Entries by tag: heart disease
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.
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
Cardiac devices. Yep. Most of them are covered by insurance. All those fancy gizmos that they are so eager to install in us, whenever we have a little heart trouble, those gizmos are increasingly suspect. The situation has gotten so bad that the GAO is pushing the FDA to take a more active role in overseeing devices used by the cardiac care medical industry.
During the period covered by the report ('05-'09), medical-device makers initiated 3510 device recalls, which cover everything from "field corrections" to revised labeling to retrieving a device from customers. The agency categorized about 83% of these recalls as class II, indicating the devices may cause temporary adverse health consequences, and 14% as class III, indicating the device is not likely to cause any adverse consequences. Only 4% were class I recalls, deemed by the FDA to have a reasonable risk of causing serious adverse health consequences or death.
During this time, cardiovascular devices were the most commonly recalled products: 532 recalls, making up 15% of all recalls during this period, while the 40 class-I recalls of cardiovascular devices represented 31% of all class-I recalls in the period. The largest number for cardiovascular devices involved automatic external defibrillators.
The next most common category is radiological devices, which accounted for 484 total recalls but only two class I recalls, followed by general hospital and personal-use devices, which accounted for 388 recalls overall, including 31 class I recalls.
SOURCE
http://www.theheart.org/article/1244193.do?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=20110627_EN_Heartwire
During the period covered by the report ('05-'09), medical-device makers initiated 3510 device recalls, which cover everything from "field corrections" to revised labeling to retrieving a device from customers. The agency categorized about 83% of these recalls as class II, indicating the devices may cause temporary adverse health consequences, and 14% as class III, indicating the device is not likely to cause any adverse consequences. Only 4% were class I recalls, deemed by the FDA to have a reasonable risk of causing serious adverse health consequences or death.
During this time, cardiovascular devices were the most commonly recalled products: 532 recalls, making up 15% of all recalls during this period, while the 40 class-I recalls of cardiovascular devices represented 31% of all class-I recalls in the period. The largest number for cardiovascular devices involved automatic external defibrillators.
The next most common category is radiological devices, which accounted for 484 total recalls but only two class I recalls, followed by general hospital and personal-use devices, which accounted for 388 recalls overall, including 31 class I recalls.
SOURCE
http://www.theheart.org/article/1244193.do?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=20110627_EN_Heartwire
1000 on Ca+ only-->6 more MI's or strokes and 3 less fractures
( data from the Women's Health Initiative added to the meta-analysis of cardiovascular risks associated with calcium supplementsCollapse )
( data from the Women's Health Initiative added to the meta-analysis of cardiovascular risks associated with calcium supplementsCollapse )
...of all tested Cox 2 inhibitors, that is. It was also the least studied of the NSAIDS they looked at. They conclude that naproxen seems least harmful, however the analysis did not consider GI side effects, only cardiovascular.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/736039?src=mp&spon=27
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/736039?src=mp&spon=27
A new study has verified what we already knew. The mechanism is unclear but the association is strong.
( Read more.Collapse )
( Read more.Collapse )
The top 10 most potent herbs and spices for blood sugar control:
1. Cloves (ground)
2. Cinnamon (ground)
3. Jamaican allspice (ground)
4. Apple pie spice (mixture)(has lots of cinnamon in it)
5. Oregano (ground)
6. Pumpkin pie spice (mixture)(has lots of cinnamon in it)
7. Marjoram
8. Sage
9. Thyme
10. Gourmet Italian spice
( notes from Mercola articleCollapse )
1. Cloves (ground)
2. Cinnamon (ground)
3. Jamaican allspice (ground)
4. Apple pie spice (mixture)(has lots of cinnamon in it)
5. Oregano (ground)
6. Pumpkin pie spice (mixture)(has lots of cinnamon in it)
7. Marjoram
8. Sage
9. Thyme
10. Gourmet Italian spice
( notes from Mercola articleCollapse )
Comments