We have accepted the suggestion from a BU family member to facilitate discussion on medical matters which is a topic area that should interest us all. Based on exchanges with and between BU family members posted over time, many of you work in the medical field or possess information on various medical issues acquired based on personal circumstance or otherwise. Medical Corner seeks to encourage ANYONE to submit views on medical experiences, new developments in the industry or any related matter which readers feel can serve to educate the BU family.
91 responses so far ↓
David // April 3, 2008 at 10:20 PM
We have posted the first suggestion which the BU member submitted for consideration:
New Page Added « Barbados Underground (BU) - bringing the news to the people // April 4, 2008 at 7:09 AM
[...] Medical Corner [...]
only me // April 5, 2008 at 8:45 AM
excellent idiea BU well done
samizdat // April 5, 2008 at 8:45 AM
Great idea.
Can we use the page to ask for fellow readers’ suggestions? Like recommending a medical practice where the treatment/service has been particularly good?
The People's Democratic Congress / // April 5, 2008 at 8:46 AM
The dedication by BU of a subject area on the blog that will deal with medical, health and nutritional issues, matters and developments affecting medical, health and nutritional professionals, technicians, students and institutions as well as many other persons and other entities on the whole in Barbados and elsewhere, and whereby BU as well as the friends and patrons of BU and those above mentioned professionals, technicians, students and others here and outside of Barbados, will directly be able to make such submissions with a view of seriously discussing and providing solutions to many of the problems associated with those kinds of issues, matters and developments, must be seen by PDC as very welcome and thoughtful, indeed.
Surely, BU and the person proposing the idea must be commended for such foresight and action in thought. There is no doubt about it that the current state of medical, health and nutritional affairs of Barbados and other countries must be seen as having paramount importance in any quest to achieve greater national social, political, material and financial growth and development for our respective countries, now and in the future, and especially, given the present scale of medical, health and nutritional challenges posed to our respective countries.
PDC
Georgie Porgie // April 5, 2008 at 8:46 AM
The creme de la creme of the Medical cultures in the USA have found that the Cholesterol drug Vytorin failed in tests to show that it is any good and patients are being told to stick with statins like Lipitor.
================================
I have not read any articles that said that Vytorin is no good or that patients should stick to Lipitor.
What has been reported though, is that while Vytorin reduced levels of LDL, or bad cholesterol, in a group of 750 patients, it had little effect on the buildup of plaque in the arteries, a harbinger of heart attack and stroke.
Vytorin is a combination of Ezetimibe and Simvastatin.
Ezetimibe reduces blood cholesterol by inhibiting absorption of cholesterol by the small intestine by acting at the brush border of the small intestine and inhibits the absorption of cholesterol, leading to a decrease in the delivery of intestinal cholesterol to the liver.
Simvastatin is a statin. That is it works by inhibiting the activity of the enzyme HMG-CoA reductase that is necessary for the body to make cholesterol.
The rationale for the production of Vytorin was to make a drug that would be additive or synergistic by attacking cholesterol levels by attacking two mechanisms of action instead of one.
In fact Vytorin (the combination of Ezetimibe and Simvastatin) is the only product to treat both sources of cholesterol; absorption in the intestine of both biliary and dietary cholesterol, and production in the liver and peripheral tissues.
It was thought that the treatment of high cholestrol from both sources was likely to result in lower cholesterol levels, particularly LDL cholesterol. In a clinical study, it was shown that the combination of Ezetimibe and Simvastatin was superior to the statin Lipitor in lowering LDL cholestrol.
So to pontificate that Vytorin failed in tests to show that it is any good, is as accurate as saying there are NO bridges in Bridgetown, because even the controversial Enhance study revealed the fact that Vytorin showed a huge LDL reduction. In other words the drug is indeed efficacious, i.e it has done the job for which it was designed. In fact the reviewers also conceeded that Vytorin reduced three key risk factors of heart disease- which is the purpose of attempting to reduce cholesterol levels.
Georgie Porgie // April 5, 2008 at 8:46 AM
The creme de la creme of the Medical cultures in the USA have found that the Cholesterol drug Vytorin failed in tests to show that it is any good and patients are being told to stick with statins like Lipitor.
================================
I have not read any articles that said that Vytorin is no good or that patients should stick to Lipitor.
What has been reported though, is that while Vytorin reduced levels of LDL, or bad cholesterol, in a group of 750 patients, it had little effect on the buildup of plaque in the arteries, a harbinger of heart attack and stroke.
Vytorin is a combination of Ezetimibe and Simvastatin.
Ezetimibe reduces blood cholesterol by inhibiting absorption of cholesterol by the small intestine by acting at the brush border of the small intestine and inhibits the absorption of cholesterol, leading to a decrease in the delivery of intestinal cholesterol to the liver.
Simvastatin is a statin. That is it works by inhibiting the activity of the enzyme HMG-CoA reductase that is necessary for the body to make cholesterol.
The rationale for the production of Vytorin was to make a drug that would be additive or synergistic by attacking cholesterol levels by attacking two mechanisms of action instead of one.
In fact Vytorin (the combination of Ezetimibe and Simvastatin) is the only product to treat both sources of cholesterol; absorption in the intestine of both biliary and dietary cholesterol, and production in the liver and peripheral tissues.
It was thought that the treatment of high cholestrol from both sources was likely to result in lower cholesterol levels, particularly LDL cholesterol. In a clinical study, it was shown that the combination of Ezetimibe and Simvastatin was superior to the statin Lipitor in lowering LDL cholestrol.
So to pontificate that Vytorin failed in tests to show that it is any good, is as accurate as saying there are NO bridges in Bridgetown, because even the controversial Enhance study revealed the fact that Vytorin showed a huge LDL reduction.
In other words the drug is indeed efficacious, i.e it has done the job for which it was designed. In fact the reviewers also conceeded that Vytorin reduced three key risk factors of heart disease- which is the purpose of attempting to reduce cholesterol levels.
Georgie Porgie // April 5, 2008 at 8:47 AM
The report claims “doctors were stunned to learn that Vytorin failed to improve heart disease even though it worked as intended to reduced three key risk factors”.
=================================
Again I found no articles that Vytorin failed to improve heart disease. Rather, the two year ENHANCE Study, released by the manufacturer as an abstract recently, revealed that Vytorin failed to provide evidence that ezetimibe/simvastatin was better than the statin simvastin in terms of achieving a lower change from baseline in carotid intima media thickness despite lowering LDL levels in a population of patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (a form of high cholesterol that affects less than 1% of patients).
Clinical events such as heart attack and stroke were not measured as primary or secondary endpoints of the study making it impossible to determine Vytorin’s effect on these events. Data from studies specifically designed to answer this question are expected within the next few years.
This report points out that Vytorin (i.e the combination of ezetimibe & simvastatin, working at two different sites in the body)lowered LDL levels.
The study was done not on “normal” folk with raised cholesterol levels, but with a population of patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia – whose high cholesterol levels are not acquired but are inherited.
What is clear is that the patients in the study weren’t exactly typical—all had extremely high LDL levels of above 300 because of a genetic condition. So whether the results of the study are relevant to individuals with more-typical LDL isn’t clear.
Since heart attack and stroke were not measured as primary or secondary endpoints of the study, how can one say that the drug failed to improve heart disease, or be stunned because plaque buildup was not also lowered?
Maybe it would be lowered in folk with non familial hypercholesterolemia. Perhaps the lowered cholesterol may be found in the body of the increased plaques. Perhaps it matters how you lower cholesterol, not just how much you lower cholesterol.
The study also indicated that Vytorin wasn’t any better than the same dose of the statin simvastin alone at keeping fatty plaque from building up in the arteries of the neck.
As fatty plaque builds up, it increases the thickness of the walls of the carotid arteries in the neck; progressive thickening is a good indicator of cardiovascular risk. In the Enhance study, on average, the thickness in both the simvastin alone group and the Vytorin group increased (very slightly) during the two-year study.
The point is this was not the definitive or primary reason for which either of these drug were made.
What is all the fuss about? Only that Vytorin is very much more expensive than using the statins alone, and is not special in any other way?.
Subscriber // April 5, 2008 at 8:47 AM
Let me invite all who want to know the truth about Vytorin to bring up Google and read the many convincing articles about the failing grades this drug has accumulated.
Cardiologists of prominence and the major medical cardiology cultures have accepted that Vytorin is a failure.
More importantly look at the article where the US Congress is accusing Schwring-Plough Corp and Merck Co of purposely witholding the results of an extensive study that showed Vytorin a failure. Read all of this yourself !
I for one would think that if the Congress of the USA is accusing the makers of Vytorin of wrongdoing or a cover up this in itself speaks volumes of the usefullness of the druf itself
Georgie Porgie // April 5, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Let me invite all who want to know the truth about Vytorin to bring up Google and read the many convincing articles about the failing grades this drug has accumulated.
Cardiologists of prominence and the major medical cardiology cultures have accepted that Vytorin is a failure.
More importantly look at the article where the US Congress is accusing Schwring-Plough Corp and Merck Co of purposely witholding the results of an extensive study that showed Vytorin a failure. Read all of this yourself !
I for one would think that if the Congress of the USA is accusing the makers of Vytorin of wrongdoing or a cover up this in itself speaks volumes of the usefullness of the druf itself
==============================
If any of my medical students were to write such bullshit, I would fail him statim!
I too have Googled and found the many articles about Vytorin, to which you refer and have read them myself.
Now I invite you to give links to these artricles that say “Cardiologists of prominence and the major medical cardiology cultures have accepted that Vytorin is a failure.”
The drug was shown in clinical trials in 2004 to reduce LDL levels. That is the primary purpose for which the drug was made. In basic pharmacology that means that the drug is efficacious.
It binds to the appropriate receptor sites, and exerts the effect for which it was designed. That it reduces levels of LDL, or bad cholesterol makes the drug usefull and efficacious.
Vytorin has been found to be most useful for patients who aren’t getting all the help they need from statins and for those who can’t tolerate statins’ side effects, including liver problems. I repeat the drug is thus useful and exhibits the pharmacological property of EFFICACY!
The Enhance study involved 720 patients with very high levels of cholesterol from an inherited form of heart disease. The study was designed to prove that Vytorin could slow the growth of plaque in carotid arteries supplying the brain more than simvastatin alone.
The ENHANCE study was conducted in 720 patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, a genetic disease that can boost untreated cholesterol levels above 300. That high level of cholesterol makes them more likely to have heart attacks, and it should make it easier to cut down on the buildup of artery plaque.
What were the findings?
The researchers found that even though Vytorin dramatically reduced bad-cholesterol levels, it did not slow the growth of artery blockages more than generic Zocor.
It showed that though the patients on Vytorin had a 58% drop in LDL, or bad cholesterol, after two years compared to 41% for Zocor, the change in artery plaque was no different–if anything, it was a little worse for Vytorin.
What does this mean ? It means that Vytorin does NOT slow the growth of artery blockages more than generic Zocor. It means essentially that using a combination drug that worked by two different mechanisms of action failed to show the added or synergistic effect that was expected or hoped for. It does not say that the drug was useless, or non efficacious.
The Enhance study only shows that the drug does not ALSO reduce the buildup of plaque
The ENHANCE study was never designed to provide outcomes, meaning the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke. It was an interesting scientific exercise to look at the impact of the drug on plaque, which is itself a surrogate end point for these events.”
How can it be that a drug that dramatically lowers bad cholesterol doesn’t reduce plaques? The answer isn’t clear. This means further research is needed.
The medical profession knows that statins lower the risk of heart disease by doing more than just lowering cholesterol — studies have shown that statins can also lower inflammatory factors that can aggravate plaques, causing them to burst and block heart arteries, as well as reduce amounts of triglycerides, a particularly dangerous form of fat for the heart. But the stains have been around for a while.
The medical profession knows that Vytorin blocks absorption of cholesterol, but does not know what else it block s. Does it block something else in the diet that could be beneficial? This means that further studies must be done. Not that the drug is useless or non efficacious.
Did you also read that “the American College of Cardiology released a statement suggesting that “major clinical decisions not be made on the basis of the ENHANCE study alone”, given the small and unique patient population, 720 patients in an Amsterdam hospital with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia.”
Do you understand what that statement says? Do you understand what is meant by a “small and unique patient population” “with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia.”
Did you also read or understand the report that pointed out that the patients in the study “presented a major challenge, partly because their cholesterol was so high. Also, most of them had already been treated with statins, making it harder to see any additional benefit. “
Did you also read that Merck and Schering Plough have reported that they have three larger trials currently underway to focus on outcomes, measuring the drug’s effect on heart attacks and strokes in patients.
Another study, called ASAP, conducted by some of the same experts who ran ENHANCE, compared the top dose of 80 milligrams of Pfizer’s Lipitor with the second-highest dose of Zocor. It studied a similar group of patients, people who have a genetic disorder that predisposes them to have high cholesterol. Bad cholesterol, or LDL, was cut 50% on Lipitor, compared to 41% on Zocor. But while artery thickness increased by 0.036 millimeters on Zocor, it actually decreased by 0.031 mm on Lipitor.
In other words, Lipitor succeeded where Vytorin failed. In the ASAP trial that compared Lipitor and Zocor, patients had arteries that were about 0.9 mm thick. By comparison, the patients in the ENHANCE study comparing Vytorin and Zocor had arteries that were only 0.7 mm thick.
It may very well be that these newer patients may have already had a lot of gunk yanked out of their arteries by years of statin treatment. More research is needed.
You obviously read that “A congressional committee said in December it will investigate allegations that the companies that make the drugs, Merck and Schering-Plough, delayed releasing data from the study, completed in April 2006. “ But the fact that the Congress of the USA is accusing the makers of Vytorin of wrongdoing or a cover up does not say anything about the usefulness of a drug. Since when does the members of the US Congress have qualifications in Cardiology or Pharmacology- or you for that matter?.
Your post on BU which attempts to show that my first posts were erroneous only indicates that whereas one can buy a computer and come on the net and write bullshit, it does not mean that they know what they are talking about.
Your post on BU which attempts to show that my first posts were erroneous only indicates that you are unable to read medical literature. This is not reading the Nation. Medical students are taught how to this.
By the way is a “cardiology culture” something that grows in a lab?:
And please note also that a study with a sample size of just over 700 is not extensive as you pontificate in your obvious ignorance.
You are clearly not a cardiologist, or Pharmacologist or a real scientist of any sort. You are clearly out of your league. You are not qualified to opine, because you do not know even the basic principles of the subjects involved here.
Sam Gamgee // April 5, 2008 at 8:49 AM
GP, why you want to mimic PDC with that long, long post. Whew!
I hope I am qualified to ‘opine’ that thought. LOL.
GP you are acting like a snob. Maybe you should be the only one allowed to post on medical issues. I did tell you already that you are the resident expert.
Jeez. Let’s see you rise to the top here now.
David // April 5, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Actually we feel fortunate to have a resident medical member on board to answer the concerns of commenters. We found the response quite enlightening. Sam Gamgee you are welcome to comment or introduce new information as well.
Georgie Porgie // April 5, 2008 at 9:48 AM
I have not read any articles that said that Vytorin is no good or that patients should stick to Lipitor.
What has been reported though, is that while Vytorin reduced levels of LDL, or bad cholesterol, in a group of 750 patients, it had little effect on the buildup of plaque in the arteries, a harbinger of heart attack and stroke.
Vytorin is a combination of Ezetimibe and Simvastatin.
Ezetimibe reduces blood cholesterol by inhibiting absorption of cholesterol by the small intestine by acting at the brush border of the small intestine and inhibits the absorption of cholesterol, leading to a decrease in the delivery of intestinal cholesterol to the liver.
Simvastatin is a statin. That is it works by inhibiting the activity of the enzyme HMG-CoA reductase that is necessary for the body to make cholesterol.
The rationale for the production of Vytorin was to make a drug that would be additive or synergistic by attacking cholesterol levels by attacking two mechanisms of action instead of one.
In fact Vytorin (the combination of Ezetimibe and Simvastatin) is the only product to treat both sources of cholesterol; absorption in the intestine of both biliary and dietary cholesterol, and production in the liver and peripheral tissues. It was thought that the treatment of high cholestrol from both sources was likely to result in lower cholesterol levels, particularly LDL cholesterol. In a clinical study, it was shown that the combination of Ezetimibe and Simvastatin was superior to the statin Lipitor in lowering LDL cholestrol.
So to pontificate that Vytorin failed in tests to show that it is any good, is as accurate as saying there are NO bridges in Bridgetown, because even the controversial Enhance study revealed the fact that Vytorin showed a huge LDL reduction. In other words the drug is indeed efficacious, i.e it has done the job for which it was designed.
In fact the reviewers also conceeded that Vytorin reduced three key risk factors of heart disease- which is the purpose of attempting to reduce cholesterol levels.
Georgie Porgie // April 5, 2008 at 10:17 AM
In all fairness , it is quite possible that Subsriber was influenced by this paragraph by one doctor who he calls crème de la crème.
“This drug doesn’t work. Period. It just doesn’t work,” said Steven Nissen, head of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic. U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat helping to lead a congressional investigation of the study, said, “It is easy to conclude that Merck and Schering-Plough intentionally sought to delay the release of this data.”
But this is a stupid statement to make by a “crème de la crème” doctor as it is most irresponsible, especially since it is well known that Vytorin reduces bad cholesterol, or LDL as it was designed to do.
What Subscriber failed to notice- and what is more poignant, is that the very same maguffy Steven Nissen has himself said that lowering bad cholesterol, or LDL, is the “cornerstone” of cholesterol therapy. “Any way you can lower LDL cholesterol,” Spiegel says, “lower is better.”
Since the ENHANCE study showed a reduction in LDL levels for patients on Vytorin Steven Nissen (the “cardiology culture”) has.contradicted himself. Not only has he spat in the air, but the spittle has descended in his face.
What Subscriber failed to notice also was that another “crème de la crème” doctor, Prediman K. Shah, director of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, pointed out is that “Doctors had thought that lowering bad cholesterol, or LDL, was always good. But in this study, LDL was cut 40% more for the people on Vytorin than those on the older drug Zocor, yet there was no benefit in terms of preventing the buildup of artery plaque.”. “It certainly throws a monkey wrench into this whole field,” he said.
The disappointment with Vytorin is not that it is not efficacious (useful for what it was primarily designed) but that it failed to meet the great expectation of achieving an additive (synergistic) effect when used with a statin.
In fact Subscribers “crème de la crème” doctor and “cardiology culture” Prediman K. Shah noted that Vytorin, which is a combo pill of Zetia and generic Zocor, have a place in the cardiology arsenal. He believes future studies measuring whether Vytorin prevents heart attacks, strokes, and deaths better than Zocor alone are likely to come out positive. So does Roger Blumenthal, head of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins. “I’m much more optimistic than Steven Nissen,” Blumenthal says.
Clearly then Subsrciber needs a lesson in reading the literature.
To those who feel I am a snob, note that lose bowling is supposed to be put away ruthlessly.
There is a need for this page in the BU blog to maintain a higher standard than the daily blurr that is spewed out everyday- often with no rhyme or reason or logic.
Subscriber // April 5, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I am not a medical doctor and my contribution was in the field of being a the “messenger” of what has been said on TV, reported in the newspapers, including Reuters, etc. about Vytorin and the results of the “test”!
I thought it useful to put this information in the “corner” for the sole purpose that anyone using Vytorin would be aware of the study and maybe want to discuss it with their doctors.
None of what I said was intended to put me in the position of being an expert in medicine or pharmaceutical products. I merely quoted what was put in the public forum and the many different opinions expressed by eminent cardiologists about the study.
Obviously my efforts were considered by GP to be “loose” bowling and he/she decided to hit me for “six”. So be it!
My position still is, as a layman, I want to know all about any medication I am given. And that when a study of the kind that was done on Vytorin shows the rersults it did. And which was followed by many different opinions as to its significance by very prominent Cardiologists as a patient, I would want to err on the side of caution and discuss the matter with my doctor.
Another point I think GP should consider is this. Though he is entitled to his opinion it is quite obvious that other eminent doctors do not all agree with him and only time and perhaps further tests on Vytorin will shed more light on the present controversial subject.
Another point I would like to make is this. Whether a commenter is considered as in this case GP claims to be talking loosely deserving his wrath look at the benefit it brought to all reading this post and is this not what the “corner” was started for.
When commenters whether it is in the “medical corner” or the mainstream blog is treated like garbage how many do you think will contribute? And whose loss is it?
Student // April 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM
I would be interested to hear Georgie Porgie’s views on how the study of modern genetics can advance helathcare i.e.the medical solutions and the ethical considerations. I am in favour of involving stem cell learning going forward.
PS. Georgie Porgie can you validate your contributions by publishing your title and quals?
Georgie Porgie // April 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Subscriber says
And that when a study of the kind that was done on Vytorin shows the results it did. And which was followed by many different opinions as to its significance by very prominent Cardiologists as a patient, I would want to err on the side of caution and discuss the matter with my doctor.
===============================
Can you understand anything that I am saying?
You are defending your narrow emotional understanding of press articles that have you fearful or suspicious or who knows what.
You are not listening to what is the clear understanding of the pharmacology of the drugs. Nor are you understanding what the study has indicated.
The study on Vytorin has revealed that further studies need be done to elucidate what is involved in cholesterol absorption and how anti-cholesterol medication decreases plaque.
The Enhance study was a poor study because it had a small sample, and it used patients with very high cloesterol levels because of the fact that the participants have hereditary hypercholesterolemia. The subjects chosen were not the run of the mill patient with raised cholesterol levels.
Off course you should discuss the matter with your doctor, but as I clearly pointed out, I read the same articles you read that caused your concern.
They all said that Vytorin is not useless as one very prominent Cardiologists carelessly opined. The drug was shown even in the Enhance study to lower LDL- as it was designed to do. Can I get you to see that?
The study showed that it did not decrease placque to the degree hoped for when given with a statin, which is known to do so.
It was hoped that the two cholesterol lowering drugs in Vytorin would achieve an effect of 1 + 1 = 2. But it didn’t. That is not unusual. Very often the results expected in research are not what is expected.
What must be done is to find out why. Such information might them put the profession or the pharmaceutical industry in a position to find a drug that will reduce plaque to the levels desired.
Subscriber says
.
“……it is quite obvious that other eminent doctors do not all agree with him and only time and perhaps further tests on Vytorin will shed more light on the present controversial subject.”
Clearly further research is needed. The articles you read said so, and so did I.
The articles you and I both read said that further investigations were going on.
This is often the result of a study. It may produce that further research be done to get questions. In this case Why did 1 +1 did not produce 2 or even 3 in the use of two drugs BOTH KNOWN TO LOWER HDL.
Time will also help us to elucidate the issues. That is why smart doctors dont rush to use all the new drugs on the market. Overtime a lot more is often revealed about a drug than is revealed at clinical trials.
Eminent doctors can say what they wish, but they all know and agree that the drug is efficacious for the indication for what it was primarily produced— that is it works at another site than the statins and it does reduce HDL cholesterol. So to say it is useless is RECKLESS!
There is no controversy. The controversy exists only in the minds of the press, and persons who can not understand what the literature is pointing out.
Subscriber if you want to be a messenger and put to information in the “corner” “for the sole purpose that anyone using Vytorin would be aware of the study and maybe want to discuss it with their doctors” that is good, but when you chose to indicate or suggest that I am incorrect, I will respond as I did.
Subscriber further opines.
Whether a commenter is considered as in this case GP claims to be talking loosely deserving his wrath look at the benefit it brought to all reading this post and is this not what the “corner” was started for.
When commenters whether it is in the “medical corner” or the mainstream blog is treated like garbage how many do you think will contribute? And whose loss is it?
Your well meaning post can only be beneficial to those who read the post if the readers learn from it. You assumed that I am not a crème de la crème cardiologist, and therefore that I am not capable of reading the literature. Consequently, when I gave an accurate and well meaning interpretation of the articles, you invited folk to google and read for themselves as though I was talking nonsense . It did not occur to you that what I was saying could be correct. That sort of BS is like a juicy long hop that must be dispatched with contempt to the boundary.
I never pontificate on stuff that I do not understand
Georgie Porgie // April 5, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Student
Genetics and stem cell learning is not my forte.
My title and qualifications will not necessarily validate my contribution to this post.
If you will read any basic note online or in a pharm text on Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics you will find out about the basic principle of efficacy.
Similarly if you google Vytorin and Zocor you will find the “controversial” articles and learn of the mechanism of action of these drugs and their effects and indications.
That will be much more useful.
Reading this info will show you that you don’t have to be a crème de la crème US cardiologist to understand what I have written in my posts.
Subscriber // April 5, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Physician heal yourself I have nothing further to say.
I would hate to be a patient of yours or a student.
Your philosophy on life and advice to others is every thing printed or spoken by anyone except you is nonsense and you are the worlds medical authority and expert. One wonders why you are in Barbados and not at John Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic, Cornel etc. Maybe you are the spokesperson for the agent in Barbados carrying Vytorin who knows that might explain your tunnel vision.
You are full of yourself and full of crap. Nothing more from me on the subject so knock yourself out with further drivel!
Georgie Porgie // April 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Subscriber
Physician heal yourself I have nothing further to say……… Nothing more from me on the subject so knock yourself out with further drivel!
================================
Good Idea! You have said nothing except introducing the subject. And you show a penchant and inability to learn except from folk from John Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic, Cornel etc.—- the crème de la crème and “cardiology cultures”, and what is printed..
FYI: I am not in Barbados nor am I the spokesperson for the agent in Barbados carrying Vytorin. I do not use Vytorin, nor have I ever written it. It is too expensive, and new!
I have no tunnel vision about Vytorin. All I have done is try to clearly explain what the articles you read said, the basic Pharmacology of Vytorin, and the pharmacology concept of EFFICACY!.
You would love to be a patient of mine or my student, because I am a great teacher. But I don’t accept BS!
Re Your philosophy on life and advice to others is every thing printed or spoken by anyone except you is nonsense and you are the worlds medical authority and expert.
No. I am not the worlds medical authority and expert, but I do teach and understand Pharmacology, and I do understand how to read the medical literature. If you understood one simple thing that is taught in the first Pharmacology classes- THE CONCEPT OF EFFICACY, you would know that I am not talking drivel, but rather I have given an erudite exposition of the subject. My argument revolves around the principle of efficacy.
One of your problems is that you dont think that a person from Barbados should be able to disagree with what you see reported in the press.
Every well taught doctor learns that NOT EVERYTHING printed in the medical litterature is necessarily true. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO WRITES IT
Again let me say it again like the patient teacher I am. Vytorin is indeed efficacious in lowering HDL cholesterol- its primary indication. Even the crème de la crème’s believe this. That’s why the drug was used in the Enhance trial in the first place!
The crème de la crème also use Vytorin in patients that do not respond to, or tolerate the statins. So it has been proven useful or efficacious again. Thats why the drug sells in the billions yearly since introduced in 2004.
The Enhance study sought to show that the two components in Vytorin would achieve a 1+1= 2 or 3 additive or synergistic effect in lowering HDL. It did not. Nor did the simultaneous use of the two components in Vytorin achieve a 1+1= 2 or 3 additive or synergistic effect in lowering plaque formation.
I have correctly and fairly interpreted and explained the basic Pharmacology of Vytorin in my posts and explained the purpose and short comings of the Enhance study in terms of the subjects used, and the fact that its results warrant further study.
The Enhance study reveals that further investigation must be done.
Now how does that make me full of my self or full of crap?
When you cant out argue a well educated chap, you attack him. You are so very funny Subscriber.
Weak weak bowling man pitch up de ball and stop bowling long hops man.
Rachelle Pringall // April 5, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Know what I think Subscriber, it seems that you are the Lipitor representative in Barbados, and that Vytorin licking up your sales. So you come in this forum under the pretense that you are providing information for Bajans who might be taking the drug.
I have also read the articles online, and in none of the several articles I found do I read that Vytorin failed in tests to show that it is any good and patients are being told to stick with statins like Lipitor. No where. Please produce the articles or links to this effect.
Subscriber you deserve the whipping you got from GP.
Surely Barbadians are taking Vytorin, and assuredly such folk are happy to get accurate information about the medication they are taking.
I am pleased to see that a fellow Barbadian could explain the issues about the drug, and that we don’t have to depend on the words of the “creme de la creme of the Medical cultures in the USA.”:.
GP certainly made the articles I read clearer to me.
Here is what I found about his favorite word efficacy!
The ability of a drug to produce a desired therapeutic effect is called efficacy. When we are speaking of efficacy we are discussing the ability to get the job done- the ability to provide the desired therapeutic effect. Efficacy is the degree to which a drug is able to induce maximal effects.
Efficacy is dependent on the number of drug-receptor complexes formed, and the efficiency of coupling of receptor activation to cellular responses.
The property of efficacy has legal as well as therapeutic importance. The 1962 Kefauver-Harris amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act require proof of efficacy of a drug before it can be marketed. Before that time only evidence of safety was needed
This means Mr Subscriber a ka Lipitor rep that under the Kefauver-Harris amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, proof of efficacy for Vytorin had to be provided for it to be marketed. Don’t you think? So this proves that the drug is a bone fide drug. It just does not reduce plaque build up as the statins do. QED
David // April 6, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Here are some questions which are being asked by members of the BU family which were not answerable from the Nation report.
(1) why did the hospital allow the iodine supply to reach such a low level in the first place which dictated the critical time frame for getting a re-supply that did not allow for “intransit” unforeseen circumstances and more importantly
(2) How can an airline “Refuse” to ship the iodine because of a “mix-up” Airlines have to be held accountable for why they would have “refused” to ship this critical life saving medicine and were the truth known there was no “mix-up, it is more likely that this is a “cover up by hospital administrators of their ongoing incompetence!
It is amazing that Bajans will speak-out about hair styles, who is sleeping with who, political trivia and other matters which in our view rank lower to matters of how we deal with our health. Yet we don’t hold our leaders accountable? Yes indeed, we do agree with the email we got this morning.
Georgie Porgie // April 6, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Cholesterol is made in our bodies from a substance called Acetyl CoA.
Acetyl CoA is itself a central compound of the body’s metabolism.
It is made when we break down the fatty acids obtained from digestion of the fat we eat in our food.
It is made too from certain amino acids in the protein we take in our food.
It is also made from the carbohydrates in our food.
Acetyl-CoA can also be derived from the alcohol we consume.
The first step in making cholesterol in the body involves two molecules of acetyl-CoA condensing to form acetoacetyl-CoA. That is 2 Acetyl CoA’s join up or hold hands if you please. This reaction requires a catalyst called an enzyme to make the reaction occur.
The next step in making cholesterol in the body involves the acetoacetyl-CoA made in the first step condensing or joining up with a next (i.e a third) acetyl-CoA. . This reaction also requires a catalyst called an enzyme to make the reaction occur.
So as a result of this threesome if you please, we have a substance we call HMG-CoA for short.
Next HMG-CoA is converted to a substance called mevalonate in a two step reaction. And yes you guessed correctly. This reaction also requires a catalyst called an enzyme to make the reaction occur. Except that this reaction (catalyzed by the enzyme HMG-CoA reductase) is considered to catalyze the rate-limiting step in the pathway of cholesterol synthesis and is the site of action of the most effective class of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (known as the statins)
The drugs like Zocor and Lipitor block the further synthesis of cholesterol by all the several steps that follow by blocking the making of mevalonate. If the body does not make mevalonate, it can not make cholesterol.
This is the mechanism of action of the drugs we call statins. Statins work by mimicking or pretending to be mevalonate, and thereby blocking the activity of the enzyme HMG-CoA reductase.
The drug Vytorin contains as one of its components a statin (Simvastin), and so it is able to lower cholesterol levels by limiting the synthesis of cholesterol in the body.
Does this mean that a person who takes statins, have no cholesterol in their blood stream?
Of course not!
Why is this, you may ask? The answer is because we take it in our diets with the fats we eat. Thats what the Vytorin ad says. We get cholesterol from the franks we eat , and from daddy Frank!
So the Pharmaceutical companies made a drug (Ezetimibe) that blocks the absorption of cholesterol from the gut into the blood.
So now we have statins that block the MAKING of cholesterol IN the body. And we have Ezetimibe which blocks the ABSORPTION of cholesterol INTO the body.
So the manufacturers of these two drugs decide to get together and make a product that would as we say hit two birds with one stone. That is one drug formulation would now block the MAKING of cholesterol IN the body as well as . block the ABSORPTION of cholesterol INTO the body. The manufacturers were aiming for the synergistic effect of 1+1= 2. Hence Vytorin which is Ezetimibe and Simvastin.
And as far as lowering the HDL cholesterol in the body and achieving an increase in the lowering of HDL cholesterol in the body, Vytorin was shown in clinical trials in 2004 to do as designed. Hence its approval and subsequent success on the market.
So what is the issue?
The enhance study showed that the combination drug Vytorin did not decrease the level of plaque build up in the arteries as was expected.
Though 1+1= 2. was achieved for lowering of HDL cholesterol in the body, 1+1= 2. was NOT achieved for decreasing the level of plaque build up in the arteries as was expected
Can we then say that Vytorin is useless, or that it does not work? I dont think so.
If my son passes the common entrance with high marks, gets all A’s in his A levels but then only gets a lower second pass at Cave Hill, shall we conclude that he is a dunce because he didn’t get first class honours?
I rest my case.
I hope this post further clarifies the non existent controversy created by the press and reckless opinion.
Straight talk // April 6, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Thanks for the elucidation, GP.
What is the major cause of plaque formation, and how can we prevent this potential killer?
Pat // April 6, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Georgie Porgie:
Please, one does not have to be a medical practitioner to read and understand scientific papers. I am not, nor am I a scientist, but I have acquired a good knowledge of S&T. My journals of preference were Science, Nature, Technovation, and those infernal AAAS journals with which I was inundated. They came one every week, so that I could only follow one or two threads of research if I wanted to accomplish any work. To cut down on the extensive reading I would have my students prepare precis of some of the articles I was interested in. If after reading them the content was not clear, then I would read the article myself. (No, I am not a professor, I hired university students on a co-op program to assist me with research for my projects.)
@loss // April 6, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Georgie Porgie’s explanation about the production of cholesterol and the pharmacology of relevant drugs was not only interesting but quite clear and to the point (and I failed chemistry in school!) Thanks GP.
What would be of futher interest and use are answers to the question: can plaque build up be reversed?
Georgie Porgie // April 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Oh you are so very correct dear Pat.
Could you or your students read the chapter on kidney diseases in Robbins text book of Pathology and interpret it for me, and send me a precis thereof.
Georgie Porgie // April 7, 2008 at 8:15 PM
What is the major causes of plaque formation, and how can we prevent this potential killer?
==============================
Recent evidence suggests that bacteria and viruses that cause such common ailments as pneumonia, gum disease, and ulcers could be at least contributing factors in the formation of the fatty arterial deposits, or plaques, that lead to heart attacks and many strokes, perhaps by triggering inflammation. So far, the evidence is largely circumstantial, but further research is now on to determine the exact mechanism by which these infections might be related to heart disease and whether antibiotics could serve as a preventive measure or treatment
Please see if the links below help.
These sites handles the above questions fairly simply, I think. More later
http://www.sensible-alternative.com.au/sensnews18.doc
http://niazi.com/Omega/plaque.htm
http://www.hdi-pulsewave.com/physicians/cvhealth.htm
If they dont let me know, and I will try to make it easier in the next two weeks………
OR
I am sure that Pat and her research assistants will help you out with a precis or two.
David // April 9, 2008 at 5:51 AM
We have always heard that if you want to thin the blood take an aspirin or drink brandy! So what about this Chinese made drug heparin? Is it on the shelves in Barbados?
Georgie Porgie // April 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM
We have always heard that if you want to thin the blood take an aspirin or drink brandy! So what about this Chinese made drug heparin? Is it on the shelves in Barbados?
=================================
The drug heparin is classified as an anticoagulant, i.e a drug that decreases the formation of fibrin clots and limits their expansion. Two major types of anticoagulants are available: heparin and related products, which must be given by injection, and the orally active coumarin derivatives (eg, warfarin also used as rat poison).
Because it acts on preformed blood components, heparin provides anticoagulation immediately after administration.
Heparin limits the expansion of thrombi by preventing fibrin formation and has the advantage of speedy onset of action, which is rapidly terminated on suspension of therapy.
Because of its rapid effect, heparin is used when anticoagulation is needed immediately (eg, when starting therapy).
Clinically, heparin is used prophylactically to prevent postoperative venous thrombosis in patients undergoing elective surgery (for example, hip replacement) and those in the acute phase of myocardial infarction.
Heparin is used in combination with thrombolytics for revascularization and in combination with glycoprotein Ilb/IIIa inhibitors during angioplasty and placement of coronary stents.
Heparin has been the major antithrombotic drug for prevention and the treatment of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The incidence of recurrent thromboembolic episodes is also decreased.
Coronary artery rethrombosis after thrombolytic treatment is reduced with heparin. Heparin is also used in extracorporeal devices (for example, dialysis machines) to prevent thrombosis.
Heparin is a very useful drug and has been used in Barbados (and all over the world ) for many years.
So what is the current controversy?
Heparin is not a Chinese drug per se. Like most things, these days it can be obtained from China more cheaply. The problem seems to be that the Chinese were careless with the batch that has caused the trouble in the USA.
Because heparin preparations are obtained from animal sources it may therefore, be antigenic, and cause hypersensitivity reactions. Possible adverse reactions include chills, fever, urticaria, or anaphylactic shock.
On the other hand, aspirin, inter alia, is classified as an antiplatelet drug. It is used for a different purpose than heparin.
Anticlotting drugs are used primarily for treatment of arterial disease that inhibit the clotting function of platelets by preventing platelet activation and adhesion. Platelet aggregation plays a central role in the clotting process and is especially important in clots that form in the arterial circulation(coronary and cerebral artery occlusion).
Platelets are believed to be especially important in coronary and cerebral artery occlusion. Consequently antiplatelet drugs are used primarily for treatment of arterial disease.
Aspirin in low doses is used to prevent MI and recurrence, and is prophylaxis in atrial arrhythmias and TIAs (mini strokes).
Aspirin is currently employed in the prophylactic treatment of transient cerebral ischemia (transient ischemic attacks TIAs), ischemic stroke (major strokes) , and other thrombotic events, to reduce the incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction, and to decrease mortality in pre and post-myocardial infarct patients.
Aspirin is used to prevent further myocardial infarcts ( heart attacks) in individuals who have had 1 or more myocardial infarcts and may also reduce the incidence of first infarcts.
Anton // April 9, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Nova Scotia & it’s collegues in Saudi Arabia & the USA may know more about this as They invested in 1`993-Pharmacuticals & Medical Diagnostics.
Quote from NS MP to unelected “Associate”- “sounding too incredible to be true, noone will believe it.” APPOINTED, Federal Health Minister/96, having (illegaly lobbied Fed. Gov. prior to being elected for Middle-East Bioscoence firm(s)).the plan was to use persons (Families), in the Lunenburg County area of NS, who NEEDED to get their Medications through NS-Community Services in unethical-probable illegal medical research, without their knowledge or consent.
Dingwall quote-”Doctors at hospital will appear to be natural causes. Sounding too incredible to be true, noone will believe it.” They, then went on to direct Nova Scotia to make their neccessary changed to Nova Scotia’s Legal Aid mandate-legislation, to ensure the victims would be left Totally Defenseless.
He said, justified what They were doing as “THEY ARE A DRAG ON THE SYSTEM ANYWAY.” David Dingwall fax to Bob Douglas in Mahone Bay, Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia, CANADA.
To get a descriptive picture of Nova Scotia, Canada, read * THE BAG MAN. A Life In Nova Scotia Politics *- author, Donald F. Ripley. Former NS FINANCE MINISTER during the MULRONEY-BUCHANAN regime.
ON THE TAKE. Greed, Crime and Corruption during the (Brian) MULRONEY years.
Author -Stevie Cameron. Reknown Investigative Reporter-Author.
Joeseph // April 10, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Private Islands Real Estate, MAHONE BAY as there are Global Private Islands realtors. Another out of NOVA SCOTIA and am office in Germany We’ve read, is Farhad Vladi.
Have you read EUGENICS in Nova Scotia. NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA with it’s DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL RESEARCH, The Nova Scotia government and it’s Nova Scotia hospital somehow manage to fly under the radar screen in regard to It’s EUGENICS Research.
Yes, the dejavue is easily recognizable to the 1993 research agenda. Nova Scotia and yes, it is corrupt from The Top, down. MULRONEY vile, sell the soul to the devil, the arab monies arranged the …sigh…’Leader of The Party with The Elections.
Mulroney and Nova Scotia/Germany Associates, close moneies associations to the saudi’s took on a new meaning in 2001 and now with Nova Scotia’s offshore oil projects and wells. Is it your opinion that makes them Traitors to their country? So far, it is mine.
Georgie Porgie // April 10, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Lotrel Cuts Heart, Stroke, Death Risk
Combination Blood-Pressure Tablet Beats Older Combo Drug in Trials
By Charlene Laino
WebMD Medical News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
March 31, 2008 (Chicago) — A tablet that contains two different types of blood-pressure-lowering medications cuts the risk of heart attack, stroke, or death by one-fifth, when compared with an older combination drug, researchers report.
The drug, Lotrel, proved so effective at preventing cardiovascular disease and deaths that the study was halted early so all patients could be offered it.
“It’s a clear win,” says study researcher Kenneth Jamerson, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School.
The study compared two combination pills, both of which contain the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor Lotensin. Lotrel combines Lotensin and the calcium channel Norvasc. The other pill contained Lotensin and a diuretic called hydrochlorothiazide.
1 in 3 Americans Have High Blood Pressure
People whose systolic numbers (that’s the top number in your blood pressure reading) are 140 or higher or whose diastolic numbers (the bottom number) are 90 or higher are considered to have high blood pressure. One in three people, or more than 73 million Americans, fit the bill.
Often treatment begins with diet and exercise. If the blood pressure goal is not achieved, diuretics are commonly prescribed as the initial therapy for patients, either alone or in combination with another class of blood pressure-lowering medication.
Jamerson says the findings “should modify future guidelines for the treatment of hypertension,” both in terms of starting with a one-drug strategy in some patients and starting with diuretics.
He notes that many patients find it more convenient to take a single-tablet combination of drugs rather than a handful, or even a couple, of different pills.
Combos Lowered Blood Pressure
The new study involved more than 11,000 people over 60 who had high blood pressure and other cardiovascular disease risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes.
Only 37% of participants had adequate blood pressure control at the start of the study.
By 36 months later, the average blood pressure in 80% of patients in both groups was less than 140 over 90, which is “excellent,” Jamerson says.
Importantly, patients taking Lotrel were 20% less likely to die from cardiovascular disease, have a heart attack or stroke, be hospitalized for the chest pain of angina, or need a procedure to open blocked heart arteries.
American Heart Association President Dan Jones, MD, dean of the University of Mississippi School of Medicine in Jackson, tells WebMD that he hopes the findings will propel more “people to think about starting with combination therapy” to lower blood pressure.
Treatment with a single drug often isn’t effective, he explains.
But Jones says more study is needed before he would conclude that a combination of an ACE inhibitor and a calcium channel blocker is the way to go.
“If you look at the totality of all the trials that have been done, the results are mixed. And right now the state of knowledge is that it is lowering blood pressure, not how you get there, that’s the more important thing,” Jones says.
“As a result, we should focus on whatever combination gets you to your target blood pressure without causing adverse events,” Jones says. That could mean a combination of any of the five classes of drugs known to lower blood pressure; diuretics, ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, and angiotensin receptor blockers.
==============================
Note that this study used 11,000 patients a much more significant sample than the 720 we discussed for the Enhance study lat weekend.
Note too that these patients were all more suitable for this study- they more the normal run of the mill hypertensive patient.
Note also though the researchers claim success that they are still planning to do further studies to confirm their findings.
David // April 19, 2008 at 1:19 PM
MRI technology is a key requirement in the medical fraternity to quickly diagnose problems of the human anatomy. It appears to be a technology which fits into modern day lifestyle of convenience. BU was pleased to learn of improvements in the MRI technology and wondered when it would arrive in Barbados to help our doctors here to be equally as effective as those on the outside.
Straight talk // April 19, 2008 at 8:21 PM
David,
I believe it has arrived in Belleville, just not made it down the road to QEH.
QEH // April 20, 2008 at 6:08 PM
ST how will the masses benefit if it remains private?
Georgie Porgie // April 20, 2008 at 6:39 PM
You pay for it in Belleville. Thats free enterprise at work!
Why cant the doctors who are Ministers Of Health not get the same for the masses?
BLP Blog // May 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM
The bickering about the QEH continues.
A butcher, a baker…….
THE GOVERNMENT finally brought down its first bill to the house on Tuesday. Four months in gestation, it was obviously a casualty of induced labour. The Minister of Health has stamped (or is it stomped) his authority on the composition of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH) board through the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Amendment Act.
Our hospital is now to be managed by an accountant, an engineer, a finance manager, a human resources manager, an industrial relations practitioner, and a trained IT person, a lawyer, a doctor, a nurse, a paramedic and someone trained in management operations (whatever that means). The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Health and the Chief Medical Officer are to be ex-officio members of the new board.
The minister will now appoint all 13 members of the board and none of them can be members of staff of the QEH. The very people who are responsible for the successful operation of the hospital are no longer good enough to have a say on the board. They will no longer be allowed to make any input on policy at board level. They will no longer be allowed to participate in the decision-making process. Their experience and institutional memories will no longer be used to guide the board. Not for them any contribution to the Government’s “Rescue Plan”.
This backward policy decision by the goodly doctor is both reprehensible and insulting to the professionals at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. But it is all the more so, given the Democratic Labour Party’s (DLP) promise in its manifesto to allow “for real participatory democracy in Barbados where public policy is not imposed from the top . . .”. If the minister did not read that section, we want him to read this one from a few paragraphs earlier: ” . . . Too many Barbadians perceive voting as a waste of time since many parliamentarians have made promises during the election campaigns, which they have not delivered.” In fact, it should be required reading for the entire DLP Cabinet.
What is even more amazing is that although QEH is a teaching hospital and part of the Cave Hill Campus Faculty of Medicine, the representatives of the university have been unceremoniously tossed off the board. The baby has been thrown out with the bath water.
Even if the minister did not want to keep the representatives from the Barbados Association of Medical Practitioners, or the Barbados Registered Nurses’ Association, or the Chief of Medical Staff, or the Director of Nursing, we can find no logic in his dispensing with the dean of the School of Clinical Medicine and Research.
Even if he saw no value in having representation from the Barbados Association of Retired Persons, or the Christian Council, the Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados, the Private Sector Agency or the nominee of the principal of the Cave Hill Campus of the University of the West Indies, how does he justify a policy that will now cause the focus to be on personalities instead of the wider groups, which they previously represented?
Is his idea of participatory democracy a shopping list of various skill sets? In this regard, we cannot help but recall a verse from our childhood:
Rub-a-dub-dub three men in a tub, And how do you think they got there?
A butcher, a baker a candlestick maker � They all jumped out of a rotten potato!
‘Twas enough to make a fish stare.
The minister’s odd thought process aside, we wish the men and women that he appoints to the board God’s blessing in their endeavours.
Ding Dong Bell // May 11, 2008 at 11:12 PM
The BLP just do not understand.
The doctor who is the minister of Health does not know what he is doing. He does not have a clue!
Gabriel the Horn Blower // May 12, 2008 at 10:00 AM
The present Minister of Health achieved a major coup when he “discovered” a room that can be utilised by the Accident and Emergency division. I now sleep better at night.
Georgie Porgie // May 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Could you illucidate and illuminate dear Sir?
I have promised not to say too much about the inability of the current government to deal with issues of health in Barbados, on the advice of Sam Gangree a few months ago, whem I attempted to reveal by proposals for the siting of our polyclinics/emergency centers.
Even the prominent BU bloggers dont seem interested in such issues. Folk in Barbados tend only to comment on health issues when it affects them personally or thier families.
Dr POWA POWA // May 13, 2008 at 7:59 PM
The BLP’s reference to Rub-a-dub-dub three men in a tub is clearly a reasonable and accurate assessment of the DLP’s approach to health care in Barbados. Unfortunately, many will fail to respond to the BLP’s opinion because their recent failures seems to indicate that they are a pot calling the kettle black! However, the article is well written and reveals a lack of common sense by the minister. The minister’s idea of participatory democracy as a shopping list of various skill sets is definitely puerile. Truly it is enough to make a fish stare.
However, at the same time THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH! Prior to the elections, the current Minister of Health was braying that he wanted POWA POWA. In the process, it seems that he destroyed the very few brain cells that he had with the noise he made.
That the QEH is now to be managed by an accountant, an engineer, a finance manager, a human resources manager, an industrial relations practitioner, and a trained IT person, a lawyer, a doctor, a nurse, a paramedic and someone trained in management operations, with the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Health and the Chief Medical Officer as ex-officio members indicates the lack of common sense in the leadership of the Ministry of Health.
The Chief Medical Officer is a relative junior with little creative ability. The Permanent Secretary knows nothing about Health or Health Systems. Of the others in the list, one hopes that the doctor and the nurse selected might have an inkling, but do they know about running a hospital? Perhaps the most this motley bunch could do, is offer their advice on the workings of the departments of the hospital that they supervise. In which case then the members of the selected bunch can not then be just any doctor or nurse or engineer or finance manager. They would have to be leaders in their respective departments.
Unlike the BLP, I can see no value in having representation from the Barbados Association of Retired Persons, or the Christian Council, the Congress of Trade Unions and Staff Associations of Barbados, the Private Sector Agency or the nominee of the principal of the Cave Hill Campus of the University of the West Indies, unless these representatives have some great grasp of health issues.
However, we must agree with the BLP that since the QEH is a teaching hospital of the UWI, the representatives of the of the Cave Hill Campus Faculty of Medicine university must be included, along with representatives from the Barbados Association of Medical Practitioners, the Barbados Registered Nurses’ Association, the Chief of Medical Staff, the Director of Nursing, and the dean of the School of Clinical Medicine and Research.
It is asinine and dictatorial for the minister to appoint all 13 members of the board ; none of whom can be members of staff of the QEH. How can those responsible for the successful operation of the hospital no longer have an input on policy at board level, or participate in the decision-making process. That the minister can not see that their experience is of value is not only both reprehensible and insulting to the professionals at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, but reveals that the Minister has less sense than little boys in the village, when starting a liitle cricket “match” and saying “I run you captain- first pick!”
God help Barbados! Our Healthcare is completely in the hands of an ass of lowly brayyyyyyyyyyyyyyn! Yes! He brays but has little brain!
David // June 5, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Some interesting news coming out of cancer research:
David // June 7, 2008 at 6:18 AM
Diabetes is a scourge in Barbados. It seems the young and the old are equally afflicted. It leads to amputations galore!
David // June 25, 2008 at 5:56 AM
Barbados Consumers Watch goes to work.
David // July 9, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Read what Bajan Reporter has to say on this interesting development.
Cell phones harmful? // July 24, 2008 at 8:24 AM
Thought this may be of interest to readers of BU :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7523109.stm
David // August 6, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Any truth to the report that as at 5PM today no private or public ambulances were available to answer distress calls?
ganong // August 6, 2008 at 6:02 PM
What is the point of building a new hospital, when you cant get acutely ill persons there?
If the GOB cant be faithful in small things how can they convince the people that they will be faithful in big things.
ganong // August 7, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Mottley: Clear the air on QEH
Published on: 8/7/08.
OPPOSITION LEADER MIA MOTTLEY is questioning whether Government is building a new hospital or refurbishing and expanding the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
She said yesterday that she raised the matter in the face of two “obviously conflicting statements” in the space of just three days from the Democratic Labour Party on how it planned to go about tackling problems at the Martindales Road institution.
Additionally, Mottley has questioned who in the David Thompson Administration is leading the programme to improve the delivery of health care, and who is in charge of the Cabinet of Barbados.
“On Page 49 of his 2008 Budget, delivered almost a month ago on July 8,” Mottley said, “Prime Minister Thompson said ‘In the meantime the Cabinet has agreed to the expansion of the QEH on its present site, estimated to cost over $400 million and we have begun to identify funding for this upgrade and expansion’.
“This was followed in today’s (Wednesday August 6, 2008) Barbados Advocate editorial with the following statement citing Prime Minister David Thompson in last Sunday’s radio broadcast:
“The Ministry of Health was designing programmes to meet the hospital’s needs, a major component of which is expansion to the north of the present structure’.
“On the same day, however, we have a statement in the MIDWEEK NATION, quoting Minister of Health Dr David Estwick, apparently speaking two days after the Prime Minister and dismissing what his leader had said, with these words: ‘The plan is for a new purpose-built facility that would give us state-of-the art health care for the next 30 or 40 years, with few or no problems’.”
The Opposition Leader added: “But the Health Minister did not stop there. Here’s what the MIDWEEK NATION also reported, ‘But Cabinet is to decide “very, very, very soon” on where the new hospital was to be built.
Unsuitable
She stated that the former QEH board recommended building the new hospital on the north grounds of the QEH, but Estwick said structural engineers and climate experts told him that area was unsuitable.
“Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health cannot be correct,” Mottley said. “Either they are expanding the hospital to the north of the existing plant, or they are looking elsewhere to build a new hospital.”
Mottley added: “. . . But the Minister of Health did not stop there. He told the country why no hospital would be built where the Prime Minister said it would be built – because structural engineers and climate experts told him the area was unsuitable.”
Dr POWA POWA // August 7, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Now it is well known that Bajans evicted the BLP from power over seven months ago.
What seems not to be as well known since then is that, The Minister of Health has demonstrated very little, if any ability in running the Ministry of Health, or in providing viable or valuable health solutions for our people.
Whereas many people in our country believe that because of its recent misdeeds, that the BLP is not qualified to speak on behalf of Bajans, or criticize the GOB, the fact of the matter is that the BLP is the opposition. Consequently when they oppose or object, we ought to at least sift out what they are saying and not just discard their utterances as mere bovine excrement.
For example, in a newspaper article in today’s Nation which reads Mottley: Clear the air on QEH, the opposition leader is questioning whether Government is building a new hospital or refurbishing and expanding the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. And he has every right to do so! Because the GOB is EITHER building a new hospital OR refurbishing and expanding the Queen Elizabeth Hospital according to utterances of two GOB officials who both ought to know what is going on.
Whether you like Mottley or the BLP or not, this is an issue about which the people of Barbados ought, and deserve to have a clear answer!
Mottley has correctly asked, whether you like Mottley or the BLP or not, who in the David Thompson Administration is leading the programme to improve the delivery of health care, because after seven months NO ONE in the GOB has clearly articulated any plan or vision or proposals on this matter.
Mottley has correctly reasoned and pointed out, whether you like Mottley or the BLP or not, that the DLP is either expanding the hospital to the north of the existing plant, or they are looking elsewhere to build a new hospital.”
Whether you like Mottley or the BLP or not, this is an issue about which the people of Barbados ought, and deserve to have a clear answer!
Whether you like Mottley or the BLP or not, Mottley has correctly asked who is in charge of the Cabinet of Barbados, because it is incomprehensible that there should be two “obviously conflicting statements” in the space of just three days from the Democratic Labour Party on how it planned to go about tackling problems at the QEH.
The Nation was informed by Prime Minister Thompson in the 2008 Budget on July 8, that “Cabinet has agreed to the expansion of the QEH on its present site, estimated to cost over $400 million and we have begun to identify funding for this upgrade and expansion.”
On Sunday last Prime Minister Thompson in a radio broadcast asserted that “The Ministry of Health was designing programmes to meet the hospital’s needs, a major component of which is expansion to the north of the present structure’.
How is it then that the Minister of Health Dr David Estwick can be quoted in the MIDWEEK NATION by stating that ‘The plan is for a new purpose-built facility that would give us state-of-the art health care for the next 30 or 40 years, with few or no problems’.” …….and that ‘Cabinet is to decide “very, very, very soon” on where the new hospital was to be built……….since structural engineers and climate experts told him the area on the north grounds of the QEH, where former QEH board recommended building the new hospital was unsuitable.
Whether you like Mottley or the BLP or not, there seems to be more in the mortar than the pessle.
Did the people of Barbados not elect David Thompson to be the Prime Minister of Barbados? How is it then that the loud mouthed Minister of Health who is incompetent to do his job is making the PM look stupid in the public forum.
It seems that it is time he be replaced!
Dr POWA POWA // September 17, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Extracted from today’s NATION.
There are also plans to strengthen the Engineering Department, he reported.
The QEH is still to name a Director of Medical Services, following Dr Brian Charles’ resignation, which came one month after the institution controversially extended his probation period.
Recently, Minister of Health Dr David Estwick said the hospital would recruit a number of experts as it sought to deliver a better, more timely service.
The plan was to pick ten medical specialists in areas including eye care, general medicine, kidney disease treatment and transplant, heart care, cancer treatment and radiology, he reported.
“We recognise the shortage of clinicians in the hospital and what we have just asked the Ministry of the Civil Service to do is to provide us with nine new consultant posts and one registrar post in ophthalmology,” Estwick said.
===========================
Are we to understand that the QEH has no medical experts, and that is why it does not give a better and more timely service?
Why are there no medical experts at QEH?
Why is their a shortage of clinicians in the hospital?
When the nine new consultant posts are provided, where will the consultants come from?
Estwick is not telling us a lot here?
David // September 19, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Here is a study which makes a link between low white blood count and Caribbean women of African decent. Hopefully our resident medical consultant :-) can elaborate for the BU family:
Georgie Porgie // September 19, 2008 at 11:03 PM
David
Since this seems to be virgin territory, at this time I can only conclude like the author ……………
Unfortunately, we still know very little about the association of a low WBC (neutropenia) with genotype in the setting of cancer or any other disease, including sickle cell anemia.” “Further research may help to account for and prevent poor outcomes among persons of African ancestry and lead to interventions that may benefit them as well as all patients.”
This is normal for blacks it seems. So don’t panic!
This is my primary reading of the article.
The researchers have found a strong association between women of African descent from the U.S. and Caribbean, who are otherwise healthy, and the prevalence of neutropenia, or low white blood count.
Neutropenia, is associated with race and ethnicity, and is benign and so far unexplained except that it results from a mutation of a single nucleotide. This is perhaps advantageous to blacks in some way. ????Probably in control of sickle cell anaemia or /associated with glucose 6 phosphate deficiency disease.
A certain genotype, common among women of African descent, is closely associated with low absolute neutrophil counts or low polymorphonuclear cells, the white blood cells that fight infection
The fact that women from the Dominican Republic were found to have higher median WBC and ANC than the other blacks may be due to their having a different gene that codes for WBC.
Note that whereas the researcher ponders whether a lower WBC in black women contributes to their increased likelihood of missing cycles of chemotherapy and a poorer survival than white women with cancer, they did not prove that this was so.
David // January 16, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Healthy New Year
Submitted by by Courtney After visiting this blog on several occasions, I’ve been very impressed. The contributions of the participants seem to make it the up and coming blog to visit. Many of the blogs are of substance with serious issues and concerns and not primarily focusing on gossip. Due to the quality shown, I’ve decided to contribute, especially since I’ve been extremely close to someone with kidney disease. After reading research published on the subject, it is obvious that many people are not taking care of themselves nutritionally. A number of people might be at-risk of ailments but do not know it. In addition, from reading our obits the younger generation is passing on too quickly. It appears that many of the medical staff is more about collecting $$ than the well being of the patient. I hope that I can stimulate discussion about the many concerns this group of people and many others face daily that are not currently addressed by our medical professionals, with the hope that our discussion will produce positive action.
The New Year is a good time to make sure our health is in order. Although our doctors, as noted in an early article on the blog titled “doctors can do more to help people,” we need to help ourselves. Start with the checklist below, which can be taken to the doctor to review overall well-being. I read a Healthy New Year’s checked list that list suggestions made by a medical doctor who has been practicing in the areas of critical care, and kidney disease over the past 18 years. Six important items that we should pay extra attention to when talking with our doctor: Good health checklist: Blood and urine lab work Medicine and supplement review Exercise review Nutrition review Dialysis modality review if you’re on dialysis Emotional health review Check in with your feelings Stay active by working or volunteering Keep moving and doing things that interest you Diabetes check: Diabetes is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease (http://www.davita.com/diabetes/the-basics/a/365) If you have diabetes, and if you are on insulin, visits should occur at least four times. See an endocrinologist (a doctor who is more specialized in treating diabetes) if you aren’t working with your primary care or kidney doctor to manage your diabetes. Along with checking your glucose (blood sugar) level, blood pressure and weight, your doctor should take blood to check cholesterol, blood fat and glycated haemoglobin (haemoglobin A1c). The haemoglobin A1c test will give a measure of your blood glucose level over the past two to three months. A urine sample should also be taken to look for protein. Protein in the urine occurs when the kidneys are damaged. For people with diabetes, it is a sign that kidney function has declined, which could lead to kidney failure. Medicine check: Review what medications you are taking, how you are feeling and how your body is responding to the medicines based on your lab results. Help your doctor determine if you’re taking the right medicines, or if there are medicines you no longer need to take. Activity level check: Talk to your doctor about what kind of physical activity will be good for you. If you are on dialysis, you should stay active. Exercise can provide a health benefit. Most people on dialysis can do some form of physical activity. A study published in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation showed that people who exercise while on dialysis might have treatments that are more effective because exercise can reduce urea (a toxin that accumulates between dialysis sessions) by 20%. Physical activity can help you feel better, stronger and more in control of your health no matter when you do it. Depression check: Doctors have pointed out that, “everybody is so busy dealing with the physical issues that they forget about the emotional strain,” that it’s a good idea to take the time to check in with your feelings and emotions. Depression is an illness that should be treated by a professional in the same way you would treat diabetes or high blood pressure. The feelings of sadness and hopelessness associated with depression can take away from one’s quality of life. Your mental well-being is just as important as your physical health. Make this year the best it can be by taking caring of your physical and emotional needs. I hope you would use this checklist, engage your doctor in conversation about your health, follow the doctor’s advice to help you have a Healthy and Happy New Year. Questions that a patient should ask his or her doctor about but not aware of is: Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR) – It is considered by medical professionals to be the best measure of kidney function. Knowing someone’s GFR lets the person figure out his or her stage of kidney disease. Doctors use this information to plan the patient’s treatment. Unfortunately, the other important item listed below is currently not offered in Barbados. This is another discussion in itself. Transplant check: If you’ve had a transplant, you should make sure that your doctor pays special attention to the status of your new kidney. When going in for follow-up checkups, carry the list of medicines you are taking. You should also tell your doctor how your home monitoring has been going. This monitoring should include regular, self-administered checks on weight, temperature and blood pressure. If you notice a dramatic weight gain, you could be retaining fluids. Temperature change can indicate infection. If there is a noticeable change in blood pressure, you should visit your doctor as soon as you can. Note of caution: With childhood obesity and diabetes complications increasing, the number of people in need of dialysis could rise steadily over the next few years.
Georgie Porgie // April 14, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Heart Failure: Belly Fat Bad, Exercise Good
New Heart Failure Studies Show Increased Risk With Belly Fat
By Miranda Hitti
WebMD Health NewsReviewed by Elizabeth Klodas, MD, FACCApril 7, 2009 — Belly fat may make heart failure more likely, and exercise may help heart failure patients.
That’s the bottom line from three new studies on heart failure. Heart failure does not mean that the heart has stopped working; it means the heart is unable to pump enough blood to meet the body’s needs.
The belly fat study is based on data from Sweden, where researchers followed more than 80,000 men and women for up to seven years to see who developed heart failure.
Participants reported their height, weight, and waist circumference at the study’s start.
People with extra weight, especially around the waist, were more likely to develop heart failure during the study.
Bigger waistlines were linked to greater risk of heart failure for women, regardless of whether their BMI ( body mass index) was normal, overweight, or obese. BMI and waist circumference both predicted heart failure risk in men.
The belly fat findings appear in the advance online edition of Circulation: Heart Failure.
Meanwhile, other researchers report in the Journal of the American Medical Association that exercise can be safe and effective for heart failure patients.
Their evidence comes from the largest study to date of exercise for heart failure patients.
Exercise and Heart Failure Study
More than 2,300 heart failure patients in the U.S., Canada, and France took part. They were screened to make sure they were healthy enough to exercise, and said they were willing to work out.
The researchers divided the patients into two groups.
All of the patients got standard medical care for their heart failure. In addition, one group of patients was assigned to get regular aerobic exercise.
Their workouts involved walking or using a treadmill or stationary bike three times per week, starting with 15- 30 minutes per session and boosting their workouts’ length and intensity as the months passed.
Their first 36 workouts were supervised. After that, they were supposed to exercise at home using the heart monitors and stationary bikes or treadmills that the researchers supplied.
For comparison, patients in the other group weren’t assigned to exercise.
Those patients could work out if they wanted to, but they didn’t get any exercise training as part of the study. Many of those patients — 55% — weren’t thrilled to be in the no-exercise group, and 8% reported exercising regularly throughout the study.
Overall, exercise was “well-tolerated and safe,” write the researchers, who included Christopher O’Connor, MD, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, N.C.
Exercise also had a “modest” effect on lowering the likelihood of death or hospitalization.
After screening out certain high-risk patients, exercisers were 11% less likely to die of any cause or be hospitalized for any cause during the study and 13% less likely to die of cardiovascular causes or be hospitalized because of heart failure, heart transplantation, or needing a heart pump implanted.
Quality of life was higher and disability was lower for the exercisers, according to surveys they completed.
Georgie Porgie // April 18, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Xylitol
Xylitol is an all natural sweetener that looks and taste like sugar. Xylitol occurs naturally in many fruits and vegetables. Once extracted and processed it yields a white crystalline granule that can be used in any recipe that calls for sugar. It is good for the teeth, stabilizes insulin and hormone levels, promotes good health and has none of the negative side effects of white sugar or artificial sweeteners. It contains only 2.4 calories per gram and is slowly absorbed as a complex carbohydrate.
Xylitol is a natural insulin stabilizer, therefore it does not cause a spike in blood sugar and actually reduce sugar and carbohydrate cravings. There is a growing consensus among anti –aging research that maintaining low insulin levels is one of the keys to a successful anti aging program.
Xylitol has no known toxic levels, though excessive use might cause a mild laxative effect which resolves as the body’s enzymatic activity adjusts. A large percentage passes through the body before the carbohydrates are absorbed, thereby making it safe for diabetics or anyone pursuing a healthy lifestyle.
Xylitol was approved by the FDA in 1963 as a food additive and diabetics have been using it for years. Xylitol has a glycemic index of seven compared to that of 68 for sugar.
Since xylitol can be extracted from bagasse, on wonders if we can not increase the yield of natural sugars from our sugar cane production. The process of extracting xylitol from its source eliminates the possibility of allergic reactions from plant materials.
When you see the GOB talking about xylitol in Barbados soon, remember that you read about it first on BU!
Straight talk // April 27, 2009 at 6:41 PM
Georgie Boy:
You gone quiet?
Just at the time we need some answers from an expert.
What’s the story behind this avian, swine, Spanish flu combination virus.
Is it a load of crap that it was cultured from human kidneys to ensure specificity, or that the Pasteur labs in France used squaline to produce their own “effective”vaccine.
Let us all be informed before making the decision on mass vaccination.
David // April 27, 2009 at 7:43 PM
@ST
You need to cite your source.
Georgie Porgie // April 27, 2009 at 9:44 PM
Straight Talk
Perhaps this link will help you a bit.
http://mail.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0
Straight talk // May 1, 2009 at 4:18 PM
GP:
Sorry I missed your reply, and your link takes me to a sign-in page.
Is there another route?
David:
This guy may/may not be screwy. But he’s come up with an interesting timeline and from the mass of info given those I have checked up to now are verified.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/609.html
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 4:43 PM
ST
Sorry about that. I probably sent you to one of the professional sites to which I subscribe, as I was busy.
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Hydroxycut Recall Due to Liver Injuries
FDA Says People Should Stop Using the Diet Products Immediately
By Kathleen Doheny
WebMD Health NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MDMay 1, 2009 — Fourteen Hydroxycut products, marketed as fat burners, low-cost diet aids, and energy enhancers, are being recalled voluntarily by the manufacturer after the FDA received 23 reports of serious liver injuries ranging from jaundice to death.
The FDA announced the recall today at a news conference.
The recalled products include:
Hydroxycut Regular Rapid Release Caplets
Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Rapid Release Caplets
Hydroxycut Hardcore Liquid Caplets
Hydroxycut Max Liquid Caplets
Hydroxycut Regular Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Hardcore Drink Packets (Ignition Stix)
Hydroxycut Max Drink Packets
Hydroxycut Liquid Shots
Hydroxycut Hardcore RTDs (Ready-to-Drink)
Hydroxycut Max Aqua Shed
Hydroxycut 24
Hydroxycut Carb Control
Hydroxycut Natural
Hydroxycut and Liver Problems
At the news conference, Linda Katz, MD, interim chief medical officer of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said the agency urges consumers to discontinue use of the Hydroxycut products. Not affected by the recall are Hydroxycut Cleanse and Hoodia products.
The 23 reports of adverse effects include liver damage, elevated liver enzymes (which indicates potential liver damage) and liver damage requiring a transplant. A 19-year-old man died after using Hydroxycut. “The death occurred in 2007,” Katz says, “and was reported to the agency at the end of March 2009.”
“Hydroxycut products contain a variety of ingredients and herbal extracts,” Katz said. The FDA has not yet determined which ingredients or doses are associated with the liver problems, according to Katz.
Other reported health problems include cardiovascular problems, seizures, and serious muscle damage (rhabdomyolysis) that can cause kidney failure.
Hydroxycut Recall: Industry Response
A message on the toll-free number of Iovate Health Sciences USA Inc. lists the recalled products. Jamie Moss, a spokesperson for the company, says the company is issuing a statement.
The statement also says that the company conducts internal analyses of individual ingredients and medical, scientific and toxicological literature reviews on the safety of product ingredients.
On its web site, the company has posted a statement along with answers to common questions. In part, it says: “While this is a small number of reports relative to the many millions of people who have used Hydroxycut products over the years, out of an abundance of caution and because consumer safety is our top priority, we are voluntarily recalling these Hydroxycut-branded products.”
The reports of liver problems and other ill effects associated with the product use don’t prove cause and effect, says John Hathcock, PhD, vice president of scientific and international affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a Washington, D.C.-based trade association for the dietary supplement industry.
“Right now it’s a simple association,” he tells WebMD. Only further investigation will determine if the association is a random occurrence or not, he says.
Tod Cooperman, MD, president of ConsumerLab.com, an independent organization that evaluates dietary supplements, has been testing Hydroxycut products. He hasn’t issued a report on them yet.
Cooperman agrees it’s difficult to pinpoint which ingredients are to blame. “The products contain many ingredients,” he says.
The FDA advises consumers who have any of the products involved in the recall to discontinue use immediately and return them to the place of purchase. Though not all the recalled products have been linked with serious liver-related adverse reactions, the company agreed to recall the 14 products, according to the FDA.
Straight talk // May 1, 2009 at 7:51 PM
GP:
I never mentioned Hydroxycut!
Tell us what you know about the possibly tainted vaccines which we may be shortly asked to welcome.
Basically, would you take Tamiflu?
If not, why not?
Is this the vaccine of choice for Barbados, and is it specific for this Mexican variant flu?
I suspect not, but need reassurance from an independent source.
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 8:41 PM
ST :
I never mentioned Hydroxycut!
I KNOW YOU DID NOT BUT THAT IS MORE RELEVANT TO ME. LOL
You are correct Tamiflu is NOT specific for this Mexican variant flu, but it is the drug of choice in the treatment and prophylaxis of both influenza A and influenza B..
The antiviral drug Tamiflu (Oseltamivir phosphate) is a pro-drug of the active metabolite, oseltamivir carboxylate used in the treatment and prophylaxis of both influenza A and influenza B. It is hydrolysed hepatically to the active metabolite, the free carboxylate of oseltamivir and acts as a transition-state analogue inhibitor of influenza neuraminidase.
It is a selective inhibitor of influenza virus neuraminidase enzymes, which are glycoproteins found on the virion surface. Viral neuraminidase is
essential for the release of recently formed virus particles from infected cells and the further spread of infectious virus in the body. A study in cultured tracheobronchial epithelial cells and primary nasal epithelial cells has shown that oseltamivir may also
suppress virus entry to cells.
Patients should be instructed to begin treatment with TAMIFLU as soon as possible from the first appearance of flu symptoms. Similarly, prevention should begin as soon as possible after exposure, at the recommendation of a physician.
Basically, would you take Tamiflu?
If necessary, yes. It seems to be a fairly safe drug.
The MOH & the GOB is on the ball in its efforts to avert any serious outcome from a possible epidemic on the island.
There is no need to panic, as it seems the strain of the virus that is causing the trouble is not as virulent as previously thought.
Straight talk // May 1, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Thank the lord ( and all his servants) for that.
Sargeant // May 1, 2009 at 10:29 PM
@GP
• Basically, would you take Tamiflu?
If necessary, yes. It seems to be a fairly safe drug
*************************************
Tamiflu is also the drug of choice in the treatment of the Avian Flu ( Bird flu). Is the efficacy the same for Bird Flu and “Swine Flu” (H1N1)?
Georgie Porgie // May 1, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Sargeant
Tamiflu is a selective inhibitor of influenza virus neuraminidase enzymes, which are essential for the release of recently formed virus particles from infected cells and the further spread of infectious virus in the body.
In other words it like more than anything else to block the release of just divided or reproducing viral particles from a host cell or infected cell into other cells; whether these are adjacent cells or the blood (which would carry the virus particles to other parts of the body).
Some researchers suggest that the drug may also suppress virus entry to cells.
This the mechanism of action of the drug.
I would think that the efficacy of the drug would depend on the virulence of the infecting strains. But I cant say off hand if the the efficacy the same for Bird Flu and “Swine Flu” (H1N1).
Bear in mind that efficacy means the ability to do the job for which it is made that is block spread of dividing virus particles from leaving the infected cells in which the virus was dividing. To the extent that the structure of the different viruses are the same, the drug should act with similar results. Hope this helps.
Georgie Porgie // June 15, 2009 at 6:58 PM
I copied this most interesting article.
Hope that you will find it interesting to read or even discuss
===========================
It all comes down to greed.
The food industry’s profits soar when we use more of its products. The problem is … they’re already producing enough food for every American to eat 3,900 calories a day – which is almost double what we need.
So how do they get us to eat more calories?
Simple. They load on the sweet stuff. Sugar and corn sweetener are cheap to produce and pack a big calorie punch without making us feel full. So you can easily slam down a 1,000 calorie Big Gulp and still have plenty of room left for dinner.
That means you end up consuming more calories than your body needs, making it easy to gain weight and nearly impossible to lose it.
Americans are eating the equivalent of about 31 teaspoons of added sugar a day. That adds up to 500 extra calories – 25% of the average person’s caloric intake – each and every day.
The big question is … how does the food industry manage to trick millions of Americans into eating way more sugar than they should?
They hide the sugar in plain sight …
The U.S. government requires that the amount of sugar in a product be disclosed on the label.
No problem. The food industry just needs to give sugar a different name. After all, you know to stay away from sugar. And you probably suspect that molasses and honey contain sugar. But what do you know about sorghum … corn syrup … high fructose corn syrup … turbinado … glucose … fructose … amazake … lactose … dextrose … sucrose … galactose … and maltose? Would you even associate those scientific-sounding names with sugar? Probably not. But that’s what they are.
These sugar aliases allow a food manufacturer to list fructose, sucrose, dextrose and corn syrup all on the same label without you knowing that the main ingredient in the product is actually sugar.
Now there’s something else you need to know about food labels. Food manufacturers list the information in grams, knowing that the average American is clueless about what a gram is.
When you see that a 12-ounce can of soda contains 40 grams of sugar, you probably just shrug your shoulders and pop it open. But what would you do if you saw that a can of soda contains 10 teaspoons of sugar? You might think twice before drinking it. After all, if you saw a person ladling 10 teaspoons of sugar into their morning coffee, you’d think they were nuts.
One good thing to remember when checking labels: Four grams equals one teaspoon. All you have to do is divide the grams of sugar by four, and that’s how many teaspoons you’re consuming.
They sneak sugar into “non-sweet” products …
If you’re trying to cut back on your sugar intake, just start reading labels. You’ll be surprised at how many “non-sweet” products contain sugar …
Spaghetti sauce: A half cup of store-bought spaghetti sauce can contain as many as three teaspoons of sugar. You can find sauces without sugar, though, and they taste just as good – if not better – than the sugary ones. Just keep an eye on those labels and don’t be fooled by the sugar aliases they use.
Ketchup: Shockingly, ketchup can be 20% sugar or more. So you need to watch labels and find no-sugar brands to use.
Reduced or low-fat products: When manufacturers take the fat out of a product – like cookies or salad dressing – they replace it with sugar and/or extra salt. And surprisingly, the calories aren’t much less than the “fattier” versions of the product.
Bread: Most processed breads that you find on your grocery store shelves contain large amounts of sugar or corn syrup. Sugar is what gives them that nice, golden brown crust. So always check your labels.
Potato Chips: Yes, they’re salty – which can be another health hazard to watch out for – but they can also contain sugar. That could be why it’s so hard for you to eat just one.
High protein energy bars: They sound healthy, but you might want to think twice before grabbing for one. High protein energy bars could contain up to 300 calories – and they’re loaded with sugar.
They use your sugar addiction against you …
A recent study at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology reported that sugar stimulates a reaction in the brain of lab rats similar to the reaction created by morphine, cocaine and nicotine.
This may be the first scientific evidence of what dieticians have been suspecting for years – sugar is addictive.
It makes perfect sense. When you eat sugar, it increases the serotonin levels in your brain. This in turn increases the production of endorphins and releases the sensation of happiness.
But this artificial increase in serotonin levels does something else as well – it causes the body to lower its natural production of serotonin. This starts the cycle of addiction.
Since serotonin is responsible for controlling your mood and appetite, you feel depressed when it gets low and crave more sugar. Before you know it, you’re dependent on sugar to make you feel happy.
The food industry is well aware of the addictive nature of sugar, so it’s no small wonder that they put it in as many products as they can – to get you to eat more and more. After all, the more of their products you buy, the richer they get.
How to break the sugar habit …
Eating too much sugar isn’t only going to make you overweight. It also wreaks havoc on your insulin levels, which could lead to diabetes.
Just one can of soda per day increases your risk of diabetes by a whopping 85%, which can cut 11 to 20 years off your life!
If you want to lose weight and improve your health, it’s time to break your sugar addiction once and for all.
Here are some tips that could help:
Keep your blood sugar stable: By including protein with every meal and snack and eating at regular intervals, you can help stabilize your blood sugar. That will keep your moods and energy at an even keel, so you don’t crave sugar as much.
Use fruit as a substitute for sugar: Fruit will help dampen those sugar cravings. And, after you get used to eating it instead of a sugar-filled dessert, it will more than fulfill your need for sweets.
Ban sugar from your house: If you don’t have sugar and sweets in your home, you won’t eat them. It’s as simple as that.
Try these two supplements: The herb Gymnema and the amino acid L-glutamine have helped some people beat their sugar cravings.
Take a good multivitamin: This will help you to restore your energy and feelings of well-being naturally.
Give up fake sugars: If you’re substituting aspartame, Nutrasweet, or Splenda for sugar in your diet, you may be doing yourself more harm than good. These products don’t eliminate sugar cravings – they increase them. A study at the University of Texas Health Center in San Antonio found that a person’s risk for obesity went up 41% for each daily can of diet soda.
I’m not going to tell you it’s easy to give up sugar. Due to its addictive nature, it’s actually quite difficult. But you can do it if you take it ONE DAY AT A TIME.
If you need to eat a little sugar every day until you eventually decrease it significantly, that’s fine. The important thing is that you keep moving toward your goal of lowering your sugar intake.
When you see the weight loss and improved health that come as you break free from your sugar addiction, it’ll all be worth it.
David // June 16, 2009 at 8:06 PM
This is an interesting article. It makes one wonder what are the health and consumer watch bodies doing in the USA. Thought you market was a consumer activist one.
Georgie Porgie // June 16, 2009 at 8:35 PM
David this is something that ought to be explored with respect to Barbados.
How can we reduce our intake of simple sugars in Barbados in light of the high cost of fruit and vegetables?
Xylitol (the alcohol of xylose) is a good natural sugar to use, but we dont make it. we have thrown a way the cane peeling from which it may be extracted for ages!
Health and consumer watch bodies produced this aryicle sort of.
We think that the Americans are so savy, but actually these jokers for the large part follow the herd and what ever is advertised in the media. So the work of most Health and consumer watch bodies goes to waste.
My interests however, is how can be reduce the sugar intake in our people. I dont particulary care about the USA. I am here for a reason.
Sargeant // June 16, 2009 at 10:40 PM
GP
We were weaned on sugar from condensed milk in tea to sugar cake, “Frutee & Ju-C, have you ever tasted any of the “juices” produced by Pine Hill? Only last year at Xmas people were pushing and shoving trying to ensure that they get a cake from the Supermarket. Getting Bajans to give up sugar is like trying to take away a lion’s kill.
Mash up &buy back // June 17, 2009 at 6:54 AM
Georgie
Xylitol is sold here as Xylo Sweet in most of the leading supermarkets.
Georgie Porgie // June 22, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Asthma Drugs Get New Precaution
FDA Asks Singulair, Accolate, Zyflo, and Zyflo CR to Note Precaution About Reports of Behavior, Mood Changes
By Miranda Hitti
WebMD Health NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MDJune 12, 2009 — The FDA today asked makers of Singulair, Accolate, Zyflo, and Zyflo CR to include a precaution on those drugs’ labels about reports of behavior and mood changes.
Singulair is used to treat asthma and symptoms of allergic rhinitis. Accolate, Zyflo, and Zyflo CR are used to treat asthma.
All four drugs are leukotriene inhibitors, which affect the leukotriene pathway, which is involved in the body’s response to inflammatory stimuli (such as breathing in an allergen).
The FDA notes that some patients using those drugs have reported neuropsychiatric events (behavior or mood changes) including agitation, aggression, anxiousness, dream abnormalities and hallucinations, depression, insomnia, irritability, restlessness, suicidal thinking and behavior (including suicide), and tremor.
The FDA has already reviewed data from clinical trials about suicide risk in patients taking leukotriene inhibitors.
In that review, which the FDA released in January 2009, the FDA said it found no sign of a link between Singulair, Accolate, Zyflo, or Zyflo CR and suicide risk. At the time, the FDA said it was still reviewing clinical data on other behavioral and mood events.
FDA’s Advice
On its web site, the FDA has posted the following advice about leukotriene inhibitors for patients and health care providers:
Patients and health care professionals should be aware of the potential for neuropsyschiatric events with these medications.
Patients should talk with their health care provider if these events occur.
Health care professionals should consider discontinuing these medications if patients develop neuropsychiatric symptoms.
Singulair is made by the drug company Merck. In a statement posted on its web site, Merck says that it has updated Singulair’s prescribing information about adverse events reported after the drug went on the market, including the types of neuropsychiatric events mentioned today by the FDA.
“Merck will continue to work with the FDA to revise the prescribing information for Singulair in the United States to include a precaution related to those events,” states Merck, adding that it is “confident in the safety and efficacy of Singulair, a medicine that has been prescribed to tens of millions of patients with asthma and allergic rhinitis since its approval more than 11 years ago.”
Accolate is made by AstraZeneca. Zyflo and Zyflo CR are made by Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals. Those drug companies were not immediately available for comment on the FDA’s label change request.
Georgie Porgie // June 24, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Diabetes and Weight Loss: Finding the Right Path
If you’ve got diabetes, losing weight can get you off insulin and other medications. Create a safe diabetes weight loss plan with the help of experts.
By Jeanie Lerche Davis
WebMD Feature
Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD
There’s no question about it: If you’re overweight and have type 2 diabetes, dropping pounds lowers your blood sugar, improves your health, and helps you feel better
But before you start a diabetes weight loss plan, it’s important to work closely with your doctor or diabetes educator – because while you’re dieting, your blood sugar, insulin, and medications need special attention.
Make no mistake — you’re on the right path. “No matter how heavy you are, you will significantly lower your blood sugar if you lose some weight,” says Cathy Nonas, MS, RD, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association and a professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.
A National Institutes of Health study found that a combination of diet and exercise cuts the risk of developing diabetes by 58%. The study involved people who were overweight (average body mass index of 34) and who had high — but not yet diabetic — blood sugar levels.
“We know it’s true — that if someone with diabetes loses 5% to 10% of their weight, they will significantly reduce their blood sugar,” Nonas tells WebMD.
“We see it all the time: people can get off their insulin and their medication,” she says. “It’s wonderful. It shows you how interwoven obesity and diabetes are.”
Even losing 10 or 15 pounds has health benefits, says the American Diabetes Association. It can:
• Lower blood sugar
• Reduce blood pressure
• Improve cholesterol levels
• Lighten the stress on hips, knees, ankles, and feet
Plus, you’ll probably have more energy, get around easier, and breathe easier.
On a Diabetes Weight Loss Plan, Watch for Changes in Blood Sugar
Cutting back on just one meal can affect the delicate balance of blood sugar, insulin, and medication in your body. So it’s important to work with an expert when you diet.
Check with your doctor before starting a diabetes weight loss plan, then consult with a diabetes educator or nutritionist, advises Larry C. Deeb, MD, a diabetes specialist in Tallahassee, Fla. and president-elect of the American Diabetes Association.
“Don’t try to lose weight on your own,” says Deeb. “With a doctor and a good nutritionist, it’s very safe to do. This is very important if you’re taking insulin or medications.”
Go for the Right Balance in a Diabetes Weight Loss Plan
Christine Gerbstadt, MD, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, warns: “You don’t want to run the risk of high or low blood sugar while you’re dieting,” she tells WebMD. “You want tight glucose control while you lose weight.”
Gerbstadt suggests cutting 500 calories a day, “which is safe for someone with diabetes,” she says. “Cut calories across the board — from protein, carbohydrates, and fat — that’s the best way.” She recommends that people with diabetes maintain a healthy ratio of carbs, fat, and protein. The ideal:
• 50% to 55% carbs
• 30% fat
• 10% to 15% protein
Watch the Carbs in a Diabetes Weight Loss Plan
For people with diabetes, a refresher course on carbs may also be in order, Gerbstadt says.
That’s because carbs have the biggest effect on blood sugar, since they are broken down into sugar early in digestion. Eating complex carbs (whole-grain bread and vegetables, for example) is good because they are absorbed more slowly into the bloodstream, cutting the risk of blood sugar spikes, Gerbstadt explains.
“Worst case scenario is sliced white bread,” she says. “Whole-wheat bread is an improvement. Adding a little peanut butter is even better.”
Simply cutting lots of carbs — a common dieting strategy — can be dangerous, Gerbstadt says. When your body doesn’t have carbs to burn for fuel, your metabolism changes into what’s known as ketosis — and fat is burned instead. You’ll feel less hungry, and eat less than you usually do — but long-term ketosis can cause health problems.
“Ketosis decreases oxygen delivery to the tissues, which puts stress on eyes, kidneys, heart, liver,” Gerbstadt says. “That’s why the low-carb, high-protein Atkins diet is not really safe for people with diabetes. Diabetics need to try to stick with a more balanced diet so your body can handle nutrients without going into ketosis.”
Special Challenges when Following a Diabetes Weight Loss Plan
“For anyone, losing weight is challenging enough,” Luigi Meneghini, MD, tells WebMD. Meneghini is director of the Kosnow Diabetes Treatment Center at the University of Miami School of Medicine. “For people who inject insulin, it’s even more difficult because they have to eat when they have low blood sugar. When you have to reduce calorie intake, prevent overmedication, and eat to correct your low blood sugar, it’s very challenging.”
Indeed, both low and high blood sugar levels are the two big concerns for people with diabetes.
Low Blood Sugar (hypoglycemia) occurs when the amount of insulin in the body is higher than your body needs. In its earliest stages, low blood sugar causes confusion, dizziness, and shakiness. In its later stages, it can be very dangerous — possibly causing fainting, even coma.
Low blood sugar is common when people lose weight because cutting calories and weight loss itself affect blood sugar levels. If you don’t reduce your insulin dosage or pills to match new blood sugar levels, you’ll be risking high blood sugar.
High Blood Sugar (hyperglycemia) can develop when your body’s insulin level is too low to control blood sugar. This happens when people on insulin or sugar-lowering medications don’t take the correct dose or follow their diet.
The Effects of Exercise on Diabetes
One of the benefits of exercise is that it helps keep your blood sugar in balance, so you won’t have to cut as many calories.
“Walk an extra 20 minutes a day, and you can eat a little bit more,” Gerbstadt explains, and instead of cutting 500 calories, “you can cut back just 200 or 300 calories, and still get excellent results in weight loss. You’ll also control your blood sugar. And the weight will be more likely to stay off if you lose it slowly, safely.”
Keep in mind: Each type of exercise affects blood sugar differently.
Aerobic exercise — running or a treadmill workout — can lower your blood sugar immediately.
Weight lifting or prolonged strenuous exercise may affect your blood sugar level many hours later. This can be a problem, especially when you’re driving a car. It is one of the many reasons that you should check your blood sugar before driving. It’s also a good idea to carry snacks such as fruit, crackers, juice, and soda in the car.
“With physical activity, you burn blood sugar as well as sugar stored in muscle and in the liver,” explains Meneghini. “People using insulin or medications to simulate release of insulin should closely monitor blood sugar levels when they begin exercising more. Over time, as you exercise regularly, you can reduce doses of medications and insulin.”
Getting Started on Your Diabetes Weight Loss Plan
Losing weight is never easy. That’s where a diabetes educator or a nutritionist can help, advises Deeb A diabetes educator or nutritionist can develop a program that fits you and your lifestyle — a program with realistic goals, he says.
“You will need a meal plan, one that you can follow every day. You’ll need to know how to alter your insulin and medication based on what you’re eating and whether you’re exercising more,” Deeb tells WebMD. “That’s the safest way to lose weight.”
A consultation with a diabetes educator or dietitian/nutritionist can cost from $60-$70. Typically, insurance covers the first two visits, but may not cover additional visits, says Meneghini.
Reasonably priced diabetes support groups and classes are available, frequently through hospitals. Ask your doctor or physician assistant for recommendations.
There are also diabetes web sites with in-depth exercise and weight loss information, including:
• American Diabetes Association at http://www.diabetes.org
• National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/
“Information is power, and the better informed you are, the better decisions you can make,” says Meneghini.
eddie // July 22, 2009 at 10:00 PM
I have read with interest, the article on the low blood cell count because I too as a black woman was also given that diagnosis. Since 1982 a routine blood test showed the count and I must say that the doctor nearly kill me with his predictions as what might have been wrong with me. I had to console myself that if I was dying and didn’t know (because I was not even feeling sick) then I will continue to live until… I abandoned blood test for over twenty years until recently and sure enough, it was still low. Once again the doctor nearly kill me with the news but I shrug my shoulders and will continue until..
As far as I know it has not affected me one bit but I do understand the danger of getting chemo etc since the count is low it would not take much to bring it lower still. However, there is much research still to be done and I hope the information reaches us soon.
Sargeant // August 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I saw a recent article on Cuban trained doctors practicing in Barbados in one of the newspapers. Unfortunately I didn’t read it but here is an article on how Cuban doctors fare in the USA after they immigrate there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/health/04cuba.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
us health care worker who love the caribbean // August 9, 2009 at 11:24 AM
tamiflu will not work against the h1n1 swine flu virus. the US is coming out with the swine flu vaccine and it is to be given to the most vulnerable persons first and healthcare workers (thank god!) our local flu shots to prevent the spread of our regular seasonal flu is hardly effective being that the flu virus mutates so quickly. if u ask me its all media hyper and hysteria! more people die from the regular version of the flu than swine flu every year. our US media LOVES
us health care worker who love the caribbean // August 9, 2009 at 11:27 AM
(continued) to create *pandamonium*… as they get PAID to do so… ** FIGHT THE POWER :) **
us health care worker who love the caribbean // August 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Im interested in the quality of health care that is provided on the island for locals. What types of free clinics do they have to provide care for those who cant afford it? do u have national health care or is it private insurance as in the States? just wanted feedback from the locals. thanku
Annonymous // August 27, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Cancer Killer – The soursop
Guyabano, The Soursop Fruit
The Sour Sop or the fruit from the graviola tree is a miraculous natural cancer cell killer 10,000 times stronger than Chemo.
Why are we not aware of this?
Its because some big corporation want to make back their money spent on years of research by
trying to make a synthetic version of it for sale.
So, since you know it now you can help a friend in need by letting him know or just drink some sour sop juice yourself as prevention from time to time.
The taste is not bad after all. It’s completely natural and definitely has no side effects.
If you have the space, plant one in your garden.
The other parts of the tree are also useful.
The next time you have a fruit juice, ask for a sour sop.
How many people died in vain while this billion-dollar drug maker concealed the secret of the miraculous Graviola tree?
Th is tree is low and is called graviola in Brazil , guanabana in Spanish and has the uninspiring name “soursop” in English.
The fruit is very large and the subacid sweet white pulp is eaten out of hand or, more commonly, used to make fruit drinks, sherbets and such.
The principal interest in this plant is because of its strong anti-cancer effects.
Although it is effective for a number of medical conditions, it is its anti tumor effect that is of most interest.
This plant is a proven cancer remedy for cancers of all types.
Besides being a cancer remedy, graviola is a broad spectrum antimicrobial agent for both bacterial and fungal infections,
is effective against internal parasites and worms, lowers high blood pressure and is used for depression,
stress and nervous disorders.
If there ever was a single example that makes it dramatically clear why the existence of Health Sciences Institute is so vital to Americans like you, it’s the incredible story behind the Graviola tree.
The truth is stunningly simple:
Deep within the Amazon
Rainforest grows a tree that could literally revolutionize what you, your doctor,
and the rest of the world thinks about cancer treatment and chances of survival.
The future has never looked more promising.
Research shows that with extracts from this miraculous tree it now may be possible to:
* Attack cancer safely and effectively with an all-natural therapy that does not cause extreme nausea, weight loss and hair loss
* Protect your immune system and avoid deadly infections
* Feel stronger and healthier throughout the course of the treatment
* Boost your energy and improve your outlook on life
The source o f this information is just as stunning: It comes from one of America ’s largest drug manufacturers, the fruit of over 20 laboratory tests conducted since the 1970’s!
What those tests revealed was nothing short of mind numbing…
Extracts from the tree were shown to:
* Effectively target and kill malignant cells in 12 types of cancer, including colon,
breast, prostate, lung and pancreatic cancer..
* The tree compounds proved to be up to 10,000 times stronger in slowing the growth of cancer cells than Adriamycin,
a commonly used chemotherapeutic drug!
* What’s more, unlike chemotherapy, the compound extracted from the Graviola tree selectively hunts
down and kills only cancer cells.
It does not harm healthy cells!
The amazing anti-cancer properties of the Graviola tree have been extensively researched–
so why haven’t you heard anything about it?
If Graviola extract is as half as promising as it appears to be–
why doesn’t every single oncologist at every major hospital insist on using it on all his or her patients?
The spine-chilling answer illustrates just how easily our health–
and for many, our very lives(!)–are controlled by money and power.
Graviola–the plant that worked too well
One of America ’s biggest billion-dollar drug makers began a search for a cancer cure and their research centered on Graviola,
a legendary healing tree from the Amazon Rainforest.
Variou s parts of the Graviola tree–including the bark, leaves, roots, fruit and fruit-seeds–have been used for centuries by medicine men and native Indians in South America to treat heart disease, asthma, liver problems and arthritis.
Going on very little documented scientific evidence, the company poured money and resources into testing the tree’s anti-cancerous properties–and were shocked by the results. Graviola proved itself to be a cancer-killing dynamo.
But that’s where the Graviola story nearly ended.
The company had one huge problem with the Graviola tree–it’s completely natural, and so, under federal law, not patentable. There’s no way to make serious profits from it.
It turns out the drug company invested nearly seven years trying to
synthesize two of the Graviola tree’s most powerful anti-cancer ingredients.
If they could isolate and produce man-made clones of what makes the Graviola so potent,
they’d be able to patent it and make their money back.
Alas, they hit a brick wall. The original simply could not be replicated.
There was no way the company could protect its profits–or even make back the millions it poured into research.
As the dream of huge profits evaporated, their testing on Graviola came to a screeching halt.
Even worse, the company shelved the entire project and chose not to publish the findings of its research!
Luckily, however, there was one scientist from the Graviola research team
whose conscience wouldn’t let him see such atrocity committed.
Risking his career, he contacted a company that’s dedicated to harvesting medical plants from the Amazon Rainforest
and blew the whistle.
Miracle unleashed
When researchers at the Health Sciences Institute were alerted to the news of Graviola,
they began tracking the research done on the cancer-killing tree.
Evidence of the astounding effectiveness of Graviola–and its shocking cover-up–came in fast and furious….
….The National Cancer Institute performed the first scientific research in 1976.
The results showed that Graviola’s “leaves and stems were found effective in attacking and destroying malignant cells.” Inexplicably, the results were published in an internal report and never released to the public…
…Since 1976, Graviola has proven to be an immensely potent cancer killer in 20 independent laboratory tests,
yet no double-blind clinical trials–
the typical benchmark mainstream doctors and journals use to judge a
treatment’s value- -were ever initiated..
A study published in the Journal of Natural Products,
following a recent study conducted at Catholic University of South Korea stated that one chemical in Graviola was found to
selectively kill colon cancer cells at “10,000 times the potency of (the commonly used chemotherapy drug) Adriamycin…”
….The most significant part of the Catholic University of South Korea report is that
Graviola was shown to selectively target the cancer cells, leaving healthy cells untouched.
Unlike chemotherapy, which indiscriminately targets all actively reproducing cells (such as stomach and hair cells),
causing the often devastating side effects of nausea and hair loss in cancer patients.
…A study at Purdue University recently found that leaves from the Graviola tree killed cancer cells among six human cell lines and were especially effective against prostate, pancreatic and lung cancers…
Seven years of silence broken–it’s finally here!
A limited supply of Graviola extract, grown and harvested by indigenous people in Brazil , is finally available in America .
The full Graviola Story–including where you can get it and how to use it–is included in Beyond Chemotherapy:
New Cancer Killers, Safe as Mother’s Milk,
a Health Sciences Institute FREE special bonus report on natural substances
that will effectively revolutionize the fight against cancer.
From breakthrough cancer and heart research and revolutionary Amazon Rainforest
herbology to world-leading anti-aging research and nutritional medicine,
every monthly Health Sciences Institute Member’s Alert puts in your hands today cures the rest of America –including your own doctor(!)–is likely to find out only ten years from now.
Bajan Pharm // September 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM
All Statins vary in molecular structure some closer is shape than others. The differences in structure affect the efficacy in patients on an individual basis.
I for one can’t take Lipitor or Vytorin but can take Crestor. The effectiveness of one over the other may vary, but the uniqueness of the patient is always a consideration.
Bajan Pharm // September 12, 2009 at 12:17 PM
The Holistic view:
The complementary view is a great option in my book. We must however be mindful
that holistic aspect of treating patients should still be weighed against the severity of the condition of the patient. A treatment with bush tea may actually make things worse.
When one looks at the Guyabano, The Soursop Fruit for example, we need to understand that western medicine has been ( refined) and for the most has been the #1 accepted. The idea of treatment with this plant is hard to believe for these specialized Drs.
An option is an option, however be mindful -
1) there is no standardized dosing
2) what is the active ingredient
3) what is the specific cancer cell being targeted.
4) results in a test tube differ from those in the human body.
If a Pt decides to go for the alternative therapy, it should be done complementary. As such both the Medical Practitioner and the Alternative practitioner should be working together for the benefit of the patient.The question is will this ever be done?
Bajan Pharm // September 12, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Re: Im interested in the quality of health care that is provided on the island for locals. What types of free clinics do they have to provide care for those who cant afford it? do u have national health care or is it private insurance as in the States? just wanted feedback from the locals. thanku
hi there us health care worker who love the caribbean,
Barbados Government offers a fantastic free service to all Barbadians. This is achieved through the Barbados Drug Service and the many Government Polyclinics across the island.
The availability of pharmaceuticals at the polyclinics are vast and for the most part are available. Should specialty care be needed, those Pts are referred to the QEH.( Queen Elizabeth Hospital – the only government hospital)
Every social service has its problems.Ours is no different! Money Money Money -the shortage of it.
Where the Public services lack, the private Pharmacies take up the slack. The private and also fill Public generated Rx’s.
Private Docs are not partners in this system. If they offer a service it is to pay, unless they choose to wave their fees.
There is lots lots more.
The truth be told form my perspective is that services in any Government run system would be allot better if patients have to pay even a $1.oo
B’dos. The machines could be fixed fasted the replenishment of required stock could be better. A whole array of areas could be improved.
Barbados is quickly becoming a welfare state if we are not one already.The political drive is not helping the matter when it is preached
” you are entitled to Free”
FYI // September 13, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Having attended a Kidney Conference in Barbados, it was evident that doctors withhold what I consider pertinent information from their patients. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce all kidney patients to the following site. http://www.davita.com/forum/
The site provides a myriad of information related to kidney disease including experiences that has been shared by patients and medical staff — from acute kidney failure through dialysis and transplantation.
Patients, family, friends can ask any kidney related question that she or he may have concerns about.
Straight talk // September 21, 2009 at 6:28 PM
GP:
With the recent Lancet report on the reliance on Tamiflu as an efficacious treatment for H1N1, are you still recommending this as the way to go as a precautionary measure.
What are your thoughts on the rise of asthma, lupus and type 2 diabetes in Barbados, which some clinicians ascribe to the damaged auto=immune systems caused by mass vaccinations for polio etc. in earlier years.
Georgie Porgie // September 25, 2009 at 8:37 PM
Family Medicine News
New H1N1 Vaccine Works Like Seasonal Flu Vaccine in Children
Fran Lowry
September 21, 2009 — A single, 15-μg dose of a nonadjuvanted 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine generated an immune response against the virus in a small group of children aged 10 to 17 years at 8 to 10 days after vaccination, according to early results from a trial sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health.
These early results look promising, the NIAID said.
“This is very encouraging news. As we had hoped, responses to the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine are very similar to what we see with routinely used seasonal influenza vaccines made in the same way,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of NIAID, said in a statement. “It seems likely that the H1N1 flu vaccine will require just one 15-μg dose for children 10 to 17 years of age. The 2009 H1N1 influenza virus is causing widespread infections among children, so these are welcome results.”
The trial, which is ongoing, is testing the safety and immune responses to 1 and 2 doses of either 15 or 30 μg of vaccine in 3 age groups: children aged 6 to 35 months, 3 to 9 years, and 10 to 17 years.
The early results announced today were based on blood samples taken 8 to 10 days after the first vaccination. The strongest immune response was seen in the 10- to 17-year-old age group. Among the 25 children in this group, a strong immune response was seen in 19 children (76%) who received a single 15-μg dose. Among the 25 children in the 3- to 9-year-old age group, 9 children (36%) demonstrated a strong immune response, and in the 20 children aged 6 to 35 months, a single 15-μg dose of vaccine produced a strong immune response in 5 children (25%).
“These results are not unexpected and are both similar to what is seen with seasonal influenza vaccines and consistent with what we and our colleagues at the Food and Drug Administration anticipated,” Dr. Fauci said.
The study is continuing to assess immune response to the vaccine 3 weeks after both the first and second vaccinations. The NIAID anticipates that the immune response in children to the 2009 H1N1 flu vaccine will be similar to that of seasonal influenza vaccination and will continue to increase for several weeks after vaccination.
The vaccine being tested is manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur.
Georgie Porgie // September 25, 2009 at 8:43 PM
@ Straight talk // September 21, 2009 at 6:28 PM
I am ignorant about the recent Lancet report on the reliance on Tamiflu of which you speak Sir.
It is in my view unreasonable to ascribe the rise of asthma and type 2 diabetes in Barbados solely to polio vaccinations, especially when there are so many contributing factors in the society to promote the onset of these two conditions.
Without mass vaccinations for polio etc. in earlier years, I shudder to think what the morbidity and mortality might have been.
Georgie Porgie // September 25, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Real men don’t eat soy. Not unless they want to grow fatty breasts… The reason? It turns out, soy protein contains genistein and daidzein, which are known phyto-estrogens (plant-produced estrogens). High levels of estrogen (the hormone that makes women look and act like women) in men causes reduced levels of testosterone, loss of muscle tissue, increase of body fat, and a decrease in libido and sexual function.
.
Straight talk // September 28, 2009 at 1:35 AM
GP:
I see the NIAID trial you quote used a single, 15-μg dose of a nonadjuvanted 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine.
It is my understanding that the Tamiflu being rushed out by Pasteur Labs contains the adjuvant squalene, a petroleum product, thought to be responsible for the adverse reactions of US servicemen to their anthrax shots.
Given that the pharma companies involved have been granted legal immunity re swine flu treatments, do you still believe there is no cause for concern?
Georgie Porgie // September 28, 2009 at 7:03 AM
I cant say for sure Sir. There seems to be divergent views at the moment.