholesterol's Contribution to Prostate Cancer
High cholesterol is likely to increases your risk of prostate cancer. Although statin drugs lower cholesterol levels, they are not your best option to reduce...
Crestor and Other Statins: Are They Really Worth the Risk?
The statin Crestor is being promoted as the "best" statin drug on the market, but are any of these cholesterol-lowering drugs worth the serious risks they pose? And, is lowering cholesterol really the best way to prevent heart disease in the first place?
Will Statins Become OTC Drugs in the U.S.?
Merck's attempt to sell their cholesterol-lowering drug Mevacor over the counter has some experts worried. Find out why this attempt has been called "a very bad idea."
More Insane Uses for Statin Drugs
Do you have statins in your medicine cabinet? Find out which statins were removed from pharmacy shelves because of dangerous side effects.
The Truth About Crestor: Is Crestor Dangerous And, if so, Why?
The intensive marketing of the super-strong cholesterol-lowering statin drug is setting off warning bells among many doctors and patients. Is Crestor putting you at risk?
The Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About Cholesterol-Lowering Medication
If you're one of the millions of Americans currently taking statin drugs, don't miss this important and revealing article. Find out what you haven't been told about statin drugs to lower cholesterol that could dramatically affect your health today and in the future.
Statins, Calcium a Deadly Mix
Even if cholesterol levels are under control with taking statins, you still might be at risk of having a heart attack. Find out how calcium build-up in the coronary arteries is counteracting the benefits of statins.
Cholesterol Lowering Drugs to Go Over the Counter
Some of the world's biggest drug companies have been busy trying to convince regulators to allow cholesterol-lowering statin drugs to be sold over the counter. See how the United States could be next in line after Britain in making the move to selling cholesterol-lowering drugs over the counter.
Will Cholesterol Drugs go Over the Counter Soon?
Dangerous statin drugs, used by millions of Americans to lower cholesterol, may soon be available over the counter. Find out why these drugs are not a good way to normalize your cholesterol.
Safety Concerns Surround the Latest Statin, Crestor
Some experts are concerned by this drug's potential serious side effects. Find out how to lower your cholesterol naturally and avoid dangerous statin drugs.
Cholesterol Drugs Actually Cause Heart Disease
Cholesterol drugs are prescribed for millions of people even though they lead to a life-threatening deficiency of CoQ10, which can actually cause heart failure.
'Experts' Recommend Higher Doses of Cholesterol Drugs
'Experts' say using high doses of cholesterol drugs can reduce the risk of heart attack, bypass surgery and chest pains. Find out how this could affect your physical and financial status.
The Cure for High Cholesterol--Hint it is NOT a Drug
Avoid using statin drugs to lower cholesterol levels with these natural solutions and reap great health as a side effect. If you or someone you know has high cholesterol this is a must read.
New Cholesterol Guidelines Issued
New federal guidelines have changed the "normal" range for cholesterol so now even more people will be put on cholesterol-lowering drugs.
New Cholesterol Guidelines for Converting Healthy People into Patients
Instead of preventing cardiovascular disease, the new guidelines may transform healthy individuals into unhappy hypochondriacs obsessed with the chemical composition of their food and their blood, destroy the joy of eating, and divert health care money from the sick and the poor to the rich and the healthy.
Cholesterol Guidelines Fraught With Massive Conflict of Interest
Eight of the nine influential doctors responsible for forming new cholesterol guidelines may be blinded by dollar signs. It seems they have been making money from drug companies by urging patients to take their drugs.
Lunatic Recommendations For Statin Drug Use
"Experts" from the American College of Physicians recommended that most diabetics should be taking cholesterol-lowering medication to reduce their risk of having a heart attack--even if their cholesterol levels fell in the normal range.
More Reasons to Avoid Statin Drugs / Does Lipitor Raise Lp(a)?
Lipoprotein (a) is one of the strongest indicators for heart disease, yet very few doctors check their patients' Lp(a) levels. What's worse is that when they do, they often prescribe statin drugs as a solution to elevated levels.
Common Cholesterol Drug Lowers Cholesterol but Not Death Rate
In one of the largest cholesterol-drug trials ever conducted, statins did not lower death rates. Find out what you can do to lower your risk of heart disease, the number one killer in the United States.
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs are Less Effective in Reality than in Trials
Cholesterol levels dropped one-third less than expected among statin users. People must take the pills in order for them to be effective and many forget or choose not to.
Cholesterol Drugs: How Expensive is Too Expensive?
It may be too expensive to treat every person who has high cholesterol with cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. Better alternatives reviewed.
Cholesterol Lowering Drugs Suppress Immune System
Statins, have been found to suppress the immune system. In an interesting twist on the findings of this adverse effect, however, it is being hailed as a benefit. The researchers have focused on the fact that the drugs may be useful for treating transplant patients. However, how this immune suppression could affect the vast majority of patients taking the drugs is not discussed.
Low Cholesterol Causes Aggressive Behavior
Despite the fact that most people are worried about having cholesterol levels that are too high, yet another study has found that low cholesterol is actually associated with adverse behavioral effects such as aggression and depression.
Low Cholesterol Linked to Depression
Results of a study conducted by Dutch researchers provide additional evidence for a link between low cholesterol levels and an increased risk of depression in men.
HALF the population will be taking Statins
A prominent medical authority announced his prediction that 50 percent of the entire U.S. population could be taking statin medication.
Low Cholesterol Linked to Stroke Risk
If your cholesterol levels are too low, it may increase your risk of stroke.
Low Cholesterol Linked to Violence
Lowering cholesterol could trigger changes in brain chemistry that encourage violent behavior.
________________________________________
The Baycol Statin Recall and Safety Issue:
In August 2001, Bayer AG, the maker of Baycol (cerivastatin), a popular cholesterol-lowering drug used by about 700,000 Americans, pulled the medicine off the market after 31 people died from severe muscle breakdown, a well-recognized side effect of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Related articles follow:
Statins: Is the Danger in the Dose?
Here is the hard data on Baycol-associated adverse reactions. If you or someone you know is taking one of the statin cholesterol-lowering drugs, this is a "must-read" article by Jay Cohen, MD to help you understand the potential dangers that this exposes you to.
Baycol Pulled From Market as Numerous Deaths Linked to It
Baycol, a cholestrol-lowering drug (statin), has been voluntarily pulled off the market because of numerous deaths associated with its use.
The Baycol Recall: How Safe is Your Statin?
With the recall of Baycol, patients are now searching out a new drug to take its place, but are other statins really safe? Here are some precautions necessary for anyone taking Baycol or any statin.
Baycol: Another Fluoride Drug Bites the Dust
Baycol is just one of many fluoride drugs to be pulled from the market due to health hazards posed. Read about this and some of the others in this informative article written by Andreas Schuld and Wendy Small.
BMJ: Bayer faces potential fine over cholesterol lowering drug
Bayer might have to pay a fine to the German government of about $23,400 for withholding from the German authorities information on the drug's potentially fatal interaction with another drug.
Lipitor Tied to Liver, Kidney Injury, as Well as Muscle Damage
It seems that Baycol is not alone among cholesterol lowering drugs in posing serious dangers to the public. A number of legal actions are also being pursued against Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of the Lipitor.
Excerpts from Public Citizen's Health Research Group's Petition to Require a Box Warning on All HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors ("Statins"):
" ... Public Citizen, representing 135,000 consumers nationwide, hereby petitions the FDA pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21, U.S.C. Section 355(e)(3), and C.F.R. 10.30, to add a black box warning and additional consistent bolded warnings about this serious problem to the label of all statins marketed in the United States."
"Doctors and the public must be warned to immediately discontinue use of statin drugs at the onset of muscle pain, muscle tenderness, muscle weakness or tiredness."
"Prompt cessation of the use of statins at the first sign of muscle pain, muscle tenderness, muscle weakness or tiredness and prompt evaluation by a physician including a blood test for creatine phosphokinase (a measure of muscle destruction) may avoid the progression to more extensive muscle damage, rhabdomyolysis and death."
"Rhabdomyolysis has been reported with all statins currently marketed in the United States."
________________________________________
About the Experts
Joseph Mercola, DO
Medical Director of the Natural Health Center and Mercola.com. Read about my complete background information.
Uffe Ravnskov, MD
Born 1934 in Copenhagen, Denmark Graduated 1961 from the University of Copenhagen with an M.D. 1961-1967: Various appointments at surgical, roentgenological, neurological, pediatric and medical departments in Denmark and Sweden. 1968-1979: Various appointments at the Department of Nephrology, and the Department of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 1975-79: As an assistant professor at the Department of Nephrology. 1973: PhD at the University of Lund. 1979-2000: A private practitioner. Since 1979 an independent researcher. A specialist in internal medicine and nephrology. Honored by the Skrabanek Award 1998.
For more information about him, see Dr. Ravnskov's Web site.
Jay Cohen, M.D
Jay Cohen, M.D., is an associate professor of Family and Preventative Medicine and of Psychiatry at the University of California in San Diego. He is the author of two books and has numerous papers published in peer-reviewed journals. His book, Over Dose: The Case Against the Drug Companies, is an outstanding read.
The Common Drug that Destroys Your Memory
Read More »
Two years ago, a study known as the JUPITER trial suggested the cholesterol-lowering statin drug might prevent heart-related death in many more people than just those with high cholesterol.
Now, however, researchers say that the JUPITER results are flawed -- and that they do not support the benefits initially reported.
Not only is there no "striking decrease in coronary heart disease complications", but a new report has also called into question drug companies' involvement in such trials.
ABC News reports:
"... major discrepancies exists between the significant reductions in nonfatal stroke and heart attacks reported in the JUPITER trial and what has been found in other research ... 'The JUPITER data set appears biased,' [the researchers] wrote in conclusion."
Sources:
ABC News June 29, 2010
Video Transcript
Tens of millions of Americans are taking cholesterol-lowering drugs—mostly statins—and some "experts" claim that many millions more should be taking them.
I couldn't disagree more.
Statins are HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, that is, they act by blocking the enzyme in your liver that is responsible for making cholesterol (HMG-CoA reductase). The fact that statin drugs cause side effects is well established—there are now 900 studies proving their adverse effects, which run the gamut from muscle problems to increased cancer risk.
For starters, reported side effects include:
• Muscle problems, polyneuropathy (nerve damage in the hands and feet), and rhabdomyolysis (a serious degenerative muscle tissue condition)
• Anemia
• Acidosis
• Sexual dysfunction
• Immune depression
• Pancreas or liver dysfunction, including a potential increase in liver enzymes
• Cataracts
Muscle problems are the best known of statin drugs' adverse side effects, but cognitive problems and memory loss are also widely reported. A spectrum of other problems, ranging from blood glucose elevations to tendon problems, can also occur. There is evidence that taking statins may even increase your risk for Lou Gehrig's disease.
Statins currently available on the U.S. market are:
• Advicor (lovastatin with niacin) – Abbott
• Altoprev (lovastatin) – Shionogi Pharma
• Caduet [atorvastatin with amlodipine (Norvasc)] – Pfizer
• Crestor (rosuvastatin) - AstraZeneca
• Lescol (fluvastatin) – Novartis
• Lipitor (atorvastatin) - Pfizer
• Mevacor (lovastatin) – Merck
• Pravachol (pravastatin) -- Bristol-Myers Squibb
• Simcor (niacin/imvastatin) – Abbott
• Vytorin (ezetimibe/simvastatin) – Merck/Schering-Plough
• Zocor (simvastatin) – Merck
Ninety-Nine Out of 100 People do Not Need Statin Drugs
That these drugs have proliferated the market the way they have is a testimony to the power of marketing, corruption and corporate greed, because the odds are very high— greater than 100 to 1—that if you're taking a statin, you don't really need it.
The ONLY subgroup that might benefit are those born with a genetic defect called familial hypercholesterolemia, as this makes them resistant to traditional measures of normalizing cholesterol.
And, even more importantly, cholesterol is NOT the cause of heart disease.
If your physician is urging you to check your total cholesterol, then you should know that this test will tell you virtually nothing about your risk of heart disease, unless it is 330 or higher.
HDL percentage is a far more potent indicator for heart disease risk. Here are the two ratios you should pay attention to:
1. HDL/Total Cholesterol Ratio: Should ideally be above 24 percent. If below 10 percent, you have a significantly elevated risk for heart disease.
2. Triglyceride/HDL Ratio: Should be below 2.
I have seen a number of people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who were actually at low risk for heart disease due to their elevated HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen many people with cholesterol levels under 200 who had a very high risk of heart disease, based on their low HDL.
Your body NEEDS cholesterol—it is important in the production of cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps your brain form memories and is vital to your neurological function.
There is also strong evidence that having too little cholesterol INCREASES your risk for cancer, memory loss, Parkinson's disease, hormonal imbalances, stroke, depression, suicide, and violent behavior.
Parents Beware: Outrageous New Push to Put Kids on Statin Drugs!
In a bold attempt to increase profits before the patent runs out, Pfizer has now introduced a chewable kid-friendly version of Lipitor. Its US patent for Lipitor expires in November 2011, and seeking to boost sales of the drug, children have become the new target market, and the conventional medical establishment is more than happy to oblige.
Researchers and many doctors are now calling for universal school screening of children to check for high cholesterol, to find those "in need of treatment." In addition, older siblings, parents and other family members might be prompted to get screened as well, the researchers say, which would uncover additional, previously undiagnosed adults in need of the drug.
This is clearly NOT the way to improve public health. On the contrary, it could produce a new, massive wave of extremely dire health consequences in just a few years time.
So rather than improving school lunches, which would cost about a dollar a day per child, they'd rather "invest" ten times that for tests and drugs that in no way, shape, or form address the root cause, which is an improper, unhealthy diet!
All they're doing is allowing all the industries to maintain or increase their profits: Big Pharma; Big Sugar; Big Corn and the processed food industry.
Who pays?
You, and your children! And in far more ways than one!
I will address this issue in depth in a future article, so please stay tuned…
If You Take Statins, You MUST Take CoQ10
If you take statin drugs without taking CoQ10, your health is at serious risk. Unfortunately, this describes the majority of people who take them in the United States.
CoQ10 is a cofactor (co-enzyme) that is essential for the creation of ATP molecules, which you need for cellular energy production. Organs such as your heart have higher energy requirements, and therefore require more CoQ10 to function properly.
Statins deplete your body of CoQ10, which can have devastating results.
Physicians rarely inform people of this risk and only occasionally advise them to take a CoQ10 supplement. As your body gets more and more depleted of CoQ10, you may suffer from fatigue, muscle weakness and soreness, and eventually heart failure.
Coenzyme Q10 is also very important in the process of neutralizing free radicals. So when your CoQ10 is depleted, you enter a vicious cycle of increased free radicals, loss of cellular energy, and damaged mitochondrial DNA.
If you decide to take a CoQ10 supplement and are over the age of 40, it is important to choose the reduced version, called ubiquinol. Ubiquinol is a FAR more effective form—I personally take 1-3 a day since it has such far ranging benefits.
Optimizing Your Cholesterol Levels, Naturally
There's really no reason to take statins and suffer the damaging health effects from these dangerous drugs.
The fact is that 75 percent of your cholesterol is produced by your liver, which is influenced by your insulin levels. Therefore, if you optimize your insulin level, you will automatically optimize your cholesterol.
It follows, then, that my primary recommendations for safely regulating your cholesterol have to do with modifying your diet and lifestyle:
• Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your diet. Eat the right foods for your nutritional type, and consume a good portion of your food raw.
• Make sure you are getting plenty of high quality, animal-based omega 3 fats, such as krill oil.
• Other heart-healthy foods include olive oil, coconut and coconut oil, organic raw dairy products and eggs, avocados, raw nuts and seeds, and organic grass-fed meats as appropriate for your nutritional type.
• Exercise daily. Make sure you incorporate peak fitness exercises, which also optimizes your human growth hormone (HGH) production.
• Address your emotional challenges. My favorite technique for stress management is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
• Avoid smoking or drinking alcohol excessively.
• Be sure to get plenty of good, restorative sleep.
Unlike statin drugs, which lower your cholesterol at the expense of your health, these lifestyle strategies represent a holistic approach that will benefit your overall health—which includes a healthy cardiovascular system.
GET THIS FREE REPORT NOW!
Download my FREE guide on The Low-down on Cholesterol: Why You Need It - and The Real Methods to Get Your Levels Right. Enter your email address to download the FREE report right now.
You also get FREE access to more than 250,000 health articles from Mercola.com and a FREE subscription to my Natural Health newsletter! You can unsubscribe any time and I guarantee your email privacy.
________________________________________
Related Articles:
New Bombshell of Disastrous Side Effects from Statins
The number of people on these hazardous drugs is staggering – as is the mounting evidence of catastrophic side effects… 900 studies so far. Cognitive decline, muscle decline, pancreatic and liver damage… which are you in line for?
Does High Cholesterol REALLY Cause HeartDisease
Eye-opening interview with Swedish health expert reveals the truth behind the cholesterol myth.
Can it Get Much Worse? Drug Company Now Claims Statins Recommended for Swine Flu
Has the drug company marketing machine gone into overdrive with their new onslaught of misinformation and confusion?
Why You Should Avoid Red Rice Yeast
This natural "supplement" may be just as hazardous to your heath as other prescription medications to lower cholesterol.
900 Studies Show Statin Drugs are Dangerous
6 Ways to Reduce Inflammation -- Without a Statin Drug
The science behind statin drugs is failing to prove a benefit; here's what can really do the trick.
Statin Drugs: Another Industry-Sponsored Study, Another Deceptive Result
Is it true that statin drugs can lower your risk of heart attacks by over 50 percent, or is this simply another deceptive marketing ploy?
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs Will Wreck Your Muscles
Researchers continue to find more reasons to avoid these drugs like the plague.
Cholesterol Pill Taken by Thousands Causes Cancer
Why increase your risk of dying from cancer when treating high cholesterol has nothing to do with taking a drug?
Why are Cholesterol Drugs Being Recommended for 8 Year Olds?
Are these dangerous drugs ever really necessary to protect kids' hearts?
1.5 Million More People to Be Prescribed Useless Cholesterol Drugs
Are you on the new drug "hit" list?
How You Have Been Fooled By Good and Bad Cholesterol
Even most physicians are confused about this important health concern.
How Statin Drugs Wreck Your Muscles
Yet another reason to avoid these drugs like the plague.
Popular Cholesterol Drug Found to Have No Medical Benefits
Lipitor Ads Spark Congressional Probe
Drug giant Pfizer is in hot water again over fraudulent peddling of their unnecessary, toxic solutions.
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs: What Are Drugmakers Hiding?
Another $4-billion scam resulting in nearly 1 million unnecessary prescriptions.
Why Doctors Often Dismiss Drug Side Effects
What Happens When Your Cholesterol Goes Too Low?
The Next Statin Scam: Preventing Strokes
Even if statin drugs prevent strokes from recurring, you'll still die earlier from other causes.
Fish Oil Works Better Than Statins at Improving HDL Cholesterol
Omega-3 fats do more to normalize your cholesterol than Lipitor and the other statin drugs, and are safer and less expensive as well.
Lawsuits Debate Lasting Lipitor Damage
Why use dangerous statin drugs when simple, highly effective alternatives that treat the true cause are readily available?
Will Statins Help ''Cure'' ED?
Statin drugs could improve ED -- but the solution is worse than the disease.
Could a Generic Zocor ''Hurt'' The Statin Market?
Statin drugs could improve ED -- but the solution is worse than the disease.
Statin Drugs do NOT Prevent Cancer
It has now been conclusively shown that the cholesterol-lowering drugs have no effect whatsoever on cancer, despite previous arguments to the contrary.
FDA Screws Up Again
The FDA rejected a petition to have the controversial cholesterol drug Crestor, linked to serious muscle damage, withdrawn from the market. How can this...
Lipitor, Severe Diabetes a Fatal Combination
If you struggle with high cholesterol, you will certainly want to review my latest comments on using Lipitor to treat it.
Generic or Name Brand: Do You Really Need a Statin Drug?
Cheaper statin drugs are not good news for you, even if they paid you to take these drugs you should refuse.
Lipitor No Better Than Other Cholesterol Drugs
In spite of the manufacturer's claims, Lipitor is not only not as effective but may also have worse side effects.
Statins do Absolutely Nothing for Alzheimer's & Dementia
Cholesterol's Contribution to Prostate Cancer
High cholesterol is likely to increases your risk of prostate cancer. Although statin drugs lower cholesterol levels, they are not your best option to reduce...
Crestor and Other Statins: Are They Really Worth the Risk?
The statin Crestor is being promoted as the "best" statin drug on the market, but are any of these cholesterol-lowering drugs worth the serious risks they pose? And, is lowering cholesterol really the best way to prevent heart disease in the first place?
Will Statins Become OTC Drugs in the U.S.?
Merck's attempt to sell their cholesterol-lowering drug Mevacor over the counter has some experts worried. Find out why this attempt has been called "a very bad idea."
More Insane Uses for Statin Drugs
Do you have statins in your medicine cabinet? Find out which statins were removed from pharmacy shelves because of dangerous side effects.
The Truth About Crestor: Is Crestor Dangerous And, if so, Why?
The intensive marketing of the super-strong cholesterol-lowering statin drug is setting off warning bells among many doctors and patients. Is Crestor putting you at risk?
The Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About Cholesterol-Lowering Medication
If you're one of the millions of Americans currently taking statin drugs, don't miss this important and revealing article. Find out what you haven't been told about statin drugs to lower cholesterol that could dramatically affect your health today and in the future.
Statins, Calcium a Deadly Mix
Even if cholesterol levels are under control with taking statins, you still might be at risk of having a heart attack. Find out how calcium build-up in the coronary arteries is counteracting the benefits of statins.
Cholesterol Lowering Drugs to Go Over the Counter
Some of the world's biggest drug companies have been busy trying to convince regulators to allow cholesterol-lowering statin drugs to be sold over the counter. See how the United States could be next in line after Britain in making the move to selling cholesterol-lowering drugs over the counter.
Will Cholesterol Drugs go Over the Counter Soon?
Dangerous statin drugs, used by millions of Americans to lower cholesterol, may soon be available over the counter. Find out why these drugs are not a good way to normalize your cholesterol.
Safety Concerns Surround the Latest Statin, Crestor
Some experts are concerned by this drug's potential serious side effects. Find out how to lower your cholesterol naturally and avoid dangerous statin drugs.
Cholesterol Drugs Actually Cause Heart Disease
Cholesterol drugs are prescribed for millions of people even though they lead to a life-threatening deficiency of CoQ10, which can actually cause heart failure.
'Experts' Recommend Higher Doses of Cholesterol Drugs
'Experts' say using high doses of cholesterol drugs can reduce the risk of heart attack, bypass surgery and chest pains. Find out how this could affect your physical and financial status.
The Cure for High Cholesterol--Hint it is NOT a Drug
Avoid using statin drugs to lower cholesterol levels with these natural solutions and reap great health as a side effect. If you or someone you know has high cholesterol this is a must read.
New Cholesterol Guidelines Issued
New federal guidelines have changed the "normal" range for cholesterol so now even more people will be put on cholesterol-lowering drugs.
New Cholesterol Guidelines for Converting Healthy People into Patients
Instead of preventing cardiovascular disease, the new guidelines may transform healthy individuals into unhappy hypochondriacs obsessed with the chemical composition of their food and their blood, destroy the joy of eating, and divert health care money from the sick and the poor to the rich and the healthy.
Cholesterol Guidelines Fraught With Massive Conflict of Interest
Eight of the nine influential doctors responsible for forming new cholesterol guidelines may be blinded by dollar signs. It seems they have been making money from drug companies by urging patients to take their drugs.
Lunatic Recommendations For Statin Drug Use
"Experts" from the American College of Physicians recommended that most diabetics should be taking cholesterol-lowering medication to reduce their risk of having a heart attack--even if their cholesterol levels fell in the normal range.
More Reasons to Avoid Statin Drugs / Does Lipitor Raise Lp(a)?
Lipoprotein (a) is one of the strongest indicators for heart disease, yet very few doctors check their patients' Lp(a) levels. What's worse is that when they do, they often prescribe statin drugs as a solution to elevated levels.
Common Cholesterol Drug Lowers Cholesterol but Not Death Rate
In one of the largest cholesterol-drug trials ever conducted, statins did not lower death rates. Find out what you can do to lower your risk of heart disease, the number one killer in the United States.
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs are Less Effective in Reality than in Trials
Cholesterol levels dropped one-third less than expected among statin users. People must take the pills in order for them to be effective and many forget or choose not to.
Cholesterol Drugs: How Expensive is Too Expensive?
It may be too expensive to treat every person who has high cholesterol with cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. Better alternatives reviewed.
Cholesterol Lowering Drugs Suppress Immune System
Statins, have been found to suppress the immune system. In an interesting twist on the findings of this adverse effect, however, it is being hailed as a benefit. The researchers have focused on the fact that the drugs may be useful for treating transplant patients. However, how this immune suppression could affect the vast majority of patients taking the drugs is not discussed.
Low Cholesterol Causes Aggressive Behavior
Despite the fact that most people are worried about having cholesterol levels that are too high, yet another study has found that low cholesterol is actually associated with adverse behavioral effects such as aggression and depression.
Low Cholesterol Linked to Depression
Results of a study conducted by Dutch researchers provide additional evidence for a link between low cholesterol levels and an increased risk of depression in men.
HALF the population will be taking Statins
A prominent medical authority announced his prediction that 50 percent of the entire U.S. population could be taking statin medication.
Low Cholesterol Linked to Stroke Risk
If your cholesterol levels are too low, it may increase your risk of stroke.
Low Cholesterol Linked to Violence
Lowering cholesterol could trigger changes in brain chemistry that encourage violent behavior.
________________________________________
The Baycol Statin Recall and Safety Issue:
In August 2001, Bayer AG, the maker of Baycol (cerivastatin), a popular cholesterol-lowering drug used by about 700,000 Americans, pulled the medicine off the market after 31 people died from severe muscle breakdown, a well-recognized side effect of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Related articles follow:
Statins: Is the Danger in the Dose?
Here is the hard data on Baycol-associated adverse reactions. If you or someone you know is taking one of the statin cholesterol-lowering drugs, this is a "must-read" article by Jay Cohen, MD to help you understand the potential dangers that this exposes you to.
Baycol Pulled From Market as Numerous Deaths Linked to It
Baycol, a cholestrol-lowering drug (statin), has been voluntarily pulled off the market because of numerous deaths associated with its use.
The Baycol Recall: How Safe is Your Statin?
With the recall of Baycol, patients are now searching out a new drug to take its place, but are other statins really safe? Here are some precautions necessary for anyone taking Baycol or any statin.
Baycol: Another Fluoride Drug Bites the Dust
Baycol is just one of many fluoride drugs to be pulled from the market due to health hazards posed. Read about this and some of the others in this informative article written by Andreas Schuld and Wendy Small.
BMJ: Bayer faces potential fine over cholesterol lowering drug
Bayer might have to pay a fine to the German government of about $23,400 for withholding from the German authorities information on the drug's potentially fatal interaction with another drug.
Lipitor Tied to Liver, Kidney Injury, as Well as Muscle Damage
It seems that Baycol is not alone among cholesterol lowering drugs in posing serious dangers to the public. A number of legal actions are also being pursued against Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of the Lipitor.
Excerpts from Public Citizen's Health Research Group's Petition to Require a Box Warning on All HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors ("Statins"):
" ... Public Citizen, representing 135,000 consumers nationwide, hereby petitions the FDA pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21, U.S.C. Section 355(e)(3), and C.F.R. 10.30, to add a black box warning and additional consistent bolded warnings about this serious problem to the label of all statins marketed in the United States."
"Doctors and the public must be warned to immediately discontinue use of statin drugs at the onset of muscle pain, muscle tenderness, muscle weakness or tiredness."
"Prompt cessation of the use of statins at the first sign of muscle pain, muscle tenderness, muscle weakness or tiredness and prompt evaluation by a physician including a blood test for creatine phosphokinase (a measure of muscle destruction) may avoid the progression to more extensive muscle damage, rhabdomyolysis and death."
"Rhabdomyolysis has been reported with all statins currently marketed in the United States."
________________________________________
About the Experts
Joseph Mercola, DO
Medical Director of the Natural Health Center and Mercola.com. Read about my complete background information.
Uffe Ravnskov, MD
Born 1934 in Copenhagen, Denmark Graduated 1961 from the University of Copenhagen with an M.D. 1961-1967: Various appointments at surgical, roentgenological, neurological, pediatric and medical departments in Denmark and Sweden. 1968-1979: Various appointments at the Department of Nephrology, and the Department of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 1975-79: As an assistant professor at the Department of Nephrology. 1973: PhD at the University of Lund. 1979-2000: A private practitioner. Since 1979 an independent researcher. A specialist in internal medicine and nephrology. Honored by the Skrabanek Award 1998.
For more information about him, see Dr. Ravnskov's Web site.
Jay Cohen, M.D
Jay Cohen, M.D., is an associate professor of Family and Preventative Medicine and of Psychiatry at the University of California in San Diego. He is the author of two books and has numerous papers published in peer-reviewed journals. His book, Over Dose: The Case Against the Drug Companies, is an outstanding read.
The Common Drug that Destroys Your Memory
Read More »
Friday, February 4, 2011
Bicycles, something to think about
Peeking Through the Knothole —
As you may recall my bike was stolen last year and I truely miss it plan on saving up to buy a Sam Hillborne from the Rivendell bike works in San Fran. They have some incredible old school hand crafted bikes and put out some great articles to get you thinking , such as this one here.
Bikes aren’t cars
January 18, 2011
This just something to think about. It's not my main agenda in life and has nothing to do with Rivendell, other than it's on our site here. There's stuff at the end that's more biz-'lated.
Cars are banned from the streets in the ultra-upscale Ginza shopping district in Tokyo on Sundays. Let's spread that one around.
Drivers can take buses or ride bikes, or park on the outskirts and get shuttled up by pedicabs, or otherwise get downtown without a private car. There would have to be services, but let there be. Fund them, subsidize them, employ people in them, but keep the cars out of the downtown area on Sundays..to start. It won't happen, but if I were king of the forest (not queen, not duke, not prince) we'd start working on this right away.
The Idaho vehicle code lets bike riders treat stop signs and red lights as yield signs, and is known as the "Idaho Stop." You have to yield to cars---the law and self-preservation require that much---but when there are none, you slow to a vestigial stop, look around to be extra sure, and sail on through with a momentum-assist.
The Idaho Stop has been in effect since 1983,and amazingly enough/against all odds, it is a success. Motorists are used to it, and don't raise a ruckus trying to get the law changed, and it hasn't increased bike-car accident rates. Its purpose was to encourage more bike riding, the idea being that if you don't have to stop all the time, riding is easier. It works that way, too. I've seen practitioners in other states, but they are scofflaws. I predict no other states will adopt it in my lifetime, though. I may try an Idaho Stop one of these decades. I bet it will work.
Is the Idaho Stop fair to motorists? It's fair enough. Cars and bikes both are vehicles, in the same way that a Glock and a Squirtgun are both guns. That's not a perfect analogy, but imperfection is what you get with analogies. They're just a suggestion. In this case I'm just saying that just as not all guns are the same, so are. . . not all vehicles. Some are more dangerous than others, bothwise.
I think the safety aspect of a bike---its lightness and all---should earn it privileges on the road, too. In some cities in Holland, bikes are given priority in traffic. If that were the case here, I'm betting more people would ride them. Is it unreasonable to expect a little something for not being a dangerous polluter? I mean, as a way to encourage riding.
We could start with parking spaces. If a single-person motor vehicle can take up a whole parking space, why can't a single-person bike rider use the open space next to it? Motorcycles can park there. Mopeds, too. I bet even electric bikes get them. I wonder if you rode downtown with four other friends and parked all five bikes in a parking spot big enough for one car---could you pull it off? Bikes can park on the sidewalks, true, but that doesn't mean they have to. There are no signs saying that. But isn't that kind of, a little, beside the point? I mean, in either case, it's people locomoting themselves downtown, and one way just happens to be cleaner and less dangerous. Maybe I want that space, maybe the bike rack is full.
I don't see myself trying this, but I'd like to be able to. Not having a fixed post to lock the bike to is another thing that's beside the point. It's not a small matter, but it's still beside the point, way over there.
You often hear your fellow bicyclists say something along the lines of "every time you (do something that isn't carlike), you spoil it for the rest of us."
Is that really true? If it is, why is it true for bicycle riders and not car drivers? You don't hear them complaining about other motorists spoiling their reputation. I think, if somebody in a car can figure out that not all car drivers are exactly the same, the same "one bad apple" approach should apply to bike riders, too. Is there some sociology expert out there who can refute this with good science?
Bikes are green transportation and all, but people don't give up their cars because they're green. You call them green because they shun the Studebaker, banish the Bel Air, eschew the Escalade, give up the Grey car. The behavior explains the label, not the other way around. Unpeel the top layer of green and you'll see the real reasons. They don't own a car. A car's too expensive to park, or spaces are too hard to come by. Their license has been suspended or they don't have one. They want exercise. Pedaling relieves stress and they arrive at their destination invigorated but not sweaty. Commute time is training time. There are lots of reasons to ride instead of drive, but I don't believe greenness is one of them. Maybe avoiding guilt, but that's guilt-avoidance, not greenness.
The problem with greenness as an incentive is it's too weak and deferred. No one person's single commute has a measurable impact on the health of the planet. Cumulatively, yes; singly, no---because we're talking about measurable effects. This doesn't mean don't ride and be green. It means if the goal is to get more people riding, the incentives to ride and disincentives to drive have to be in place, and both of those things are more powerful when they're immediate and dramatic, and weak when they're not. Show me a deferred, barely perceptible consequence that's shared by billions that's more influential than an immediate and dramatic personal one, and I'll give you a million of anything, as long as I have it to give. If not, no dice! (This sort of statement, in the old days, would be taken for what it is. In modern times, it feels sort of like sticking my arm down a dark shaft in a jungle in Borneo and wiggling my fingers for an hour or so.)
As you may recall my bike was stolen last year and I truely miss it plan on saving up to buy a Sam Hillborne from the Rivendell bike works in San Fran. They have some incredible old school hand crafted bikes and put out some great articles to get you thinking , such as this one here.
Bikes aren’t cars
January 18, 2011
This just something to think about. It's not my main agenda in life and has nothing to do with Rivendell, other than it's on our site here. There's stuff at the end that's more biz-'lated.
Cars are banned from the streets in the ultra-upscale Ginza shopping district in Tokyo on Sundays. Let's spread that one around.
Drivers can take buses or ride bikes, or park on the outskirts and get shuttled up by pedicabs, or otherwise get downtown without a private car. There would have to be services, but let there be. Fund them, subsidize them, employ people in them, but keep the cars out of the downtown area on Sundays..to start. It won't happen, but if I were king of the forest (not queen, not duke, not prince) we'd start working on this right away.
The Idaho vehicle code lets bike riders treat stop signs and red lights as yield signs, and is known as the "Idaho Stop." You have to yield to cars---the law and self-preservation require that much---but when there are none, you slow to a vestigial stop, look around to be extra sure, and sail on through with a momentum-assist.
The Idaho Stop has been in effect since 1983,and amazingly enough/against all odds, it is a success. Motorists are used to it, and don't raise a ruckus trying to get the law changed, and it hasn't increased bike-car accident rates. Its purpose was to encourage more bike riding, the idea being that if you don't have to stop all the time, riding is easier. It works that way, too. I've seen practitioners in other states, but they are scofflaws. I predict no other states will adopt it in my lifetime, though. I may try an Idaho Stop one of these decades. I bet it will work.
Is the Idaho Stop fair to motorists? It's fair enough. Cars and bikes both are vehicles, in the same way that a Glock and a Squirtgun are both guns. That's not a perfect analogy, but imperfection is what you get with analogies. They're just a suggestion. In this case I'm just saying that just as not all guns are the same, so are. . . not all vehicles. Some are more dangerous than others, bothwise.
I think the safety aspect of a bike---its lightness and all---should earn it privileges on the road, too. In some cities in Holland, bikes are given priority in traffic. If that were the case here, I'm betting more people would ride them. Is it unreasonable to expect a little something for not being a dangerous polluter? I mean, as a way to encourage riding.
We could start with parking spaces. If a single-person motor vehicle can take up a whole parking space, why can't a single-person bike rider use the open space next to it? Motorcycles can park there. Mopeds, too. I bet even electric bikes get them. I wonder if you rode downtown with four other friends and parked all five bikes in a parking spot big enough for one car---could you pull it off? Bikes can park on the sidewalks, true, but that doesn't mean they have to. There are no signs saying that. But isn't that kind of, a little, beside the point? I mean, in either case, it's people locomoting themselves downtown, and one way just happens to be cleaner and less dangerous. Maybe I want that space, maybe the bike rack is full.
I don't see myself trying this, but I'd like to be able to. Not having a fixed post to lock the bike to is another thing that's beside the point. It's not a small matter, but it's still beside the point, way over there.
You often hear your fellow bicyclists say something along the lines of "every time you (do something that isn't carlike), you spoil it for the rest of us."
Is that really true? If it is, why is it true for bicycle riders and not car drivers? You don't hear them complaining about other motorists spoiling their reputation. I think, if somebody in a car can figure out that not all car drivers are exactly the same, the same "one bad apple" approach should apply to bike riders, too. Is there some sociology expert out there who can refute this with good science?
Bikes are green transportation and all, but people don't give up their cars because they're green. You call them green because they shun the Studebaker, banish the Bel Air, eschew the Escalade, give up the Grey car. The behavior explains the label, not the other way around. Unpeel the top layer of green and you'll see the real reasons. They don't own a car. A car's too expensive to park, or spaces are too hard to come by. Their license has been suspended or they don't have one. They want exercise. Pedaling relieves stress and they arrive at their destination invigorated but not sweaty. Commute time is training time. There are lots of reasons to ride instead of drive, but I don't believe greenness is one of them. Maybe avoiding guilt, but that's guilt-avoidance, not greenness.
The problem with greenness as an incentive is it's too weak and deferred. No one person's single commute has a measurable impact on the health of the planet. Cumulatively, yes; singly, no---because we're talking about measurable effects. This doesn't mean don't ride and be green. It means if the goal is to get more people riding, the incentives to ride and disincentives to drive have to be in place, and both of those things are more powerful when they're immediate and dramatic, and weak when they're not. Show me a deferred, barely perceptible consequence that's shared by billions that's more influential than an immediate and dramatic personal one, and I'll give you a million of anything, as long as I have it to give. If not, no dice! (This sort of statement, in the old days, would be taken for what it is. In modern times, it feels sort of like sticking my arm down a dark shaft in a jungle in Borneo and wiggling my fingers for an hour or so.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
