Recent health research

A few interesting health tit-bits from watching Oprah - see www.oprah.com.

1. Role of fibre: Its important to include fibre in your diet to reduce your chances of constipation. Low fibre foods like yoghurt take in excess of 3ohours to pass through the body, but this is significantly reduced if you include more than 35grams of fibre in your diet per day (25g for women, 35g for men). Fibre not only regulates the flow of stool through the small intestine and bowel, but its helps to flush out toxins (that can cause colon or bowel cancer) and excess bial and sugars. The best sources of fibre are beans, bran, fruit & vegetables.
2. Importance of calcium: It has been shown that an increase in calcium in your diet helps you loose weight. Calcium is not only good for the bones, but it soaks up excess fat and secretes it. Calcium is best taken with Magnesium to improve absorption into the body, and better still if it is consumed in natural forms. eg. milk, fish, other seafood.
3. Tomatoes: If you want to protect your skin eat tomatoes. Research has shown that a protein in tomatoes called licopin results in 30% less skin damage.
4. Water: Convention has it that drinking 1.5 litres of water a day is good for your skin. Research has debunked this belief. I already thought as much because I drink very little water, and concluded that there is already plenty of water in food, and the chemical reaction that releases the energy in food results produces surplus water as well. The consequence is that I pee alot more than I drink. Tests showed that drinking water had no discernable difference of skin moisture levels or salinity. If you do strenuous exercise - thats different, you are consuming water faster than you can produce it, so when we sweat excessively, we need to replenish with water. Most foods are 40-60% water.
5. Toxins: You might have seen alot of detoxing clinics or resorts being established. Really these are alot of nonsense. Research has shown that it takes more than 10 days to reduce toxins from your body, so short internsive programs will achieve little more than a break, and perhaps a change in priorities. Toxins tend to be concentrated in fatty tissue, which means they tend to reside in the liver, brain.

A unexpected cost of 'universal' health care

One of the biggest threats posed by western medicine is that it is highly institutionalised, as as a result its administration is highly formalised, structured, centralised, not to mention highly political. There are benefits in this approach and there are flaws. Some of the benefits are:
1. Systematic approach to research - We can have confidence procedures are being followed
2. Collaboration among professionals - We can be confident that researchers are accountable to the extent that results and conclusions are shared (within the limits of corporate disclosure)
3. Preservation of scientific standards - That the industry preserves certain standards for procedures, disclosure and compliance.

But there are also a number of problems with this approach:
1. Standardisation, and thus the possible entrenchment and non-questioning of scientific methods
2. Rationalisation of policy to preserve the reputations of imminent representatives or to promote certain political outcomes, eg. universal vaccination.
3. An deference to authority - less 'imminent' voices closer to the coal face are ignored because peak industry bodies are pursuing different agendas

One of the greatest follies I find with scientists is the over-simplification of science to achieve certain objectives, to sell a policy to a certain audience, or a desire to draw attention to certain research. There is an attempt to draw 'universal' truths from scientific research by making <5%>
The reality is that any percentage of people whom dont respond to a treatment or drug is important, and efforts should be made by drug companies to understand why certain patients dont respond to a drug, just as they study why the vast majority do. The reason they dont is to save money, and to avoid ruining a good story with bad news. If they should find compelling reasons why their product does not work, or even worse, causes severe side effects, then they fear they might be undermining corporate profitability. True in the short term, but in the long term they will be avoiding law suits and developing a much improved understanding of their products and the conditions they are treating.
At root there is of course a desire by scientists or researchers for fame or financial fortune. This need not be a problem if:
1. There is adequate disclosure
2. There is adequate opportunity for critiquing science outcomes
3. Inferences are critiqued

One of the starkling problems I have with science in medicine is the tendency to treat all people as if they are the same. The 'sameness' that makes us human beings need not imply that our bodies behave exactly the same way when certain conditions are changed. The absence of evidence for a link between autism and certain vaccinations might not be available, but if our understanding is not sufficient to eliminate the possibility, then perhaps there is a need to either better understand the medicine or to monitor symptoms. To readily the science community evades certain knowledge that disputes their beliefs.

It is precisely because of the anti-science aspects of medical science that I dispute the desirability or safety of universal vaccination. More specifically I question the use of vaccines as long as:
1. There is inadequate understanding of the <5%>
2. There is inadequate monitoring of the possible side effects of taking medicines, whether vaccinations or otherwise
3. There are safer preventative strategies that can be adopted - even if seemingly more expensive

My concern is that there is so much that researchers still dont know about the human body. There attempt to adopt 'one size fits all' problems is not science, but statistics. We can see an obvious appeal in this strategy for pharmaceutical companies because they make money whether the treatment works or not, and they are not liable unless they are negligent in responding to signs of side effects. But are they taking adequate steps to question the effectiveness of safety of their treatments. I think we have to be particularly cautious where governments are sponsoring universal health solutions like vaccination.

History is littered with examples of universal health solutions that have backfired. The most famous example was the use of formaldehyde in the 1950s (??). It seems that the link between a vaccination and autism is shaping up as another example. I think we are being sold the benefits for the sake of corporate profits without being given adequate risk analysis (disclosure) on the risks because the research is geared to selling benefits, not protecting us from the downside.

I refer you to the following blogspot where you can order the book written by a mother of an autistic child whom questioned the underlying science that fails to draw a link between the MMR vaccine and at least some incidences of autism. Her story appeared on Oprah. See http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2007/09/jenny-mccarthy-on-oprah-vaccine-injury.html.

The risks of skin cancer

I just had a check up for skin cancer from an office of the NSW Cancer Council. Take a look at their website - www.cancercouncil.com.au - you will likely see some photos of skin cancer tumors.
My doctor told me the following:

1. Australia has the highest rates of skin cancer in the world because of the high rates of sun exposure (because of the ideal conditions for outdoors based lifestyle) and genetic reasons
2. The genetic reason for high rates of skin cancer are the high ratio of Irish immigrants - the Celtic influence - in Australia
3. But thats not to say you can't get skin cancer - other races are just less vulnerable
4. The diagnosis of skin cancer suggests 2 peaks in the bell curve around the ages of 40yo and 75yo - the first for lifestyle reasons - the second degenerative diseases.
5. The skin cancers that you have you to be particularly concerned about is melanoma. If you have any moles that are a jet black colour this is an advantage stage of melanoma and you should see a doctor immediately. They only need to be 0.5mm into the skin before they are fatal, as the cancer cells enter the blood stream.
6. Clearly the best strategy is to get a check up if you have a high incidence of sun exposure, or regardless if there is any hint of Irish genes, though I suspect inter-racial gene pools might lessen the vulnerability, but I have no medical training. Anyway you should get checked up if you have black spots on you.
7. You should place a reminder of your PDA to perform a self-examination every 3-4 months, where you are looking for spots than are changing colour, size of shape. They maybe blotchy, multi-coloured, and grow from weeks to months.
8. In Australia, because of the high awareness of skin cancer, you can get an accurate diagnosis from your local GP. In other countries I would go to a specialist if you have a choice, at least for the first visit and if there is any question of a melanoma.

If you want more information on understanding skin cancer - take the following link http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=98.