I was collecting a list of research articles for further study that involved smoking and B vitamin deficiencies, especially, the B6’s, folates (B9), and cobalamins (B12). This is the list so far, which I figured I would share so that in case it is of value to others.
Continue reading ‘Research involving smoking and B vitamin deficiencies’ »
Researchers at Walter Reed conducted a double-blind randomly controlled study comparing levothyroxine with dessicated thyroid extract. Their results:
There were no differences in symptoms and neurocognitive measurements between the 2 therapies. Patients lost 3 lb on DTE treatment… At the end of the study, 34 patients (48.6%) preferred DTE, 13 (18.6%) preferred L-T₄, and 23 (32.9%) had no preference. In the subgroup analyses, those patients who preferred DTE lost 4 lb during the DTE treatment, and their subjective symptoms were significantly better while taking DTE as measured by the general health questionnaire-12 and thyroid symptom questionnaire…
I wonder if glandular therapy might be the next “quackery” that is rediscovered by medical researchers.
Continue reading ‘Desiccated thyroid extract found to be just as effective as levothyroxine’ »
For those who are seeking health information for themselves or loved ones it is useful to be able to read primary source material and understand the significance and limitations of the findings. However, I think it is asking too much of people to insist they spend their time reading numerous research papers just to understand the health issues that concern them. I believe there is a need for those who are going through the research and distilling the information to make it easier to absorb for people who are busy with work, family, and other activities. In order for people to decide if the information they are getting is accurate they should consider reading some of the original research and seeing if it backs up the claims being made. Chris Kresser’s recent article on reading and understanding scientific research could be very useful in this regard:
In today’s world of conflicting interests, flawed science, and sensationalized media, it’s important to question new claims and findings, especially when those findings could have serious implications for your health. One of the most important things you can do to make sure you’re getting the real scoop (aside from reading my articles, of course!) is to read the scientific literature yourself.
Another good resource for people to be aware of is a series of articles by Trisha Greenhalgh available for free at the BMJ:
On this page you will find links to articles in the BMJ that explain how to read and interpret different kinds of research papers:
Kilmer McCully, author of The Homocysteine Revolution, learned first hand the consequences of challenging the medical dogma on the exclusive role of cholesterol as a causative factor in developing heart disease. Some of his experiences are recounted in the 1997 article The Fall and Rise Of Kilmer McCully.
He was moved to an inferior laboratory in the basement, he lost staffers and his N.I.H. funding was running out. ”With the changes in my lab and the loss of some key collaborators, it was difficult to come up with new ideas,” he says. ”I felt very cut off from everybody, and there was no encouragement. Then they told me that if I didn’t renew my grant, I would definitely be out. Their view, I suppose, was that I was no longer productive. My view was that I was being discouraged at every turn…”
”Because his work was not in vogue… his insistence on what he was doing contributed to costing him his job…”
”It was worse than that you couldn’t get ideas funded that went in other directions than cholesterol… You were intentionally discouraged from pursuing alternative questions. I’ve never dealt with a subject in my life that elicited such an immediate hostile response…”
McCully says that his job search developed a pattern: he would hear of an opening, go for interviews and then the process would grind to a stop. Finally, he heard rumors of what he calls ”poison phone calls” from Harvard.
Several studies have examined umbilical cord blood to determine the number and type of industrial pollutants present in newborns at the time of birth. This research supports that children are being born already exposed to a large number of chemicals including those known to be neurotoxic, carcinogenic, or potentially linked to birth defects, developmental abnormalities, and reproductive problems. The sample sizes in these studies are small due to the costs involved but the findings are important nonetheless.
The report also includes reasons and evidence that doctors are inclined to follow the guidelines despite known conflicts of interest, lack of supporting evidence, and their own perceptions of what might be best for their patients:
Doctors who are sceptical about the scientific basis of clinical guidelines have two choices: they can follow guidelines even though they suspect doing so will cause harm, or they can ignore them and do what they believe is right for their patients, thereby risking professional censure and possibly jeopardising their careers. This is no mere theoretical dilemma; there is evidence that even when doctors believe a guideline is likely to be harmful and compromised by bias, a substantial number follow it…
Guidelines are usually issued by large panels of authors representing specialty and other professional organisations… A recent survey found that 71% of chairs of clinical policy committees and 90.5% of co-chairs had financial conflicts…
“We like to stick within the standard of care, because when the shit hits the fan we all want to be able to say we were just doing what everyone else is doing—even if what everyone else is doing isn’t very good.”
Unfortunately the full text is now behind a paywall. However a search for the article’s title “Why we can’t trust clinical guidelines” may turn up sites hosting the content in accordance with fair use.
I have found 5 studies between 2006 and 2013 which have shown a significant correlation between air pollutant exposure and higher risk for autism in children. As observational studies they cannot prove causation but the consistency of the data is worth noting. All but 1 of these research papers have the full text version available online for free, which is nice.
This is a 14 minute report from April 2012 that interviews Dr. Robert Lustig and other professionals about the connection between sugar and diseases including type 2 diabetes (sugar diabetes), heart disease, and cancer. It also briefly addresses the addictive nature of sugar. This piece is obviously an oversimplification of the processes involved but worth watching for a brief overview of recent research on sugar.
Dr. Terry Wahls talks about her dietary changes that successfully treated her symptoms of MS. Her protocol:
I’ve decided that I will try to only embed short video clips and just link to longer lectures. It really is a remarkable time to be alive because of the information we have access to, literally, at our fingertips and for free. With so much quality education material available the bigger tasks are sifting the useful from the not-so-useful and finding the time to view it all. Here are some lectures I’ve found valuable in the past few months, some of which are very technical: