Entries by tag: cardiovascular
If you live and Portland and haven't picked up a copy of this month's Willamette Week (free news weekly, online here: http://www.wweek.com/portland/index.php), this issue is likely to get snapped up. They've named it the 420 Issue and it is all about the businesses and culture incurred by the recent legalization of cannabis in Washington and soon Oregon. What struck me initially is the amount of wordplay around the subject, and the generation of witty new phrases, words and hashtags that accompanies the surge in businesses and products containing cannabinoids. There is great excitement about the new availability and openness that comes with legalization.
I for one am OK with recreational and medical use. I think that the risks to society of adults using cannabinoids are fairly minimal. It certainly doesn't make people drive dangerously the way alcohol does. It does have a whole set of risks that aren't covered in this issue, and that really need to be kept high in our awareness as this drug becomes widely acceptable.
One risk that is coming into focus these days is of extreme overdoses. Back when folks just inhaled smoke, coughing stopped them from partaking too much. Vaporizers now make inhalation gentler and it is easy to overdose when consuming edibles. With either method you can't tell how much intoxicant is in there. With humans ingeniously extracting and concentrating the active principles, it could be very strong, or contaminated with solvents. With edibles the effect takes time to kick in. It is terribly easy to overdose for folks who are experimenting for the first time, and who have no tolerance at all.
The conventional media take on overdose--blaming it for many deaths and claiming that it is deadly--is probably overblown. It takes a massive amount of pot to kill, perhaps more than anybody is likely to actually reach because unlike opioids it is so unpleasant getting there. It is however a relative unknown: having been illegal for so long, we don't have scientific studies about overdose. We hardly have science to justify all the medical uses that have already been approved. We are going to find out now.
Another risk is incurred by the fact that edibles make the drug palatable to people who would never smoke it. It is tempting to children as candy. There is the danger that children, teens and early 20-somethings will enjoy sugary yummies containing cannabinoids and permanently alter their brain development. Later on in life there is still a brain changing effect, but in early life when the brain is still forming, the effect can be severe.
On top of these new risks due to the availability of edibles, there is the old risk of respiratory injuries resulting in sinusitis and bronchitis, and risk of more dangerous conditions like pneumonia and COPD. There is also the fact that marijuana increases heart rate significantly in most individuals. Folks who already have hypertension or heart palpitations might give themselves a heart attack.
I suppose my main message in the light of all this 420 excitement is BE CAUTIOUS and PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN because there is a lot we don't know. I believe in freedom and individual discretion as most Americans do, and I also know that people can be terribly foolish and injure themselves and others, especially when intoxicants are involved. I cannot protect the whole world from poor choices, but I do hope that this warning is heard widely. Please take care of each other and if you are going to play with the newly legalized products, start very small.
I for one am OK with recreational and medical use. I think that the risks to society of adults using cannabinoids are fairly minimal. It certainly doesn't make people drive dangerously the way alcohol does. It does have a whole set of risks that aren't covered in this issue, and that really need to be kept high in our awareness as this drug becomes widely acceptable.
One risk that is coming into focus these days is of extreme overdoses. Back when folks just inhaled smoke, coughing stopped them from partaking too much. Vaporizers now make inhalation gentler and it is easy to overdose when consuming edibles. With either method you can't tell how much intoxicant is in there. With humans ingeniously extracting and concentrating the active principles, it could be very strong, or contaminated with solvents. With edibles the effect takes time to kick in. It is terribly easy to overdose for folks who are experimenting for the first time, and who have no tolerance at all.
The conventional media take on overdose--blaming it for many deaths and claiming that it is deadly--is probably overblown. It takes a massive amount of pot to kill, perhaps more than anybody is likely to actually reach because unlike opioids it is so unpleasant getting there. It is however a relative unknown: having been illegal for so long, we don't have scientific studies about overdose. We hardly have science to justify all the medical uses that have already been approved. We are going to find out now.
Another risk is incurred by the fact that edibles make the drug palatable to people who would never smoke it. It is tempting to children as candy. There is the danger that children, teens and early 20-somethings will enjoy sugary yummies containing cannabinoids and permanently alter their brain development. Later on in life there is still a brain changing effect, but in early life when the brain is still forming, the effect can be severe.
On top of these new risks due to the availability of edibles, there is the old risk of respiratory injuries resulting in sinusitis and bronchitis, and risk of more dangerous conditions like pneumonia and COPD. There is also the fact that marijuana increases heart rate significantly in most individuals. Folks who already have hypertension or heart palpitations might give themselves a heart attack.
I suppose my main message in the light of all this 420 excitement is BE CAUTIOUS and PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN because there is a lot we don't know. I believe in freedom and individual discretion as most Americans do, and I also know that people can be terribly foolish and injure themselves and others, especially when intoxicants are involved. I cannot protect the whole world from poor choices, but I do hope that this warning is heard widely. Please take care of each other and if you are going to play with the newly legalized products, start very small.
Statistics show that the "stroke belt" is also where you have the highest likelihood (in the US) of dying of cardiovascular and lower respiratory disease (smoking), cancer and accidents. Obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome are probable causes, but what about accidents? Why do southerners have the most accidents? Bless their dangerous little hearts....
SOURCE
http://consumer.healthday.com/cardiovascular-health-information-20/heart-attack-news-357/southeastern-states-have-highest-number-of-preventable-deaths-687436.html
SOURCE
http://consumer.healthday.com/cardiovascular-health-information-20/heart-attack-news-357/southeastern-states-have-highest-number-of-preventable-deaths-687436.html
I'm not big on woo woo. When practitioners choose modalities simply because they "resonate" with them, I am skeptical. But when science backs up the use of something that has long been thought of as energy medicine, I am happy to recommend it. Of course people will tell you something is backed by science when it isn't, so you have to go look at the science for yourself, or find sources like me that you know are science-minded and skeptical to help filter the claims for you.
Here's a case of energy medicine turning out to be something real. Scientists have found that acupuncture points are detectable by CT (computed tomography, fancy medical imaging). All those points have a certain size of larger blood vessels, and also thick mats of fine blood vessels that have lots of forks (birfucations) in them. Piercing the tissues at these points is probably affecting the nervous system associated with those blood vessels. This supports my belief that energy medicine (that actually works) has a anatomical and physiological basis. Acupuncture is well proven to be effective for pain, short term at least. To treat pain longterm one must take the naturopathic approach and find the reason for the pain, and change that.
Here's a case of energy medicine turning out to be something real. Scientists have found that acupuncture points are detectable by CT (computed tomography, fancy medical imaging). All those points have a certain size of larger blood vessels, and also thick mats of fine blood vessels that have lots of forks (birfucations) in them. Piercing the tissues at these points is probably affecting the nervous system associated with those blood vessels. This supports my belief that energy medicine (that actually works) has a anatomical and physiological basis. Acupuncture is well proven to be effective for pain, short term at least. To treat pain longterm one must take the naturopathic approach and find the reason for the pain, and change that.
The study in question (Women's Health Study) reaffirmed this association, in this case specifically for postmenopausal females. Certainly other populations are likely to be affected as well.
Nice article here: http://naturalmedicinejournal.com/article_content.asp?edition=1§ion=3&article=330
Physicians are faced with a basic question when making a prescription of any drug to a patient: “What are the risks and benefits of this recommendation?” When it comes to statin drugs, the benefits have been grossly overstated, while the risks have continually been swept under the rug. That discussion is much longer than the space available in this commentary. Suffice it to say that it is important to point out that while statins reduce the heart attack risk in women, they do not appear to affect overall risk of death, possibly because an increased risk for diabetes cancels out the reduced heart attack risk. So, let me focus on the study at hand and try to make sense of such a high risk for diabetes in postmenopausal women using statins.
Nice article here: http://naturalmedicinejournal.com/article_content.asp?edition=1§ion=3&article=330
Physicians are faced with a basic question when making a prescription of any drug to a patient: “What are the risks and benefits of this recommendation?” When it comes to statin drugs, the benefits have been grossly overstated, while the risks have continually been swept under the rug. That discussion is much longer than the space available in this commentary. Suffice it to say that it is important to point out that while statins reduce the heart attack risk in women, they do not appear to affect overall risk of death, possibly because an increased risk for diabetes cancels out the reduced heart attack risk. So, let me focus on the study at hand and try to make sense of such a high risk for diabetes in postmenopausal women using statins.
People who drink diet sodas have 44% more heart attacks and strokes than those who don't. Pretty good sample size in this new study: N = 2564, 36% men, mean age 69 ± 10, 20% white, 23% black, 53% Hispanic. Done in Manhattan. They controlled for all the other stuff that (we know) influences CV events (age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption, BMI, daily calories, consumption of protein, carbohydrates, total fat, saturated fat, and sodium).
SOURCES
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b042807u865853t7/
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/758833?src=mpnews&spon=34
SOURCES
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b042807u865853t7/
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/758833?src=mpnews&spon=34
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2099/12/31/dangers-of-salt-restriction.aspx?e_cid=20120213_DNL_artTest_C3
Bottom line: "real" salt (ie from the earth or sea) contains oodles of minerals that support heatlh. Eating this salt is beneficial to health. Eating processed NaCl with added iodine is not as beneficial, but it still supports adrenal function and fluid balance. Ceasing sodium consumption can be destructive to your health. Don't listen too carefully to the FDA, whatever you do.
Bottom line: "real" salt (ie from the earth or sea) contains oodles of minerals that support heatlh. Eating this salt is beneficial to health. Eating processed NaCl with added iodine is not as beneficial, but it still supports adrenal function and fluid balance. Ceasing sodium consumption can be destructive to your health. Don't listen too carefully to the FDA, whatever you do.
Comment on the diabetes "megatrials" from Leszek Czupryniak, President of the Polish Diabetes Professional Association:
The results, as you must have heard and you probably might remember, have been conflicting. In some of the studies, intensive glycemic control provided some benefit, especially in terms of microvascular complications. In other trials, especially in the ACCORD study, intensive glycemic control was clearly detrimental in terms of increasing the risk for macrovascular complications.
The first interpretation of these results was basically unfavorable toward intensive diabetes control. And we diabetologists were afraid for a while that perhaps what we were trying to do on an everyday basis was actually harming our patients. However, by looking in more detail at the results -- and this is the issue largely discussed these days in Dubai -- now we know that one [patient with] diabetes is not equal to another [patient with] diabetes. We should no longer adopt one target for [the whole] diabetes population; we should be able to differentiate among patients.
In my opinion -- but not only mine, it has been a shared view during this meeting -- the final interpretation of these studies is rather striking, because now we clearly know that intensive diabetes control is absolutely beneficial for subjects who have just diabetes with no complications, who are relatively young, and who have had diabetes for a shorter time, less than 5 years.
SOURCE
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/755416?src=mp&spon=22
The results, as you must have heard and you probably might remember, have been conflicting. In some of the studies, intensive glycemic control provided some benefit, especially in terms of microvascular complications. In other trials, especially in the ACCORD study, intensive glycemic control was clearly detrimental in terms of increasing the risk for macrovascular complications.
The first interpretation of these results was basically unfavorable toward intensive diabetes control. And we diabetologists were afraid for a while that perhaps what we were trying to do on an everyday basis was actually harming our patients. However, by looking in more detail at the results -- and this is the issue largely discussed these days in Dubai -- now we know that one [patient with] diabetes is not equal to another [patient with] diabetes. We should no longer adopt one target for [the whole] diabetes population; we should be able to differentiate among patients.
In my opinion -- but not only mine, it has been a shared view during this meeting -- the final interpretation of these studies is rather striking, because now we clearly know that intensive diabetes control is absolutely beneficial for subjects who have just diabetes with no complications, who are relatively young, and who have had diabetes for a shorter time, less than 5 years.
SOURCE
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/755416?src=mp&spon=22
Comments