Well, this makes for a real Debbie Downer Date. Nothing fun left. That’s actually not quite true. There is just a ton of stuff out there that is delicious food, good for you, easy to find. We just have to start thinking differently as we make changes in our life style and patterns.

But first, the big picture. It’s all about the FAT. The RIGHT Fat. We need to stop thinking simplistically about fat as being bad because it’s high calorie. We have to get some nuance to the idea that fat is what our brains are all about. You have to have the right fat. Our brains are mostly fat. That’s the key. And our diets have changed dramatically in the last 100 years. Our meat used to have omega fatty acids in them that was good for our brains. Beef, raised on grass, is about the same as bison or deer or elk in regard to its fat content. They are about 7% fat content, of which a large portion is omega fatty acid (good for your brain, just like salmon). When you raise a cow, or deer, or elk or bison on corn and beans, they get a different fat in their meat, just like we do when we raise ourselves on corn and beans (and sugar and soda and fries). They turn their meat into a product that still has the exact same protein. That doesn’t change. But the fat changes from omega fatty acid to saturated fat. Your brain wants the omega fats, not the saturated fat. Your brain is about 40% by dry weight DHA and EPA, the two dominant omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil. But fish oil is simply a natural food chain product starting with green algae in the ocean that gets eaten by little tiny fish, that get eaten by bigger fish. Green plants make DHA and EPA, whether in the ocean or on land. Our ancestors used to eat either those green plants, or the animals that ate them. And our brains are made from those healthy, essential fats.

What’s happened in America isn’t just the loss of the omega-3 fats but a flood of omega-6s. Omega 6 fats are the precursors to inflammatory signaling compounds called eicosinoids. They come from vegetable oils like corn oil, soybean oil etc. Omega-3’s are the precursors to the anti-inflammatory signaling eicosinoids. It stands to reason that you may want more anti-inflammatory products when the chronic diseases we all suffer from are based on inflammation.

WWW. What will work for me? I’m trying to change my eating habits to avoid vegetable oils and add omega three fats. There is evidence that those folks who take at least a gram a day of fish oil have a brain that’s 1-2% larger than those who don’t. Want a bigger brain or a smaller one? I’m opting for the bigger helping. I’ve bought a grass raised cow from a farmer. It’s taking a year for it to grow. It will cost me about $ 3 a pound if I do all the delivery, pick up and sorting out. Sounds like a bargain for my brain. Can you buy local? Get together with friends. Help a Wisconsin organic farmer make a local living.

Reference: Brain Building Nutrition by Michael Schmidt Third Edition

To make order of my exploration, I want to first talk about what we shouldn’t do. We now know there are just lots of things our brain would prefer we didn’t expose it to. First and foremost, the inflammation and irritation that comes along with cigarettes is just a disaster. The cells that protect each brain cell are called glial cells. They are sort of like baby sitters for brain cells, covering them, protecting them, shielding them. When they get mad and get inflamed, they damage the brain cell underneath. Cigarettes are right up there as noxious. Whew. A freebe. I don’t smoke. But there’s much more.

Mercury, lead, cadmium and arsenic make up a toxic handful of heavy metals that damage brain cells. We used to get lead exposure from gasoline. Now lead comes from older house-paint flaking off and materials made below our protection standards. (Toys from China. Lipsticks?) Even Nigerian chocolate (where 70% of the world’s cocoa is grown and where you can still buy leaded gasoline) has lead contamination. Arsenic comes off of the green wood we make our decks with. Yup, that nice kid’s playground wood: filled with arsenic.

Mercury is in coal so coal fired power plants put it in the air. And then there are old filings from the 60s and 70s with mercury content in them. Cadmium comes from cigarettes. We all have variable heavy metal exposure not seen before in human history. Some of it rises to the level of toxicity. I just measured my toxic levels. It’s not pretty.
But more common to all of us are everyday poisons like fake fats that create a low level of irritation and inflammation. Trans fats and saturated fats are everywhere. They don’t cause immediate noticeable damage but they do set off inflammation in our arteries and they make our membranes function less smoothly. If your arteries are inflamed your brain is too.

What about glutamate? There is all sorts of controversy about glutamate because of MSG. Monosodium glutamate came to America in the 1960s and its consumption continues to skyrocket. Sort of on the same order as our brain diseases of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and ALS. We like MSG because it makes food taste so good. The theory is that it causes excitatory cells to fire off, and fire and fire and fire, and then roll over and die. In experimental animal models exposed to the amount of MSG we have in our diet we can show the same sort of damage that shows up in Alzheimer’s. Not proven yet, but sure a lot of disturbing literature.

WWW. What will work for me. That’s the short starter list. Avoid cigarettes and smoking. Think about not using green pressure treated wood for surfaces you walk on. Read food labels and avoid MSG and all of its fake names like ‘hydrolyzed vegetable protein’. We didn’t even get to fake sweeteners. There is a lot you can do to help your brain. We’ll get to that.

Electromagnetic fields (or EMFs) from electricity lines almost certainly cause leukaemia, Alzheimer’s disease and other degenerative illnesses. Yet, most scientists—and every power supplier and government planning department around the world—continue to deny that power lines are a health hazard.

The International Agency for Cancer Research of the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified extremely low-frequency (ELF) EMFs as a possible carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) in light of the overwhelming evidence that has been uncovered in recent years. Indeed, the Agency’s latest position, reported in 2001, is a complete reversal of its stance of four years ago, when it agreed with most scientists that there is no evidence of a causal link between power lines and severe illnesses. The WHO also recommends that power lines be sited well away from homes “to reduce people’s exposure”.

In the UK, the government-funded advisory group SAGE (Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs) reported in 2007 that there is now sufficient evidence of a causal link between power lines and childhood leukemia for power companies to adopt a precautionary approach. In particular, SAGE recommends that, in future, power lines should be placed underground, and that no new homes should be built within 60 metres of existing power lines.

It’s a view shared by the State of California, which commissioned a $7m, 10-year review of power- line safety in 1993. The study, called the ‘California EMF Project’ (2002), concluded that magnetic fields from power lines and other sources are a likely cause of childhood and adult leukemia, adult brain cancers, spontaneous abortions and ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), the degenerative disease that afflicts astrophysicist Dr Stephen Hawking.

The EMF Project researchers state that “even a slight additional lifetime risk could be of concern to regulators, who already regulate other environmental concerns that convey even lower risks.”

So why do scientists persist in remaining ambivalent over the research-based evidence, and why are governments, regulatory bodies and power suppliers refusing to act when they must certainly be aware that overhead power lines represent a reasonable health risk?

Before we answer these questions, let’s look at some of the studies published since 2000, the watershed year that heralded the beginning of all the research that began to draw compelling links between EMFs and their effects on the human immune system.

Power lines and leukemia

The possibility that power lines cause childhood leukemia has attracted more research than any other health concern associated with EMFs.

One of the strongest associations was established by what is now referred to as the ‘Draper report’, a case-control study that discovered that children under the age of 15 years who lived within 100 metres of power lines were nearly twice as l i kely to develop leukemia compared with children who lived further away (BMJ, 2005; 330: 1290–4).

The team of researchers, led by Gerald Draper and based at the University of Oxford, included a representative from the National Grid Transco plc as scientific advisor. They arrived at their conclusions after examining the profiles of 29,081 children who developed
cancer between 1962 and 1995 in England and Wales.

Although the findings were of considerable public interest, the UK Government’s Department of Health, which had funded the research , suppressed the report for four years. Officials at the Department were first informed of the preliminary results in 2001, yet the report was not
published until June 2005.

What’s more, even when it finally made it into print, Geoff Watts , science editor of the British Medical Journal, declared that the Draper report simply means that only “five cases annually of childhood leukemia may be associated with power lines” compared with the 32 children who are killled annually in house fires or the 200 who die every year on UK roads (B M J, 2005; 330: 1294–5). Nevertheless, it was still an admission that power lines can affect
our health.

Two researchers—Anders Ahlbom f rom the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and Sander Greenland from the UCLA School of Public Health in Los Angeles, CA—h a v e
conducted a range of studies into EMFs and childhood leukemia since 2000. Indeed, in that year alone, they both published papers – one of which was a pooled analysis of 15 studies— that demonstrated a doubling of leukaemia rates among children exposed to the same levels of ELF fields as are generated by standard power lines (Br J Cancer, 2000; 85: 692–8;
Epidemiology, 2000; 11: 624–34). A year later, Ahlbom followed up with another review of the “voluminous epidemiologic literature on EMF” that confirmed the association of childhood leukaemia and postnatal exposures to EMFs (Environ Health Perspect, 2001; 109 [Suppl 6]: 911–33).

Power lines and Alzheimer’s

Several studies have produced compelling evidence for a causal connection between EMFs and Alzheimer’s disease. The latest study, published in November 2007, comes from Switzerland, where researchers have established that people who are living within 50 metres of a power line for 15 years or more have twice the the risk of developing Alzheimer’s
disease compared with those who are living 600 metres or more from such power lines.

Researchers at the University of Bern made the discovery when they analyzed the health profiles of 4.7 million people in Switzerland who lived close to a power line. They concluded that the distance from a line, and the duration of time spent living near such a line, were both
significant risk factors. The overall risk of Alzheimer’s for anyone living within 50 metres of a power line for any length of time was 1.24 times greater than that of someone who lived further away (Am J Epidemiol, 2008; doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn297).

In fact, the conclusion that the duration of EMF exposure is asignificant marker of Alzheimer’ s
risk has been supported by a study of workers in Spain whose occupations bring them into regular contact with ELF EMFs. A meta-analysis of 14 studies, carried out by researchers at
Valencia University, revealed that people in those occupations had twice the risk of developing Alzheimer’s in later life compared with the general population (Int J Epidemiol, 2008; 37: 329–40).

EMFs and other diseases

As EMFs are believed to interfere with the workings of the immune system, it follows that they would be expected to be responsible for causing a wide range of degenerative, chronic diseases, as suggested by California’s EMF Project findings. In fact, in addition to leukemia, the researchers consider it “likely” that magnetic fields are the cause of spontaneous abortions (miscarriage) and ALS, a view that has been supported by a number of studies.
Three recent studies support the hypothesis that EMFs cause spontaneous abortions. One such study, which reviewed 177 cases of miscarriage in Northern California, found a close correlation with exposure to high levels of EMFs. Women exposed to the highest levels
were more than three times more likely to miscarry than those whose exposure was minimal (Epidemiology, 2002; 13: 21–31).

Scientists at the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute in Oakland, California, arrived at a similar conclusion when they examined the cases of 969 women from the San Francisco Bay area who had experienced miscarriage. Although they could find no correlations among
women exposed to average levels of EMFs, those who were regularly exposed to levels of 16 mG (milliGauss) or more were nearly twice as likely to lose their pregnancy (Epidemiology, 2002; 13: 9–20).

The third study, carried out on laboratory mice, demonstrated that exposure to ELF EMFs during pregnancy would not only affect the term of the pregnancy, but could also interfere with the development of the offspring (Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi, 2006; 24: 468–70).

Further studies also suggest that high EMF levels may cause ALS. The first, which analyzed the Swedish census of 1980 against instances of neurodegenerative disorders such as
Alzheimer’s disease and ALS, found that workers in the electrical or electronics industry had a 40-percent greater chance of developing ALS than those who did not work in electrical/electronic-related occupations (Epidemiology, 2003; 14: 413–9).

The Swedish study findings were supported by a later study that also found a direct correlation between exposures was more than two times greater than for those in other industries, although the risk was higher still – at four times – for Alzheimer’s disease (Epidemiology, 2003; 14: 420–6).

In yet another study, the researchers concluded that “there are relatively strong data indicating that electric utility work may be associated with an increased risk [of ALS]” (Bioelectromagnetics, 2001; suppl 5: S132–43).

Why scientists disagree

Power lines emit both electrical and magnetic fields. The electric field is related to the voltage running through the line—a typical cable handles between 275 kV (kilovolts) and 400 kV -whereas the magnetic field is dependent on the current being carried through the cable, and
this can vary depending on the usage. This means that any scientist researching the impact of an EMF is faced with the immediate problem of how to measure something that can fluctuate wildly over any 24-hour period. This is why only studies that have examined EMF effects over years are able to discern any causal relationship with health problems, whereas a study that is carried out for only a few days or weeks at a time is only able to determine insignificant
effects—if any at all.

Scientists who deny any association also argue that no one truly understands how EMFs can cause cancer or damage the immune system. However, as Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch, an independent consumers’ information service, says: “We still do not know the actual
mechanisms by which cigarette smoking, asbestos fibre or DDT cause cancers, but we have accepted the epidemiological evidence and have introduced laws to limit or reduce
human exposure.”

The distance from power lines is another issue, and sceptics have argued that people living even relatively short distances from them should not suffer any ill effects. In effect, they appear to be suggesting that illnesses being reported may just be psychosomatic—all in the
head.

Professor Denis Henshaw, at Bristol University, has spent years studying this issue, and has come up with an hypothesis of ‘corona ions’. He posits that the ions emitted by
high-voltage power lines are ending up as tiny charged particles of air pollution that can penetrate deeply into our lungs and bloodstream. These so-called corona ions are
carried on the wind and quickly become attached to microscopic particles of air pollution, thereby electrically charging them.

Professor Henshaw believes that these pollutants can be carried several hundred metres away from power lines, which would explain why children living at greater distances –
and downwind—from a line can stilldevelop leukaemia.

One task of the BioInitiative Report, prepared by 14 independent internationally based scientists in 2007, was to try to understand why there is still so much disagreement
among experts, despite the fact that enough evidence has already been published to justify improvements in safety standards within the power industry.

Among the 10 reasons listed by the Report, the authors concluded that:

• different scientists use different measurements to determine the existence of any proof;
  
• some scientists continue to insist that every study should achieve the same results;
  
• some scientists are only looking at short-term and acute effects, which do not always tell the whole story; and
  
• vested interests appear to have a substantial influence on the whole issue under debate.
  

Industry pressures

This is an exceedingly high-stakes game, one that goes way beyond deciding whether power lines should be buried under the ground or not. If governments and power industries
accept the growing epidemiological evidence that EMFs cause cancer—not to mention any other chronic and degenerative diseases—then there will need to be a massive change in
the way we live our lives.

EMFs are emitted from the mains electricity and all the wiring in our homes—powering everything from microwave ovens to Wi-Finetworks—but also, and more significantly, from
mobile phones and mobile-phone masts.

The upshot of all this is that, while it is a matter of degrees and being reasonable, any admission from our health guardians that EMFs are causing cancer would have major
effects on the world’s economy—not to mention our present taken—for granted
comfy lifestyles. It is also known that the power industry, like the drug industry, recruits and richly rewards ‘friendly’ scientists who are always on hand to deride any research
that links EMFs to cancer and other diseases. Indeed, the power industry openly—but sometimes covertly—funds research that invariably discovers no association between
EMFs and illness.

This is part and parcel of the damage limitation that began in the 1960s, when field pioneers such as Drs Ross Adey, Milton Zaret and Robert Becker started investigating the effects of EMFs on humans. Dr Zaret was among the first to discover that EMF radiation, such as
emitted by microwaves, is biologically harmful and can cause conditions such as cataracts. Yet, in the course of his work, his research funds were stopped. Dr Becker worked for the
US Navy, and his brief was to assess the health impact of a submarine ELF communications system. His study concluded that the health of significant segments of the American
population was at risk from 60-Hz power lines. But when the State of New York was planning the construction of 10 high-power lines, the Navy denied that Becker’s work existed, so
the high-power lines were erected. Becker said afterwards: “The way science is currently funded andevaluated, we are learning more and more about less and less, and science
is becoming our enemy instead of our friend.”

Dr Adey, who died in 2004, worked on secret CIA projects in the 1970s that looked into the impact of EMFs on people’s mental health. Since then, other researchers have found that these energy fields can cause depression: indeed, several noted that suicide levels were far higher among people who lived near power lines.

In 1992, Adey reported that there was “very little doubt” that EMFs affect the immune system, interfere with fetal development and cause birth abnormalities, damage healthy cell growth, encourage tumour formation, and affect the central nervous system and the brain. In addition, as he said on BBC Radio Scotland on January 10, 1992, “This work is being carried out in
many laboratories worldwide so that the old fiction that this research describes uncorroborated experiments is no longer true.”

In the 16 years since that programme was aired, the evidence has become even stronger, but it will still be a long time before governments and the so-called guardians of our public health admit it. As Dr John Bonnell, chief medical officer for the UK’s now-defunct Central Electricity Generating Board, said in 1985, on a Central TV programme entitled The Good, the Bad and the Indefensible: “If we accepted the dangers, it would mean an enormous turnabout for industry and for the country as a whole. There are no contingency plans to cope with such
a turnabout.”

Not only are there no contingency plans in place, but we have also seen the explosion of the mobile-phone industry in the intervening years, making any admission concerning the harmful effects of EMFs physically as well as fiscally catastrophic.

Bryan Hubbard

This brings me to the issue at hand, HORMONES and hormone replacement therapy (HRT)! The topic has almost reached celebrity status with genuine confusion and concern regarding what is being talked about! I have been extremely perplexed at the whole notion of replacing hormones. I ask…where did they go? Which hole did they fall out of? Did a woman leave them at a party one night and wake up the asking “oh my..has anyone seen my hormones?” Our bodies have exactly what they need to make all the hormones we need at any particular stage in a women’s life. When there is trouble hormonally, it is more about RESTORING function rather than REPLACING it!

As my private naturopathic practice evolved, I was in awe at the number of women I experienced having trouble during normal hormonal transitions. I saw women having difficulty transitioning into menopause, a very natural, once celebrated once honored stage, and I also saw an extraordinary number of younger women experiencing weight gain, irritability, insomnia, decreased libido, and hot flashes. There were also women with sexual and reproductive problems—infertility, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, ovarian cysts, and severe premenstrual syndrome (PMS)—as well as breast and uterine cancer. Most of these women came in with a recommendation from their physician that they begin taking synthetic hormones. For women entering menopause it was HRT, and for the younger women it was the birth control pill. These artificial hormones suppress the body’s natural cycles; they do nothing to address why the symptoms are occurring.

A pattern was emerging among my patients, but it really hit home when my own 37-year-old body started to flare up. My periods became unbearable; I had cramping, clotting, and bloating. My PMS and irritability got so bad my family would mark the two weeks beforehand as the “red zone.” I wrestled with debilitating fatigue for the first time in my life, not to mention the unwelcome weight gain and changes in body temperature. I was frustrated because I couldn’t attribute these changes to anything different in my diet or lifestyle. I was desperate to figure out what was going on, and more importantly, what I could do about it. The stress of building my practice and business, having a family, being president of the California Association of Naturopathic Physicians, and having an overall unrelentingly stressful lifestyle was taking a toll. I had moved back to one of the most polluted—yet beautiful—areas in California. And my dietary choices tended to be less than ideal in times of stress when I needed quick energy. I was drinking coffee in the morning to get me going and looking forward to a glass or two of wine on the weekends so I could finally relax.

I was completely out of balance. My stress level was taxing my adrenal glands (the built in back up system for post menopausal hormone production). I developed digestive disturbances, which I knew were compromising my liver’s ability to do its many jobs, including processing and neutralizing hormones. The effects on my body were manifesting in the form of annoying and uncomfortable symptoms. I knew the last thing I needed was more estrogen from birth control pills. I needed to get my body back in balance. If I didn’t work to correct some things, I knew I was increasing my risk down the road for dangerous health conditions, such as cancer. Listening to the signals my body was sending, such as the difficult periods (which are not normal), then making some profound changes in my diet, lifestyle, and supplement regime got me back on track, in balance, and wiser than before. What I discovered in treating my patients and myself is that women are experiencing extreme difficulties during normal hormonal transitions due to being overall OUT OF BALANCE due to many underlying influences.

Most important, the treatment approach of just “replacing hormones” is not helping women live longer, healthier lives. More hormones are the last thing women need. In fact, this course of action could be harmful. Hormone imbalance can not only cause the symptoms mentioned above, but also can lead to cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, and Alzheimer’s disease. Women’s hormone health did not become more problematic overnight. It has a lot to do with our modern environment and lifestyles. Pollution, stress, food quality, the way we nourish ourselves and prevailing medical practices take their toll on bodily systems. The good news is once we understand what creates imbalance; we can tap the many safe ways of restoring balance and eliminating uncomfortable, irritating symptoms while preventing disease and increasing overall quality of life and well-being.

When experiencing difficulties during hormonal transitions that are normal, natural and a birth right for all of us, before filling that prescription, take an internal inventory to see how well you are! Ask yourself these questions: What is my foundation like, are there any cracks? What is my exercise regime? Am I involved in re-creation activities? How am I moving through the stress in my life? Am I staying hydrated? Am I adequately rested with restorative sleep? How am I nourishing myself (what is my diet like)? Is it time for a 2-week cleanse? How is my digestion? Am I absorbing the nutrients I need and eliminating waste products regularly? Am I having fun? What is the quality of my relationships, with self, others and my higher source?

Listening to your body and answering these questions and increasing awareness in your life instead of increasing your hormones artificially might just be the key to overall hormonal health and well-being!

Stand by for a battle-royal over Alzheimer’s disease (AD)-to take place in
the British High Courts of Justice, no less. Shortly, in a unique court case, NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence), the UK’s National Health Service drugs watchdog, will be challenged to defend its decision not to fund Alzheimer’s drugs intended for use in the early stages of the disease.

Ranged on the prosecution benches will be two big guns of the pharmaceutical industry, Pfizer and its marketing arm Eisai, aided and abetted by the Alzheimer’s Society, a vociferous patient support group that equally loudly proclaims itself to have no ties with any drug manufacturers.

What’s all the fuss about? Are the Alzheimer’s drugs any good at all, and are there any alternatives? And what causes the disease in the first place?

Dementia and Alzheimer’s

From near-obscurity only a generation ago, Alzheimer’s disease is now probably, after cancer, the most feared disease of old age. Alzheimer’s has been chillingly described as an affliction whose victims suffer the loss of qualities that define human existence.

Once considered a rare disorder, it is now known to be the most common type of senile dementia, defined as physical damage to the brain in old age that results in major changes to reasoning, memory, personality and behaviour. Until recently, the only way to distinguish Alzheimer’s from other types of dementia was by post-mortem examination of the brain. A typical AD brain is found to be partly atrophied, with the brain cells clumped together in what are called ‘neurofibrillary tangles’ or ‘plaques’.

The second major type of dementia is vascular dementia, where the interruption of the brain’s blood supply, usually due to ‘mini-strokes’, causes brain cells to die. These two main types of dementia can now sometimes be distinguished from each other by brain scans using either magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or positron-emission tomography (PET).

Senile dementia is not as inevitable as many people might imagine: between 25 and 50 per cent of individuals over 85 are spared it. Nevertheless, dementia is on the increase, so the drug companies claim, because of the simple fact that we’re all living longer. It is believed to be incurable.

Big Pharma’s offerings

Any prolonged chronic illness that is only ended by death is, of course, meat and drink to the pharmaceutical industry. And yet, perhaps surprisingly, there are relatively few drug treat-ments available for Alzheimer’s. First on the market was tacrine (marketed as Cognex) in 1993. Like virtually all of its successors, tacrine is a so-called cholinesterase inhibitor, which acts by artificially maintaining levels of acetyl-choline in the brain. This important brain chemical is known to be reduced by as much as 90 per cent in AD sufferers; it’s also believed to be important for memory, so finding a drug that can preserve the chemical in the brain makes sense.

In fact, the theory is fine-the trouble is the side-effects. After just a decade on the market, tacrine began to be no longer actively marketed after reports of severe liver toxicity. As much as 60 per cent of patients found the drug’s side-effects to be intolerable at high doses. The final nail in tacrine’s coffin was that, after all this, it really doesn’t work (JAMA, 1998; 280: 1777-82).

Since then, three other drugs have come onto the market, all of which attempt to do the same trick of increasing acetylcholine in the brain. As expected, these drugs are all deadly rivals. Pfizer’s Aricept (donepezil), has an advertising tagline that says ‘when Alzheimer’s hits home, Aricept can help’; Novartis’ Exelon (rivastigmine) claims to be ‘another step forward against Alzheimer’s disease’; and Shire Pharmaceuticals/Janssen’s Reminyl (galantamine) sells itself with the somewhat vague tagline ‘Reminyl is now’.

So far, Pfizer is the only manufacturer to have threatened a lawsuit against the recent NICE ruling that none of these drugs is really worth taking in the early stages of AD. Will the drugmaker win their case? Our prediction is no-and, frankly, because the evidence is stacked against them.

The only large-scale, truly independent clinical trial of Pfizer’s Aricept was carried out by a team of British researchers at the University of Birmingham. In a double-blind trial that lasted for more than two years, Aricept was tested head-to-head against a placebo in over 500 patients who had mild-to-moderate AD.

The study’s conclusions? Aricept works, but its benefits are very small-“below minimally relevant thresholds” (Lancet, 2004; 363: 2105-15). As study director Professor Richard Grey stated in the report: “Patients and their families would probably notice no difference if the drug was stopped.”

What’s more, even clinical trials funded by the drug companies them-selves failed to show much benefit with any of their products. For example, Oxford University researchers recently scrutinized data from 24 separate Pfizer-sponsored Aricept trials, involving more than 5000 patients at different stages of AD, and concluded that “the treatment effects are small and are not always apparent in practice”. Add to that the strong likelihood of “many adverse events” such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, muscle cramps, dizziness, fatigue and anorexia, and it’s little wonder that there’s what the researchers politely refer to as a “debate” over whether Aricept is worth a candle (Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2006; 1: CD001190).

The same Oxford scientists have also examined another of Pfizer’s claims-which is also supported by the strictly independent Alzheimer’s Society-that Aricept helps prevent the onset of AD, stopping what is classified as ‘mild cognitive impairment’ (MCI) from turning into full-blown Alz-heimer’s. The researchers’ conclusion? According to their report: “There is no evidence to support the use of Aricept for patients with MCI. The putative benefits are minor, short-lived and associated with significant side effects” (Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2006; 3: CD006104).

What of Aricept’s two other rivals, however? Again, independent studies of the clinical data have exposed the drug companies’ marketing hype.

With MCI, for example, Polish researchers concluded earlier this year that the efficacy of all three cholinesterase-blocking drugs was “questionable”, especially given the high incidence of side-effects, some of which-as in the case of Reminyl-apparently can be fatal (Neurol Neurochir Pol, 2007; 41: 13-21).

As for full-blown AD itself, three groups of independent researchers all agree that the three drugs, although having slightly different modes of action, all produce broadly similar effects-or rather, a lack of effects. Their benefit to Alzheimer patients is variously described as “not large” (Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2006; 1: CD005593), “limited” (Tijdschr Psychiatr, 2006; 48: 17-26) and “small” (Drugs Aging, 2007; 24: 155-67).

Nevertheless, Aricept remains the market leader in a highly profitable $3 billion a year business that is fore-casted to grow exponentially.

But there’s one new drug that is beginning to challenge Aricept. It’s called memantine (marketed as Ebixa, Axura, Namenda and Akatinol). Strictly speaking, it’s not a drug, as it’s derived from the naturally occurring mineral adamantine, and it also works in a different way from its pharmaceutical rivals. Developed by Merz, a German manufacturer of natural health products, the compound appears to protect brain cells against glutamate, the amino acid that is thought to be toxic to the brain in excess amounts and to trigger Alzheimer’s.

Clinical trials of memantine have been promising, showing it to be particularly effective in moderate-to-severe AD, although it generally only slows mental decline rather than reverses it (Drugs, 2006; 66: 1515-34). Detailed testing has found that it appears to benefit attention and information-processing speed more than memory (Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2006; Nov 20; epub ahead of print).

Its side-effects are hardly greater than a placebo tablet, with a slight tendency to produce tiredness and dizziness. It is widely used in Germany, often in preference to the standard drugs; however, in Britain, it is still considered experimental.

Alternative treatments

Meanwhile, gradually emerging into the limelight are a number of promising plant-based treatments, some of which turn out to have properties that seem almost tailor-made for AD.

Take the humble culinary sage plant, Salvia officinalis. In addition to having potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, sage is known to have anticholinergic effects similar to Aricept’s. When tested against placebo in a recent clinical trial, 60 drops of sage oil a day was often found to be better than Aricept at maintaining mental functioning in people with mild-to-moderate AD-and without any side-effects (J Clin Pharm Ther, 2003; 28: 53-9). Sage oil can also improve memory in younger people, too.

Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis) has been found to bind to the brain receptors believed to be involved with anxiety, thus reducing the agitation symptoms seen with AD. Particular strains of the plant have also proved able to slow the decline of mental functioning (Curr Pharm Des, 2006; 12: 4613-23). However, although some proponents recommend these plants as aromatherapy for Alzheimer sufferers, the evidence is considered “inconclusive” (Aust NZ J Psychiatry, 1999; 33: 789-99).

The classic herbal memory-enhancer is Ginkgo biloba, which has been proven in numerous clinical trials to benefit mental faculties in people of all ages. Germany is where it’s most used for Alzheimer’s, as even German conventional doctors consider it prefer-able to the pharmaceutical drugs on offer.

Although it’s by no means a miracle-worker, Ginkgo has been shown to benefit virtually all AD patients to some degree, and about a third of them quite significantly. The recommended dosage is 240 mg/day of the Ginkgo extract codenamed ‘EGb 761’; the benefits normally show up within six months (Pharmacopsychiatry, 2003; 36: 297-303). It’s even been suggested that Ginkgo might help prevent the onset of AD but, so far, no research has been done to test its possible role in Alzheimer’s prevention.

What of the other ‘smart drugs’ that are sometimes claimed to be memory-enhancers for the able-bodied? Of these, only nicergoline (derived from ergot) appears to have any evidence of benefit, with up to a threefold improvement on some performance measures in AD (Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2001; 4: CD003159). Vinpocetine and piracetam, although better known, don’t appear to have been adequately tested in Alzheimer’s patients to come to any firm conclusions.

On the near horizon, the curry spice curcumin is being investigated as a potential anti-AD compound, after it was recognized that people in India have lower rates of the disease. Lab tests by neurologists at UCLA have already shown that curcumin can repair brain cells damaged by AD, and clinical trials are currently underway
(J Alzheimers Dis, 2006; 10: 1-7).

Traditional Chinese medicine offers two sets of herbal mixtures: Yi-Gan
San is a combination of seven different plants, headed by angelica root; and
Ba Wei Di Huang Wan (BDW) com-prises eight herbs, including cinnamon and peony. Initial research shows that they may be useful in AD (Evidence-Based Complement Altern Med, 2006; 3: 441-5).

There is currently excitement over one Chinese herb in particular, a rare club moss called Huperzia serrata.

Five years ago, an extract of the moss-huperzine alpha (Hup-A)-was tested in more than 200 Chinese diagnosed with mild-to-moderate AD. The results were described as “remarkable”. After taking 400 mcg of Hup-A for less than three months, 60 per cent of the patients were observed to be “clinically on the mend”. Only about a quarter of patients failed to respond. Side-effects were “mild and transient” and, in any case, affected very few of the patients (Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi, 2002; 82: 941-4).

How does Hup-A work? It’s thought to increase acetylcholine levels in the brain. But, in fact, it’s much better than that. It penetrates the brain more effectively than the current drugs, and lasts longer. It also has a wider range of effects, including protecting cells against further damage from inflammation and oxidation (Acta Pharmacol Sin, 2006; 27: 1-26). Here again, a clinical trial is currently ongoing.

The Chinese also use acupuncture for Alzheimer’s, and there is evidence that it may work (Zhongguo Zhen Jiu, 2005; 25: 390-2). In a Westernized variation of this, doctors have tested TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) therapy. Applied to various parts of the body (even the face), TENS has been shown to have some value, particularly in the early stages of AD. However, according to the Japanese doctors using it, the therapy needs to be repeated to sustain benefits beyond six months (Front Med Biol Eng, 2002; 11: 237-47).

Hopeful horizons

One possible AD treatment is chelation therapy. Often derided as mere quackery, chelation has been used for decades by frontier-spirited cardiologists to combat heart disease. The treatment involves transfusing a chemical cocktail into the bloodstream that will bind itself to harmful agents and carry them away. Chelation’s earliest use was to remove toxic levels of lead from workers in the battery and paint industries, but it’s now finding a revival in Alzheimer’s patients.

The argument is this: if metal toxicity is involved in AD, then chelation may be able to bind and flush away the harmful metals before they can cause brain damage.

One of the first trials of chelation used clioquinol as the chelating agent. The results were promising, showing a slight clinical improvement after three weeks (Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 2001; 12: 408-14). However, the results of the only subsequent trial were less encouraging (Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2006; 1: CD005380).

Despite these disappointing findings, a whole slew of researchers across the globe-from Osaka University to Harvard-are actively pursuing the chelation route in hopes of making a breakthrough. Some scientists are even suggesting using ‘nanoparticles’ to trick the brain into allowing more powerful chelating agents past its barriers (Neurosci Lett, 2006; 406: 189-93).

The fact that researchers are being forced to consider such high-tech solutions says two things: the existing treatments aren’t working; and Alzheimer’s may be a rather tougher nut to crack than we thought.

Tony Edwards

Dr Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GSK, has told a conference that over 90 per cent of all drugs work for only between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of patients.

At the very bottom of the efficacy table are the cancer drugs, which work on only 25 per cent of patients. These are closely followed by Alzheimer’s drugs that work on just 30 per cent of people. Drugs for rheumatoid arthritis, migraine, incontinence, hepatitis C, and diabetes work on only half the patients, at best. The most effective drugs are the analgesics, which work for to 80 per cent of those who take them.

This frank admission is also a very shocking one, and for several reasons. The pharmaceutical industry is about the most profitable in the world, and its profits are generated by drugs that everyone has implicitly believed would work (everyone apart from regular E-news readers, that is). Worse, in this scramble for profits, around 105,000 Americans and 40,000 Britons die every year from an adverse reaction to a drug, and many thousands more are permanently harmed from one.

Almost as astonishing has been the reaction from some of Roses’s industry colleagues. ‘What he is saying will surprise the public, but not his colleagues,’ said one industry scientist. Surprised may be a slight understatement for the reaction of families who have lost a member to a drug – and one that the manufacturer probably knew would not work.

So it’s no surprise to the drug companies. Is it a surprise, perhaps, to the drugs regulators? Did they know that they were part of a scam? Or the government, maybe, that buys £7.2bn of drugs each year for the National Health Service? Are they also aware that at least two-thirds of that enormous expenditure is an utter waste?

How about the doctors? They are writing millions of prescriptions a year. Did they notice that their patients just weren’t getting any better?

Some commentators have described Roses’s admission as a Ratner-like gaffe. For non-UK readers and those too young to remember, Gerald Ratner ran the UK’s largest jewelers – until the day he ‘joked’ that his products were ‘crap’.

But this was no Ratner moment. Roses knew full well what he was doing, and he almost certainly had his statement cleared by the very top executives at Glaxo. Roses has been described as a highly intelligent man, and he’s certainly too smart to commit corporate suicide.

Roses is staking a major claim for his own division, into which Glaxo has poured billions of dollars of research money. Our guess is that Glaxo has taken the lead in the market, and will soon be launching a new approach to therapy, based on the patient’s genetic make-up.

In this new treatment model, patients will first be tested to discover the effectiveness of a drug, and if they are among the 20 per cent for whom the drug will work.

By allowing Roses to blow the whistle, Glaxo is playing a very high-risk game. Genetic profiling may be achievable, but it will cut drugs production by up to 80 per cent, so eating into profits.

It may also not be a workable option, especially for an already overstretched health service.

What then? We are just left with the information that most drugs don’t work. Which is pretty much where we at WDDTY came in.

* Following on from Dr Roses’s admission, you really must read the WDDTY book Secrets of the Drugs Industry. It lifts the lid on the drugs that don’t work, those that are dangerous, and how the drugs industry masks its aggressive sales drives with supposed science. To order your copy, click on this link: http://www.wddty.co.uk/shop/details.asp?product=341

They have discovered that smokers are 50 per cent less likely to develop Parkinson’s than non smokers. And the same is true of people who drink alcohol or coffee.

But medicine isn’t about to rewrite the rulebook on healthy lifestyles. Smoking and drinking are indicative of addictive behaviour, and it is higher levels of endogenous dopamine which triggers addictions and act as a preventative to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, Patricia Willems-Giesbergen, from Erasmus University in Rotterdam, told delegates at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

It also suggests that life, even at the end, is kind. If you’ve had a boring life, you won’t remember it. . .

A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal attacked the FDA for dragging its feet on the drug tetrahydroaminoacridine, or tacrine, and called for swift approval.

The reason for the FDA’s hesitation is an interim report on the drug published in the New England Journal of Medicine which was considered uncontrolled and poorly designed.

The FDA’s panel also based their decision on two studies of 300 Alzheimer’s patients. In one such French study, published in the British Medical Journal last year, low doses of tacrine did not improve symptoms of Alzheimer’s and also were suspected of causing hepatitis, although there were some questions about the design of this study.

In the meantime, Warner-Lambert claims that it is submitting additional data to the FDA which it feels will clinch its case.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the Florida Institute of Technology have discovered that by measuring the amount of body tissue compounds called isoprostanes they could accurately determine the amount of neurological oxidative damage.

The study looked at tissue from 43 brains, 19 of which were known to come from patients with Alzheimer’s, 16 from patients with either Parkinson’s or schizophrenia and eight from normal controls. Isoprostane concentrations were markedly raised in samples from both the frontal and temporal poles in Alzheimer’s patients, but were normal in other samples.

The brain is thought to be particularly sensitive to free radical damage because, unlike other areas of the body, it does not contain large amounts of protective antioxidant compounds. This new study opens the door for better prevention and treatment of this disabling disorder (FASEB Journal, 1998; 12: 1247-54).

A review of one Alzheimer’s treatment has shown that the conventional drug tacrine hydrochloride probably slows down mental deterioration in Alzheimer’s patients but not enough to have an impact on their functional autonomy. The meta analysis of 12 trials showed that the cholinesterase inhibitor may help some, but it is still unclear who benefits the most (JAMA, 1998; 280: 1777-82).

After the fact studies show just how wrong doctors usually are; up to half of all AD patients are confirmed post mortem as having been misdiagnosed (The Lancet, 1981; 1: 824-7).

Instead, patients usually have one of many conditions causing pseudo dementia. Lately AD has been linked with metallic poisoning, mainly with aluminium or mercury, or a deficiency in one of a number of essential nutrients such as B6, B12, folic acid, thiamine or nicotinic acid.

However, a number of other little suspected factors can cause this pseudo dementia, most of which are largely reversible. These include poor circulation to the brain or hardening of brain arteries; pernicious anemia; side effects of certain prescribed drugs, including addiction to psychotropic drugs; or severe facial swelling, caused by severe hypothyroidism (R Trattler, Better Health through Natural Healing, Thorsons, London, 1987). If a patient has been undergoing chemotherapy, vinblastine (Velban) or vincristine (Oncovin) can cause such delayed side effects as loss of reflexes, numbness and tingling in hands and feet, foot drop and depression.

Besides the nutritional tests mentioned in last month’s issue, a hematology screen, urinalysis, full thyroid function test and liver function tests can rule out some of these problems as potential culprits and the appropriate treatment can usually bring about improvement. Osteopathic or chiropractic manipulation, including muscle re-education techniques, offers an important complementary therapy (J Marshall Hoag, et al, Osteopathic Medicine, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969).

If none of these factors proves to be the cause, and true AD is suspected, a number of alternative remedies have been scientifically proven to work. Thirteen studies performed in the past 20 years (seven of which were double blind, placebo controlled) demonstrate that Ginkgo biloba extract can bring about significant regression of the major symptoms of cerebral vascular insufficiency (J Pizzorno and M Murray, Textbook of Natural Medicine, 1992, vol 1). Regularly taking physostigma vene-nosum, a cholinergic agonist, has been shown to improve memory significantly (J A Geriatrics Soc, 1989; 37: 42-8).

The homeopathic medicine, Melia azadirachta indica, has also been shown to work (F Lamasson, Annales Homeopathiques Francaises, 1968, 10: (3): 851-8), as has an earlier homeopathic remedy, Duboisia myoproides, more than a century ago (M Gerrard, Pharm Jour and Trans, April 1878: 157).

One clue to whether your AD is genuine is right at the tips of your fingers. Abnormal fingerprint patterns, referred to as ulnar loops, which point away from the thumb toward the ulnar bone, are frequently found on all fingertips of AD suffers (as well as those with Down’s Syndrome, which has been linked with AD). The more normal pattern is a variety of whorls, arches and ulnar loops (see Pizzorno and Murray’s Encylopedia of Natural Medicine for a good illustration). If you do have this pattern, begin the type of preventive approach outlined last month.

!AHarald Gaier

Harald Gaier is a registered naturopath, homeopath and osteopath.