Pages

Friday, April 1, 2011

A Possible Antidote for Radiation Exposure from CT Scans?

With traces of radioactive material from Fukushima appearing in rainwater as far away as Boston, concerns about radiation exposure are at an all-time high. But even if you're not anxious about contamination from Japan, you may be wondering about the health risks associated with everyday sources of radiation — from the sun to airport scanners and routine medical procedures like mammograms and CT scans.
But if scientists from University of Toronto are right, you may not have to worry as much about the damage from X-rays in coming years. Reporting at the annual meeting of the Society of Interventional Radiology, Dr. Kieran Murphy, a radiologist at the university, said that a cocktail of antioxidants he and his team have developed could cut the damage done to DNA by radiation from CT scans by as much as 50%, if taken before the scan.
Murphy's concoction works by blocking the effect of free radicals, or unstable compounds made when radioactive waves collide with water, generated by radiation. Free radicals can damage DNA and are responsible for the premature aging and death of cells. Murphy's idea was to flood the body with antioxidants that neutralize free radicals prior to medical procedures such as CT scans, which use X-rays to image the body; the antioxidants would counter the damage from radiation.
To test the theory, Murphy tagged a protein that repairs DNA with a fluorescent marker in blood samples from the study participants; the tag makes DNA visible under a special microscope. Murphy then showed that patients who took the antioxidant mixture had a lower concentration of the labeled repair protein than those who did not take the liquid. Having fewer repair proteins, he says, means that less DNA was damaged.
It's an elegantly simple idea that was inspired, Murphy says, by the list of things his mother-in-law was not allowed to take, such as vitamin A, C, and D, when she was undergoing breast cancer treatment. She was told the antioxidants would interfere with the radiation's ability to damage the breast cancer cells. Looking at the list, Murphy wondered if it didn't make sense to combine the compounds into a cocktail that would protect against radiation damage.
So far, Murphy has tested the compound only on his own blood samples and those of his two colleagues. They took blood samples before taking the antioxidants, then again afterward, and irradiated both batches of blood. The post-treatment samples showed 30% to 50% less DNA damage, which was enough to get approval for a larger trial of 30 volunteers. The participants will be heart patients who need cardiac CT scans; half will take the antioxidant solution, while the other half will not and Murphy's team will analyze their blood for differences in DNA damage.
He stresses that while any CT scan causes some damage to DNA, for the most part the body's own repair mechanisms are able to overcome such low-level changes. “We have to balance the risks with the benefits,” he says. “By far the majority of the time, the risk is far, far worth the benefit. We're just trying to say that if we can reduce that risk a little more, it's a good thing. Then we might be able to allow more screening. If we can increase the number of women who feel safe having a mammogram or the number of people who feel comfortable having a colorectal CT to detect colon cancer, or the number of people who get a coronary calcium screen to pick up signs of future heart trouble, then that would be a good thing.”
It will be a while before the formula will be ready for that, but if the planned trial proves that it's possible to protect people from the effects of low-dose radiation, it will go a long way toward easing people's concerns about radiation exposure.
With traces of radioactive material from Fukushima appearing in rainwater as far away as Boston, concerns about radiation exposure are at an all-time high. But even if you're not anxious about contamination from Japan, you may be wondering about the health risks associated with everyday sources of radiation — from the sun to airport scanners and routine medical procedures like mammograms and CT scans.
But if scientists from University of Toronto are right, you may not have to worry as much about the damage from X-rays in coming years. Reporting at the annual meeting of the Society of Interventional Radiology, Dr. Kieran Murphy, a radiologist at the university, said that a cocktail of antioxidants he and his team have developed could cut the damage done to DNA by radiation from CT scans by as much as 50%, if taken before the scan.
Murphy's concoction works by blocking the effect of free radicals, or unstable compounds made when radioactive waves collide with water, generated by radiation. Free radicals can damage DNA and are responsible for the premature aging and death of cells. Murphy's idea was to flood the body with antioxidants that neutralize free radicals prior to medical procedures such as CT scans, which use X-rays to image the body; the antioxidants would counter the damage from radiation.
To test the theory, Murphy tagged a protein that repairs DNA with a fluorescent marker in blood samples from the study participants; the tag makes DNA visible under a special microscope. Murphy then showed that patients who took the antioxidant mixture had a lower concentration of the labeled repair protein than those who did not take the liquid. Having fewer repair proteins, he says, means that less DNA was damaged.
It's an elegantly simple idea that was inspired, Murphy says, by the list of things his mother-in-law was not allowed to take, such as vitamin A, C, and D, when she was undergoing breast cancer treatment. She was told the antioxidants would interfere with the radiation's ability to damage the breast cancer cells. Looking at the list, Murphy wondered if it didn't make sense to combine the compounds into a cocktail that would protect against radiation damage.
So far, Murphy has tested the compound only on his own blood samples and those of his two colleagues. They took blood samples before taking the antioxidants, then again afterward, and irradiated both batches of blood. The post-treatment samples showed 30% to 50% less DNA damage, which was enough to get approval for a larger trial of 30 volunteers. The participants will be heart patients who need cardiac CT scans; half will take the antioxidant solution, while the other half will not and Murphy's team will analyze their blood for differences in DNA damage.
He stresses that while any CT scan causes some damage to DNA, for the most part the body's own repair mechanisms are able to overcome such low-level changes. “We have to balance the risks with the benefits,” he says. “By far the majority of the time, the risk is far, far worth the benefit. We're just trying to say that if we can reduce that risk a little more, it's a good thing. Then we might be able to allow more screening. If we can increase the number of women who feel safe having a mammogram or the number of people who feel comfortable having a colorectal CT to detect colon cancer, or the number of people who get a coronary calcium screen to pick up signs of future heart trouble, then that would be a good thing.”
It will be a while before the formula will be ready for that, but if the planned trial proves that it's possible to protect people from the effects of low-dose radiation, it will go a long way toward easing people's concerns about radiation exposure.
Read More


Sunlight Can Influence the Breakdown of Medicines in the Body

ScienceDaily (Mar. 11, 2011) — A study from the Swedish medical university Karolinska Institutet has shown that the body's ability to break down medicines may be closely related to exposure to sunlight, and thus may vary with the seasons. The findings offer a completely new model to explain individual differences in the effects of drugs, and how the surroundings can influence the body's ability to deal with toxins.
The study will be published in the scientific journal Drug Metabolism & Disposition and is based on nearly 70,000 analyses from patients who have undergone regular monitoring of the levels of drugs in their blood. The drugs taken by these patients are used to suppress the immune system in association with organ transplants. Samples taken during the winter months were compared with those taken late in the summer.
A more detailed analysis showed that the concentrations of drugs such as tacrolimus and sirolimus, which are used to prevent rejection following transplantation, vary throughout the year in a manner that closely reflects changes in the level of vitamin D in the body. The ability of the body to form vitamin D depends on sunlight, and the highest levels in the patients taking part in the study were reached during that part of the year when the levels of the drugs were lowest.
The connection between sunlight, vitamin D and variations in drug concentration is believed to arise from the activation by vitamin D of the detoxification system of the liver by increasing the amount of an enzyme known as CYP3A4. This enzyme, in turn, is responsible for the breakdown of tacrolimus and sirolimus.
"If the breakdown capacity increases, then higher doses of a drug are normally required in order to achieve the same effect. More research will be needed to confirm the results, but CYP3A4 is considered to be the most important enzyme in drug turnover in the body, and the results may have significance for many drugs," says Jonatan Lindh at the Department of Laboratory Medicine and one of the scientists who carried out the study.
The effects of vitamin D on CYP3A4 have previously been demonstrated in experiments in cell cultures. But the study now to be published shows for the first time that the mechanism can play an important role in the pharmacological treatment of patients, and it shows for the first time that variation in exposure to sunlight may affect the sensitivity of individuals to drugs.
ScienceDaily (Mar. 11, 2011) — A study from the Swedish medical university Karolinska Institutet has shown that the body's ability to break down medicines may be closely related to exposure to sunlight, and thus may vary with the seasons. The findings offer a completely new model to explain individual differences in the effects of drugs, and how the surroundings can influence the body's ability to deal with toxins.
The study will be published in the scientific journal Drug Metabolism & Disposition and is based on nearly 70,000 analyses from patients who have undergone regular monitoring of the levels of drugs in their blood. The drugs taken by these patients are used to suppress the immune system in association with organ transplants. Samples taken during the winter months were compared with those taken late in the summer.
A more detailed analysis showed that the concentrations of drugs such as tacrolimus and sirolimus, which are used to prevent rejection following transplantation, vary throughout the year in a manner that closely reflects changes in the level of vitamin D in the body. The ability of the body to form vitamin D depends on sunlight, and the highest levels in the patients taking part in the study were reached during that part of the year when the levels of the drugs were lowest.
The connection between sunlight, vitamin D and variations in drug concentration is believed to arise from the activation by vitamin D of the detoxification system of the liver by increasing the amount of an enzyme known as CYP3A4. This enzyme, in turn, is responsible for the breakdown of tacrolimus and sirolimus.
"If the breakdown capacity increases, then higher doses of a drug are normally required in order to achieve the same effect. More research will be needed to confirm the results, but CYP3A4 is considered to be the most important enzyme in drug turnover in the body, and the results may have significance for many drugs," says Jonatan Lindh at the Department of Laboratory Medicine and one of the scientists who carried out the study.
The effects of vitamin D on CYP3A4 have previously been demonstrated in experiments in cell cultures. But the study now to be published shows for the first time that the mechanism can play an important role in the pharmacological treatment of patients, and it shows for the first time that variation in exposure to sunlight may affect the sensitivity of individuals to drugs.
Read More


Vaccines and autism: a new scientific review

For all those who've declared the autism-vaccine debate over - a new scientific review begs to differ. It considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and autism.
The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review." The author is Helen Ratajczak, surprisingly herself a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. Ratajczak did what nobody else apparently has bothered to do: she reviewed the body of published science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury preservative thimerosal; but all of them.
Ratajczak's article states, in part, that "Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis [brain damage] following vaccination [emphasis added]. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain."
The article goes on to discuss many potential vaccine-related culprits, including the increasing number of vaccines given in a short period of time. "What I have published is highly concentrated on hypersensitivity, Ratajczak told us in an interview, "the body's immune system being thrown out of balance."
University of Pennsylvania's Dr. Brian Strom, who has served on Institute of Medicine panels advising the government on vaccine safety says the prevailing medical opinion is that vaccines are scientifically linked to encephalopathy (brain damage), but not scientifically linked to autism. As for Ratajczak's review, he told us he doesn't find it remarkable. "This is a review of theories. Science is based on facts. To draw conclusions on effects of an exposure on people, you need data on people. The data on people do not support that there is a relationship. As such, any speculation about an explanation for a (non-existing) relationship is irrelevant."
Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn't been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That's right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.
Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: "Because it's human DNA and recipients are humans, there's homologous recombinaltion tiniker. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it's changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it's an ongoing inflammation. It doesn't stop, it continues through the life of that individual."
Dr. Strom said he was unaware that human DNA was contained in vaccines but told us, "It does not matter...Even if human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause autism." Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is still open.
A number of independent scientists have said they've been subjected to orchestrated campaigns to discredit them when their research exposed vaccine safety issues, especially if it veered into the topic of autism. We asked Ratajczak how she came to research the controversial topic. She told us that for years while working in the pharmaceutical industry, she was restricted as to what she was allowed to publish. "I'm retired now," she told CBS News. "I can write what I want."
We wanted to see if the CDC wished to challenge Ratajczak's review, since many government officials and scientists have implied that theories linking vaccines to autism have been disproven, and Ratajczak states that research shows otherwise. CDC officials told us that "comprehensive review by CDC...would take quite a bit of time." In the meantime, CDC provided these links:
Interagency Autism Coordination Committee: http://iacc.hhs.gov 
Overview of all CDC surveillance and epi work: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/research.html
CDC study on risk factors and causes: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/seed.html

For all those who've declared the autism-vaccine debate over - a new scientific review begs to differ. It considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and autism.
The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review." The author is Helen Ratajczak, surprisingly herself a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. Ratajczak did what nobody else apparently has bothered to do: she reviewed the body of published science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury preservative thimerosal; but all of them.
Ratajczak's article states, in part, that "Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis [brain damage] following vaccination [emphasis added]. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain."
The article goes on to discuss many potential vaccine-related culprits, including the increasing number of vaccines given in a short period of time. "What I have published is highly concentrated on hypersensitivity, Ratajczak told us in an interview, "the body's immune system being thrown out of balance."
University of Pennsylvania's Dr. Brian Strom, who has served on Institute of Medicine panels advising the government on vaccine safety says the prevailing medical opinion is that vaccines are scientifically linked to encephalopathy (brain damage), but not scientifically linked to autism. As for Ratajczak's review, he told us he doesn't find it remarkable. "This is a review of theories. Science is based on facts. To draw conclusions on effects of an exposure on people, you need data on people. The data on people do not support that there is a relationship. As such, any speculation about an explanation for a (non-existing) relationship is irrelevant."
Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn't been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That's right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.
Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage? The way Ratajczak explained it to me: "Because it's human DNA and recipients are humans, there's homologous recombinaltion tiniker. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it's changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it's an ongoing inflammation. It doesn't stop, it continues through the life of that individual."
Dr. Strom said he was unaware that human DNA was contained in vaccines but told us, "It does not matter...Even if human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause autism." Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is still open.
A number of independent scientists have said they've been subjected to orchestrated campaigns to discredit them when their research exposed vaccine safety issues, especially if it veered into the topic of autism. We asked Ratajczak how she came to research the controversial topic. She told us that for years while working in the pharmaceutical industry, she was restricted as to what she was allowed to publish. "I'm retired now," she told CBS News. "I can write what I want."
We wanted to see if the CDC wished to challenge Ratajczak's review, since many government officials and scientists have implied that theories linking vaccines to autism have been disproven, and Ratajczak states that research shows otherwise. CDC officials told us that "comprehensive review by CDC...would take quite a bit of time." In the meantime, CDC provided these links:
Interagency Autism Coordination Committee: http://iacc.hhs.gov 
Overview of all CDC surveillance and epi work: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/research.html
CDC study on risk factors and causes: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/seed.html

Read More


How Western Diets Are Making The World Sick

March 24, 2011
In an essay published last November in Canada's Maisonneuve journal, physician Kevin Patterson described his experiences working as an internist-intensivist at the Canadian Combat Surgical Hospital in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
One detail he noticed: The Afghan soldiers, police and civilians he treated in Kandahar had radically different bodies from those of the Canadians he took care of back home.
"Typical Afghan civilians and soldiers would have been 140 pounds or so as adults. And when we operated on them, what we were aware of was the absence of any fat or any adipose tissue underneath the skin," Patterson says. "Of course, when we operated on Canadians or Americans or Europeans, what was normal was to have most of the organs encased in fat. It had a visceral potency to it when you could see it directly there."
In a conversation on Fresh Air, Patterson tells Terry Gross that the effects of urbanization are making people everywhere in the world both fatter and sicker.
"Type 2 diabetes historically didn't exist, only 70 or 80 years ago," says Patterson. "And what's driven it, of course, is this rise in obesity, especially the accumulation of abdominal fat. That fat induces changes in our receptors that cells have for insulin. Basically, it makes them numb to the effect of insulin."
For a long time, the human body can compensate — the pancreas secretes even larger amounts of insulin, which regulates blood sugar levels. But over time, the pancreas begins to fail to secrete enough insulin, and that is when diabetes develops.
He explains that the increase in abdominal fat has driven the epidemic of diabetes over the last 40 years in the developed world — and that he's now seeing similar patterns in undeveloped regions that have adapted Western eating patterns.
Patterson explains that in his Canadian practice, where he takes care of indigenous populations near the Arctic Circle, there is a marked increase in the number of diabetic patients he sees.
"The traditional Inuit culture of relentless motion and a traditional diet consisting mainly of caribou, Arctic char, whale and seal has been abandoned over this period of time for Kentucky Fried Chicken and processed food and living a life very similar to ours," he says. "[They're] spending a lot of time in front of a glowing screen."
Part of the problem, says Patterson, is that it's so much cheaper for processed food to be flown into the Arctic Circle than fresh food.
"There's no roads or rail access to any of those communities," he says. "So a 4 liter jug of milk can cost you $10 or $11. But there's a very clear parallel between that and the inner city. In poorer neighborhoods in North American cities, fresh food is either not available or extremely expensive compared to — on a calorie-by-calorie basis — compared to fast food available on every street corner."
And the diabetes epidemic correlates to a strain on health care systems around the globe, says Patterson.
"No country in the world has the resources to continue to treat diabetics the way that they're being treated now, if the prevalence rates increase at the rates that they're increasing for much longer," he says. "I worked in Saipan, which is in the Marianas Island in the Pacific, and there, the dialysis population was increasing at about 18 percent a year, all as a consequence of diabetes and acculturation — exactly the same process as what's going on with the Inuit.
"When you look at the curves, it's clear how unsustainable it is. In 20 or 30 years, everybody on that island will either be a dialysis patient or a dialysis nurse unless something fundamental is done about the rise in diabetes. That's no less true in Canada and in Samoa and Hawaii, and even in Omaha and Toronto. We all have exactly the same problem when we plot out those curves."
Patterson fictionalized his experiences working with the Inuit in Canada in his novel, Consumption, about an Inuit woman who spends her teen years in a sanitarium. His other books include Outside the Wire: The War in Afghanistan in the Words of its Participants and the short story collectionCountry of Cold, which won the Rogers Writers' Trust Fiction Prize in 2003.
March 24, 2011
In an essay published last November in Canada's Maisonneuve journal, physician Kevin Patterson described his experiences working as an internist-intensivist at the Canadian Combat Surgical Hospital in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
One detail he noticed: The Afghan soldiers, police and civilians he treated in Kandahar had radically different bodies from those of the Canadians he took care of back home.
"Typical Afghan civilians and soldiers would have been 140 pounds or so as adults. And when we operated on them, what we were aware of was the absence of any fat or any adipose tissue underneath the skin," Patterson says. "Of course, when we operated on Canadians or Americans or Europeans, what was normal was to have most of the organs encased in fat. It had a visceral potency to it when you could see it directly there."
In a conversation on Fresh Air, Patterson tells Terry Gross that the effects of urbanization are making people everywhere in the world both fatter and sicker.
"Type 2 diabetes historically didn't exist, only 70 or 80 years ago," says Patterson. "And what's driven it, of course, is this rise in obesity, especially the accumulation of abdominal fat. That fat induces changes in our receptors that cells have for insulin. Basically, it makes them numb to the effect of insulin."
For a long time, the human body can compensate — the pancreas secretes even larger amounts of insulin, which regulates blood sugar levels. But over time, the pancreas begins to fail to secrete enough insulin, and that is when diabetes develops.
He explains that the increase in abdominal fat has driven the epidemic of diabetes over the last 40 years in the developed world — and that he's now seeing similar patterns in undeveloped regions that have adapted Western eating patterns.
Patterson explains that in his Canadian practice, where he takes care of indigenous populations near the Arctic Circle, there is a marked increase in the number of diabetic patients he sees.
"The traditional Inuit culture of relentless motion and a traditional diet consisting mainly of caribou, Arctic char, whale and seal has been abandoned over this period of time for Kentucky Fried Chicken and processed food and living a life very similar to ours," he says. "[They're] spending a lot of time in front of a glowing screen."
Part of the problem, says Patterson, is that it's so much cheaper for processed food to be flown into the Arctic Circle than fresh food.
"There's no roads or rail access to any of those communities," he says. "So a 4 liter jug of milk can cost you $10 or $11. But there's a very clear parallel between that and the inner city. In poorer neighborhoods in North American cities, fresh food is either not available or extremely expensive compared to — on a calorie-by-calorie basis — compared to fast food available on every street corner."
And the diabetes epidemic correlates to a strain on health care systems around the globe, says Patterson.
"No country in the world has the resources to continue to treat diabetics the way that they're being treated now, if the prevalence rates increase at the rates that they're increasing for much longer," he says. "I worked in Saipan, which is in the Marianas Island in the Pacific, and there, the dialysis population was increasing at about 18 percent a year, all as a consequence of diabetes and acculturation — exactly the same process as what's going on with the Inuit.
"When you look at the curves, it's clear how unsustainable it is. In 20 or 30 years, everybody on that island will either be a dialysis patient or a dialysis nurse unless something fundamental is done about the rise in diabetes. That's no less true in Canada and in Samoa and Hawaii, and even in Omaha and Toronto. We all have exactly the same problem when we plot out those curves."
Patterson fictionalized his experiences working with the Inuit in Canada in his novel, Consumption, about an Inuit woman who spends her teen years in a sanitarium. His other books include Outside the Wire: The War in Afghanistan in the Words of its Participants and the short story collectionCountry of Cold, which won the Rogers Writers' Trust Fiction Prize in 2003.
Read More


Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Interpretation of Feline Blood Smears


Often in emergency room settings, the staff and clinicians must evaluate blood smears on site as part of a complete blood cell count in order to have timely results. The goal of this study was to compare results by emergency room personnel (ERP) with those received from trained clinical pathologists and automated assessment equipment. Results of 155 blood smears collected at an emergency clinic from 2008-2009 were compared. Platelet counts had moderate agreement, but white blood cell counts had poor agreement. Changes in cellular morphology, such as toxic changes, blood parasites, and blood progenitor cells were not predictably recognized by ERP. The investigators concluded that interpretation of blood smears at emergency clinics can supplement, but should not replace, evaluation at a diagnostic laboratory. [MK]

Related articles:
Becker M, Moritz A, Giger U: Comparative clinical study of canine and feline total blood cell count results with seven in-clinic and two commercial laboratory hematology analyzers, Vet Clin Pathol 37:373, 2008.

More on cat health: Winn Feline Foundation Library
Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Often in emergency room settings, the staff and clinicians must evaluate blood smears on site as part of a complete blood cell count in order to have timely results. The goal of this study was to compare results by emergency room personnel (ERP) with those received from trained clinical pathologists and automated assessment equipment. Results of 155 blood smears collected at an emergency clinic from 2008-2009 were compared. Platelet counts had moderate agreement, but white blood cell counts had poor agreement. Changes in cellular morphology, such as toxic changes, blood parasites, and blood progenitor cells were not predictably recognized by ERP. The investigators concluded that interpretation of blood smears at emergency clinics can supplement, but should not replace, evaluation at a diagnostic laboratory. [MK]

Related articles:
Becker M, Moritz A, Giger U: Comparative clinical study of canine and feline total blood cell count results with seven in-clinic and two commercial laboratory hematology analyzers, Vet Clin Pathol 37:373, 2008.

More on cat health: Winn Feline Foundation Library
Join us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Read More


Monday, March 28, 2011

The Hidden Diabetes Link No One is Telling You About...

Coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death in the United States, killing one in five adults, and doctors are very quick to prescribe statins. In fact, statin drug sales rank in the billions each year globally.
These drugs are so pervasive that they are no longer just indicated for hypercholesterolemia, they are also being prescribed for elevations in C reactive protein, and are promoted for kids as young as eight years old.
Heart disease is so pervasive that some have boldly suggested that we should put statins in our water supply as some kind of protection.
This is very disturbing.

Do You Really Need a Statin Drug?

By far, statin drugs are the most popular cholesterol-lowering drugs available today. They work in your liver by preventing your body from making cholesterol. The drugs block an enzyme called HMG-CoA Reductase. This can be helpful, but only if you are one of those people who happen to produce too much cholesterol.
It doesn't do a good job at removing it from your clogged arteries, contrary to what most people think.
Physicians and health experts now agree that statins seem to offer more benefit through their ability to reduce dangerous inflammatory chemicals in your body, rather than by reducing production of cholesterol, which usually leads to uncomfortable, unwanted and dangerous side effects. One study found that lowering cholesterol too much actually backfires.
Cholesterol is good for you; it's one of your body's most powerful antioxidants, it makes important neurotransmitters and sex hormones so this madness to lower it as much as possible really concerns me. Plus, I believe the indiscriminate use of statins has contributed to the staggering rise in diabetes…

The Statin—Diabetes Connection Few People Know About

I watched this happen to my mom who was given a statin, and then told months later she suddenly had diabetes. All of a sudden? This happened many years ago, and it began my search to understand the connection. It also prompted me to write a book on the subject entitled "Diabetes Without Drugs" (Rodale, 2010).
It typically happens like this:
Many statin users come back to see their physician for a routine visit and after the blood work is drawn, they find their cholesterol ratios may be improved, but now they have high blood glucose.
It's entirely possible that some physicians then mistakenly diagnose their patients with "Type 2 diabetes" when in fact they just have hyperglycemia—a side effect, and the result of a medication that was prescribed to them months earlier.
Do you think you have type 2 diabetes?
I will provide more information so you can see for yourself that so-called "diabetes" diagnosis might not really be genuine diabetes. It may just be hyperglycemia (high blood sugar)—the result of your cholesterol medication, and for some people, it may be reversible with drug discontinuation. Whether or not you are able to discontinue your medication is between you and your physician.

Research Suggesting Raised Blood Sugar is a Side Effect of Statin Use

Several studies have indicated that statins can cause high blood sugar, which can be mistaken for "diabetes." For example, researchers in Glasgow, Scotland conducted a meta analysis, known as the JUPITER trial, which took into account 13 statin trials that each included 1,000 patients or more. The participants were followed for over than a year. The conclusion was there was indeed an increase, albeit small, in the development of Type 2 diabetes.
It should be considered that some of the patients in this meta analysis already had symptoms of insulin resistance or metabolic syndrome, so it could be said that they were on their way to diabetes anyway.
Now consider another meta-analysis published in the Lancet Here, the researchers reviewed randomized controlled trials beginning in 1994 and ending in 2009, for a total of 91,140 participants who took either a statin or a placebo.
They found that people treated with statin drugs showed a nine percent increase for diabetes. They did not evaluate other factors however, which would be considered pre-diabetes, so I suspect their nine percent number to be on the low side.
Insulin is a pancreatic hormone that reduces blood sugar. You want some insulin to maintain blood glucose levels, but too much of it is bad—it's an inflammatory compound in your body when it is elevated. And guess what? The use of statin drugs appears to INCREASE your insulin levels! High insulin is extremely harmful to your health.
For starters, elevated insulin levels lead to heart disease, and isn't that the reason cholesterol drugs are prescribed in the first place?
The ratio of glucose to insulin should be less than 10:1, this ratio is far more important than the levels of glucose or insulin alone. Keep that in mind if you seek a complete recovery. For more information about the harmful effects of elevated insulin levels, see my article on dearpharmacist.com, or my book Diabetes Without Drugs.
You want to keep insulin normal, to protect yourself from heart disease and high blood pressure. Chronically elevated insulin causes a cascade of inflammatory chemicals and high cortisol which lead to belly fat, high blood pressure, heart attacks, chronic fatigue, thyroid disruption, plus major diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and cancer.
Unfortunately, the most popular cholesterol drugs in the world seem to increase insulin levels. However, that's just one mechanism by which these drugs can raise your risk for diabetes.

How Statins Raise Your Insulin

Keeping things simple, you might imagine it like this: When you eat a meal that contains starches and sugar, some of the excess sugar goes to your liver, which then stores it away as cholesterol and triglycerides. Now stay with me -- when you have a statin on board, it's like a message to your liver saying, "No! Don't make any more cholesterol, please stop."
So your liver sends the sugar back OUT to your bloodstream. As a result, your blood sugar goes up.
In 2009, it was proven that statins could directly raise blood sugar, whether or not you have diabetes. Over 340,000 people were included before this conclusion was made. The people who did not have diabetes but took statins experienced a rise in blood glucose from 98 mg/dl to 105 mg/dl. Those who already had diabetes and also took statins experienced a rise from 102 mg/dl to 141 mg/dl.
After adjustments for age and medication use were considered, researchers concluded that both diabetic and non-diabetic statin users showed a statistically significant rise in blood sugar.
Why take all these risks, just to get the convenience of taking a pill instead of eating a better diet and exercising?
It's been scientifically discussed and even published in JAMA that eating a better diet could lower cholesterol as well as the statin drug lovastatin.
And of course, there are so many other benefits to eating a healthier diet that consists of fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and lean meats. Besides feeling better and increasing lifespan, you can squeeze into those skinny jeans you're hiding in your closet.
Another way statins can affect your blood sugar is via their "drug mugging" effect. A drug mugger is my term, and the title of my newest book, which describes how a drug can rob your body's warehouse of a valuable nutrient. In the case of statins, they rob your body of two different nutrients, both of which are needed to maintain ideal blood sugar.

Two Important Nutrients Decimated by Statins

The first nutrient that is mugged is vitamin D. There have been mixed studies regarding the D-depletion effect of statins, but statins reduce your body's natural ability to create active vitamin D called 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, shortened to "calcitriol" when it is eventually converted to its active hormone form.
This happens because statins reduce cholesterol, and you need cholesterol to make vitamin D! It is the raw material that exposure to UVB from sunlight will convert to vitamin D.
It is well documented that D improves insulin resistance, so needless to say, when you take a drug mugger of vitamin D (like statins), then you increase your risk for diabetes.
More specifically, a 2004 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition determined that raising a person's serum vitamin D levels (from 25 to 75 nmol/l) could improve insulin sensitivity by a whopping 60 percent.
Compare that to the blockbuster diabetes drug metformin, one of our pharmaceutical gold-standards, which can dispose of blood sugar by a meager 13 percent according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
Now, statins also suppresses your natural coenzyme Q10— also called "ubiquinol" in its active form; it makes energy for every cell in your body, and it's produced mainly in your liver.
This powerful antioxidant just so happens to also play a role in maintaining blood glucose. When you deplete levels of CoQ10 by taking a drug mugger of it, like a statin drug, then you lose that benefit. You also raise your risk for heart failure, high blood pressure and heart disease as CoQ10 deficiencies can contribute to those conditions. A study by Hodgson et al, published in 2002 found that 200mg CoQ10 taken daily caused a 0.4 percent reduction in hemoglobin A1c.
Moreover, CoQ10 protects your body from oxidative stress, a strong contributing factor in the development of diabetes, metabolic syndrome and heart attacks. You want to make sure you have enough CoQ10 (or ubiquinol) on board to protect every cell in your body. The take home point is that statins annihilate this compound and you need it for good health.
In summary, if you take a statin medication and you've been told that you have diabetes, it may be drug-induced, and it's possible that it can be reversed over the course of time. However, you will have to eat right, exercise, and take supplements that help to lower your risk for heart disease naturally.
About the Author
Suzy Cohen, R.Ph., has been a licensed pharmacist for 22 years, and has had a weekly syndicated health column for the past 13 years which you can get for free by signing up at her website Widely recognized as "America's most trusted pharmacist," she has appeared on The Dr OZ Show, The View, Good Morning America Health and The 700 Club.
For more information, see www.SuzyCohen.com.
Coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death in the United States, killing one in five adults, and doctors are very quick to prescribe statins. In fact, statin drug sales rank in the billions each year globally.
These drugs are so pervasive that they are no longer just indicated for hypercholesterolemia, they are also being prescribed for elevations in C reactive protein, and are promoted for kids as young as eight years old.
Heart disease is so pervasive that some have boldly suggested that we should put statins in our water supply as some kind of protection.
This is very disturbing.

Do You Really Need a Statin Drug?

By far, statin drugs are the most popular cholesterol-lowering drugs available today. They work in your liver by preventing your body from making cholesterol. The drugs block an enzyme called HMG-CoA Reductase. This can be helpful, but only if you are one of those people who happen to produce too much cholesterol.
It doesn't do a good job at removing it from your clogged arteries, contrary to what most people think.
Physicians and health experts now agree that statins seem to offer more benefit through their ability to reduce dangerous inflammatory chemicals in your body, rather than by reducing production of cholesterol, which usually leads to uncomfortable, unwanted and dangerous side effects. One study found that lowering cholesterol too much actually backfires.
Cholesterol is good for you; it's one of your body's most powerful antioxidants, it makes important neurotransmitters and sex hormones so this madness to lower it as much as possible really concerns me. Plus, I believe the indiscriminate use of statins has contributed to the staggering rise in diabetes…

The Statin—Diabetes Connection Few People Know About

I watched this happen to my mom who was given a statin, and then told months later she suddenly had diabetes. All of a sudden? This happened many years ago, and it began my search to understand the connection. It also prompted me to write a book on the subject entitled "Diabetes Without Drugs" (Rodale, 2010).
It typically happens like this:
Many statin users come back to see their physician for a routine visit and after the blood work is drawn, they find their cholesterol ratios may be improved, but now they have high blood glucose.
It's entirely possible that some physicians then mistakenly diagnose their patients with "Type 2 diabetes" when in fact they just have hyperglycemia—a side effect, and the result of a medication that was prescribed to them months earlier.
Do you think you have type 2 diabetes?
I will provide more information so you can see for yourself that so-called "diabetes" diagnosis might not really be genuine diabetes. It may just be hyperglycemia (high blood sugar)—the result of your cholesterol medication, and for some people, it may be reversible with drug discontinuation. Whether or not you are able to discontinue your medication is between you and your physician.

Research Suggesting Raised Blood Sugar is a Side Effect of Statin Use

Several studies have indicated that statins can cause high blood sugar, which can be mistaken for "diabetes." For example, researchers in Glasgow, Scotland conducted a meta analysis, known as the JUPITER trial, which took into account 13 statin trials that each included 1,000 patients or more. The participants were followed for over than a year. The conclusion was there was indeed an increase, albeit small, in the development of Type 2 diabetes.
It should be considered that some of the patients in this meta analysis already had symptoms of insulin resistance or metabolic syndrome, so it could be said that they were on their way to diabetes anyway.
Now consider another meta-analysis published in the Lancet Here, the researchers reviewed randomized controlled trials beginning in 1994 and ending in 2009, for a total of 91,140 participants who took either a statin or a placebo.
They found that people treated with statin drugs showed a nine percent increase for diabetes. They did not evaluate other factors however, which would be considered pre-diabetes, so I suspect their nine percent number to be on the low side.
Insulin is a pancreatic hormone that reduces blood sugar. You want some insulin to maintain blood glucose levels, but too much of it is bad—it's an inflammatory compound in your body when it is elevated. And guess what? The use of statin drugs appears to INCREASE your insulin levels! High insulin is extremely harmful to your health.
For starters, elevated insulin levels lead to heart disease, and isn't that the reason cholesterol drugs are prescribed in the first place?
The ratio of glucose to insulin should be less than 10:1, this ratio is far more important than the levels of glucose or insulin alone. Keep that in mind if you seek a complete recovery. For more information about the harmful effects of elevated insulin levels, see my article on dearpharmacist.com, or my book Diabetes Without Drugs.
You want to keep insulin normal, to protect yourself from heart disease and high blood pressure. Chronically elevated insulin causes a cascade of inflammatory chemicals and high cortisol which lead to belly fat, high blood pressure, heart attacks, chronic fatigue, thyroid disruption, plus major diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and cancer.
Unfortunately, the most popular cholesterol drugs in the world seem to increase insulin levels. However, that's just one mechanism by which these drugs can raise your risk for diabetes.

How Statins Raise Your Insulin

Keeping things simple, you might imagine it like this: When you eat a meal that contains starches and sugar, some of the excess sugar goes to your liver, which then stores it away as cholesterol and triglycerides. Now stay with me -- when you have a statin on board, it's like a message to your liver saying, "No! Don't make any more cholesterol, please stop."
So your liver sends the sugar back OUT to your bloodstream. As a result, your blood sugar goes up.
In 2009, it was proven that statins could directly raise blood sugar, whether or not you have diabetes. Over 340,000 people were included before this conclusion was made. The people who did not have diabetes but took statins experienced a rise in blood glucose from 98 mg/dl to 105 mg/dl. Those who already had diabetes and also took statins experienced a rise from 102 mg/dl to 141 mg/dl.
After adjustments for age and medication use were considered, researchers concluded that both diabetic and non-diabetic statin users showed a statistically significant rise in blood sugar.
Why take all these risks, just to get the convenience of taking a pill instead of eating a better diet and exercising?
It's been scientifically discussed and even published in JAMA that eating a better diet could lower cholesterol as well as the statin drug lovastatin.
And of course, there are so many other benefits to eating a healthier diet that consists of fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and lean meats. Besides feeling better and increasing lifespan, you can squeeze into those skinny jeans you're hiding in your closet.
Another way statins can affect your blood sugar is via their "drug mugging" effect. A drug mugger is my term, and the title of my newest book, which describes how a drug can rob your body's warehouse of a valuable nutrient. In the case of statins, they rob your body of two different nutrients, both of which are needed to maintain ideal blood sugar.

Two Important Nutrients Decimated by Statins

The first nutrient that is mugged is vitamin D. There have been mixed studies regarding the D-depletion effect of statins, but statins reduce your body's natural ability to create active vitamin D called 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, shortened to "calcitriol" when it is eventually converted to its active hormone form.
This happens because statins reduce cholesterol, and you need cholesterol to make vitamin D! It is the raw material that exposure to UVB from sunlight will convert to vitamin D.
It is well documented that D improves insulin resistance, so needless to say, when you take a drug mugger of vitamin D (like statins), then you increase your risk for diabetes.
More specifically, a 2004 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition determined that raising a person's serum vitamin D levels (from 25 to 75 nmol/l) could improve insulin sensitivity by a whopping 60 percent.
Compare that to the blockbuster diabetes drug metformin, one of our pharmaceutical gold-standards, which can dispose of blood sugar by a meager 13 percent according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
Now, statins also suppresses your natural coenzyme Q10— also called "ubiquinol" in its active form; it makes energy for every cell in your body, and it's produced mainly in your liver.
This powerful antioxidant just so happens to also play a role in maintaining blood glucose. When you deplete levels of CoQ10 by taking a drug mugger of it, like a statin drug, then you lose that benefit. You also raise your risk for heart failure, high blood pressure and heart disease as CoQ10 deficiencies can contribute to those conditions. A study by Hodgson et al, published in 2002 found that 200mg CoQ10 taken daily caused a 0.4 percent reduction in hemoglobin A1c.
Moreover, CoQ10 protects your body from oxidative stress, a strong contributing factor in the development of diabetes, metabolic syndrome and heart attacks. You want to make sure you have enough CoQ10 (or ubiquinol) on board to protect every cell in your body. The take home point is that statins annihilate this compound and you need it for good health.
In summary, if you take a statin medication and you've been told that you have diabetes, it may be drug-induced, and it's possible that it can be reversed over the course of time. However, you will have to eat right, exercise, and take supplements that help to lower your risk for heart disease naturally.
About the Author
Suzy Cohen, R.Ph., has been a licensed pharmacist for 22 years, and has had a weekly syndicated health column for the past 13 years which you can get for free by signing up at her website Widely recognized as "America's most trusted pharmacist," she has appeared on The Dr OZ Show, The View, Good Morning America Health and The 700 Club.
For more information, see www.SuzyCohen.com.
Read More