To be or not to be vegetarian

I am frequently asked “Should I be a vegetarian?” A 60 years old female, recently diagnosed with breast cancer, told me she’d read that a vegetarian diet is superior for fighting cancer. She came to my office seeking advice.

As a naturopath I see in my practice long standing vegetarians, resent converts, and people who have simply decided to eat a diet rich in vegetables for health reasons. Vegetarianism is not for everybody! Before you go vegetarian you must do some study of nutrition, anatomy and physiology to understand what is involved. Here are few topics to ponder:

1. Learn about “junky” vegetarians, but do not become one yourself. Often people who eliminate meat tend to eat more pasta, bread, cheese, cakes, sodas and other processed foods. You have to understand that processed foods lack vitamins, minerals and protein, but are high in simple carbohydrates, and thus can be harmful to your health in the long run. Be sure to understand why! Learn about main sources of protein in our diet, such as meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, nuts, seeds, rice and beans. Learn about complex carbohydrates and why they are better than simple carbs. Learn about omega3, 6 and 9, and good fat vs. bad. This is all just basic nutrition.

2. All the food that you eat is broken down into smallest particles in our digestive tract. For example, proteins are broken down into amino acids. Those amino acids are absorbed into the blood stream and become building blocks for our own protein. To understand how protein is absorbed from your diet, you must learn about saliva, teeth, stomach, small and large intestine and understand how the health of this last organ in particular affects digestion and absorption of all nutrients. If any part of the digestive tract is not healthy, being vegetarian can compromise your health.

3. Vegetarians tend to be deficient in Vitamin B12, because the best source of Vitamin B12 is meat. B12 is key to a healthy nervous system and deficiencies can result in permanent damage to peripheral nerves. Vitamin B12 also helps with synthesis of DNA during cell division. Lack of B12 causes formation of abnormal cells, which eventually leads to anemia. Legumes such as lentils and peas have limited amount of amino acids Tryptophan and Methionine. Vegetarians must know a little physiology to understand how these amino acids are used in our body to build complete proteins. Although it is easy to diagnose Vitamin B12 deficiency, a deficiency of amino acids is more difficult to pin point and treat.

At the end of the appointment with my 60 year old patient, we agreed that for now she will have 2-3 vegetarian days a week, and in the meanwhile will learn some nutrition, anatomy and physiology. She can start to experiment and have fun exploring new ways to cook. Later she can decide if a complete vegetarian diet is right for her.

More about → To be or not to be vegetarian

How Do You Treat Chronic Yeast Infections? - Anyone Who Has Experienced Such Infections?

I have a chronic yeast infection in my genitals and I have been using Nizoral cream for the past one week to treat the infection but there is no improvement so far. Does it usually take time to clear? Has anyone used such cream to treat yeast infection? How do you treat chronic yeast infections?

If you read around on the internet, you will find a lot of people who want to treat and get rid of their yeast infection. The above question was asked by someone who has recurrent and chronic yeast infection and wants to know how to get rid of it. You will find some effective ways in this article that I used to treat my yeast infection and stop it from coming back.

To start with, if you have seen no improvement with your current yeast infection medication it is best to try a different treatment. Garlic naturally kills yeast and fungus. Cut a garlic clove in half and drink in water in the morning, then at night chop a garlic clove into smaller pieces and do the same thing. Do this for two weeks even if the infection goes away. Then after two weeks start taking a probiotic supplement along with oregano oil (2 drops in water in morning and night) you can get these at a health food store. They will prevent the infection from coming back. Take these for 2 weeks also. I also take non-scented garlic pills everyday (one a day) that I bought at the drug store/ Walmart and I haven't had one for 8 months now. If I was you I would try them.

You have to treat your gut because this is where a yeast infection starts. The cream will not work alone for this reason. If you want to try a natural approach you can start with acidophiles yogurt - eat a tub each day. There is also yakult which you drink each day. Try to avoid too many yeast products, like bread & beer. If it doesn't improve after a week, there are many over the counter treatments from a pharmacy, either oral tablets or pessaries. Also, wear only cotton underwear, no nylon till it clears up.

Yogurt that contains live probiotics is effective in treating yeast infections because it balances out the normal flora in the vagina. When you take antibiotics for a bacterial infection (among other causes) it disrupts the normal flora all through the body. To treat with yogurt, all you do is just apply a small amount inside the vagina with an applicator or your hands. I would recommend doing this at night before bed as it could get a little messy.

A good way also used to treat or ease the pains caused by yeast infections is this: Buy the baby wash powder "Dreft" in the pink box and make a bubble bath. Soak every night and as needed to decrease the itching during severe infections. My aunt says they used to tell them to use a small amount in a douche also to ease the infection.

There's however a better, faster and more effective way to get rid of yeast infections! This is a secret method that actually worked for me. I've recommended this method to so many of my friends and loved ones and they all ended up treating their yeast infections for good! The method I'm talking about is outlined with step-by-step instructions in Linda Allen's Yeast Infection No More Program. Do you want to completely treat your yeast infection and stop if from ever returning?

More about → How Do You Treat Chronic Yeast Infections? - Anyone Who Has Experienced Such Infections?

Preventing Osteoporosis through Diet

Osteoporosis is a very severe condition which causes bone loss. It is important to know about it and take precautions in order to avoid it because it could cause a lot of pain and problems. Reduction of bone density with age is a normal phenomenon but some people end up losing a lot of bone density in comparison. Thankfully there are ways to reduce such chances and the best way is to ensure you are eating a healthy diet.

1. Calcium: Calcium is very important for bones. There is a balance in the body between the amount of calcium used and lost. If the balance is disturbed and you start losing a lot of calcium. The problem is that the body does not produce calcium. It gets calcium from diet and hence your diet should be calcium rich. This is why you should include dairy products such as milk, cheese and yogurt in your diet along with tofu, almonds, orange juice and cereals.

2. Protein: After calcium, proteins are the most essential nutrients for your bones. Seeds, nuts, dairy products, meat, fish, poultry, peas, dry beans and eggs are rich in protein.

3. Other nutrients: Vitamin D is important because it aids calcium absorption. Vitamins A, C, iron, copper, fluoride, zinc and magnesium are help in preventing bone loss. For vitamin D, you may take vitamin D supplements, liver, saltwater fish and egg yolks. For the others, you could eat whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds and meats.

More about → Preventing Osteoporosis through Diet

Ve Have Vays of Making You Talk, Part VII: Begging the Question

In Part I of this post, I discussed why family members hate to discuss their chronic repetitive ongoing interpersonal difficulties with each other (metacommunication), and the problems that usually ensue whenever they try.

I discussed the most common avoidance strategy - merely changing the subject (#1) - and suggested effective countermoves to keep a constructive conversation on track. In Part II, I discussed strategies #2 and #3, nitpicking and accusations of overgeneralizing respectively. In Part III, I discussed strategy #4, blame shifting. In Part IV, strategy #5, fatalism.

This post is the third in a series about strategy #6, the use of irrational arguments (previously: non sequiturs; post hoc reasoning). Descriptions of this strategy have been subdivided into several posts because, in order to counter irrational arguments, one first has to recognize them. I will hold off describing strategies to counter the irrational arguments until after I have finished describing some of the most common types.

Irrational arguments are used in metacommunication to throw other people. Listeners either become confused about, or unsure of the validity of, any point they are trying to make or question they are trying to ask. Fallacious arguments are also frequently used to avoid divulging an individual's real motives for taking or having taken certain actions.

The third major logical fallacy I will describe is begging the question. A person begging the question merely insists that an assertion is proved without offering any proof at all. If someone offers some evidence that the assertion is false, the beggar states that the evidence must be incorrect. After all, since the assertion is true, any evidence to the contrary must be faulty.

It might seem that the absurdity of this kind of reasoning should be quite ob­vious when it occurs, but it can be quite subtle. Often an inter­vening argument for the questionable assertion is made by the beggar, which is then refuted by the disputer. The beggar then goes on to offer yet another argument, which in turn is refuted. This process continues until the beggar suddenly announces that he or she has won the case - by ignoring all of the previously refuted arguments and merely re-offering the initial unproved assertion.

I first truly understood this process one day in college when I caught myself doing it. I was engaged in a friendly argu­ment with a fellow student over the relative merits of the space program during the sixties. My friend took the position that going to the moon was a complete waste of money, because there were important human needs here on earth for which the money could be used. I was and am of the opinion that scien­tific knowledge is valuable for its own sake, but at the time I was unable to formulate a convincing argument for that posi­tion. Instead, I advanced the oft-used argument that the space program had yielded important scientific by-products, such as Teflon, that were quite useful here on earth.

He countered that Teflon could have been invented for far less money by doing research on nonstick surfaces instead of moon flights. I then countered with, "But this way, we also get to the moon!"

Another time when begging the question was used on me was when I was a trainee (resident) in psychiatry. Back in the Stone Age when I trained, most of the faculty members were Freudian psychoanalysts. When anyone dared question psychoanalytic dogma, they were told that they needed to get into therapy to find out why they were "resistant" to the ideas. Of course, the concept of resistance is itself a psychoanalytic concept, so the statement was in fact begging the question of the validity of a psychoanalytic concept.

Interestingly, the analysts' short sentence contained not one but three logical fallacies. It was not only begging the question, but was also a non-sequitur (perhaps the person was questioning the dogma for some reason other than subconscious resistance), and a personal attack as well. Personal attacks, or ad hominem arguments, are another fallacy I will discuss in a future post.

Begging the question is a maneuver that occurs most often when people are being questioned about their motivation but do not wish to reveal the true reasons for their behavior to others - or perhaps even to themselves. They may assert that they behave in the way they do because that is how they truly wish to be­have or because they have no other options.

If listeners pre­sent evidence that the behavior seems to be something that is bringing them a great deal of grief or if they offer other options, beggars will then either just ignore what the other person has said, invalidate it by making a snide comment, engage in a game of "why-don't-you-yes-but," or begin the process of-making further refutable arguments and then returning to the initial assertion as if it had been justified.

A good example of begging the question occurred in the case of a poorly educated employee of a large manufacturing concern. Despite a horrendously abused childhood and a lack of formal schooling, he had managed to rise to a fairly responsible posi­tion with the firm. Then suddenly, through no fault of his own, the position was eliminated. Because of further bad luck com­plicated by his own aggravating behavior, he was gradually de­moted and shifted to a department that he despised, and continued to go downhill until he had become a glorified file clerk.

The more responsibilities were taken from him, the more upset he became. The more upset he became, the more poorly he per­formed in his job. The poorer the performance, the more re­sponsibility was taken from him, and so on. He felt that his supervisor wished to get rid of him because he was being paid far too much for his present position, but also believed that the supervisor was blocking his transfer to another department in which he might get a more responsible job.

I wondered why, if it were really true that he was unable to get out of the department and find a job with which he would be satisfied, he did not seek employment with a different firm. I conceded that such a move would be quite difficult considering his lack of education, but pointed out that he had not even at­tempted to look.

He replied that he did not wish to leave the firm. He stated that, in fact, he loved working for this company; it was just his department he despised. I pressed on. I pointed out that he had already told me that he could not get out of the department because of his mean supervisor. Why was it so important for him to stay with the same firm? He replied once again that he would not leave the firm because he loved working for it. The conversation went something like this:

"The firm seems to be very important to you. What is it about working for the firm that you love so much?"

"They've been very good to me."

"Well, they certainly have been good to you - in the past. At the moment, however, you've told me that they are not being very good to you at all."

"That is the department that is being bad to me. I have no complaint with the firm."

"I know that, but you have told me that you are stuck with the department. Don't you think you might find a differ­ent firm that you would also like?"

"Yes, I might be able to do that."

"So why are you so intent on staying with your present firm?”

"I want to get in twenty-five years with the firm."

"What makes that important?"

"It is important to my self-esteem" [a possible non sequi­tur that I let go].

"So you'll consider leaving when you have been there twenty-five years?"

“No.”

"So there must be another reason why you feel you must stay with the firm."

"I don't want to give my supervisors the satisfaction of driving me out." [This is another assertion that does not make very much sense. Why should avoiding making them smug be worth daily torture at their hands? I avoided touching on this also].

"Do you really think they care all that much?"

"Probably not."

"So why stay?"

"I've told you. The firm is very important to me. I love working for the firm. Okay?"

The last statement was, of course, merely a restatement of his initial position that did nothing whatever to shed light on why the firm was so important to him. This is exactly what is meant by begging the question.

More about → Ve Have Vays of Making You Talk, Part VII: Begging the Question

Assuming Facts Not in Evidence II - Sleeping Medications

One marketing technique used by big Pharma to mislead physicians is the engineering of a journey of ideas that have never been proven into the clinical lore as if they were established facts. So-called experts who are paid off by drug companies make presentations at continuing medical education conferences or write "review" articles for medical newspapers or throwaway journals in which they mention these so-called "facts."

In these situations, conditional phrases are said or written as a quick aside in order to leave the speakers and writers a loophole just in case a member of the audience challenges them about overstating their case. Should this happen, the speakers are then able to point to the conditional language they used and “remind” the audience that their use of this language indicates that they are not making spurious claims

Most of the time, however, no one in the audience will make such a challenge. The audience is left with a dangling implication that the statement is an established fact. The non-discerning physician comes away with the “take home lesson” that the assertion is true. Research has shown that most people only remember one or two salient points from a paper or an oral presentation anyway.

I have also written about how I suspect (but cannot prove), that drug companies begin to actively spread negative information and even disinformation about drugs as soon as most brand-named drugs in a certain class become available generically. As I wrote in my post of February 26, 2012:

Pharma-inspired or paid-off writers denigrate highly-effective drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) that just happen to have gone generic, in hopes that doctors will prescribe more expensive, potentially more toxic, and less effective brand-named drugs (particularly atypical antipsychotics).

It amazes me how drug companies have only now been releasing negative information (that had apparently been held back from the public previously) about SSRI anti-depressants -since they have been available since the mid-1980’s.

I had seen this sort of thing done before to a class of drugs called benzodiazepines, which are demonized as being far more addictive than they actually are. Interestingly, this demonization of the drugs started anew with the introduction of three new sleeping medications (Ambien, Lunesta, and Sonata) that, although slightly different in chemical structure than benzodiazepines, do exactly the same thing in the brain. (Ambien has gone generic, but Pharma sells a delayed-release version that is still brand named. As we shall see shortly, this type of formulation directly undermines one of their claims - that the new drugs are safer than the old ones).

Benzodiazepines include such popular drugs as Valium, Librium, Klonopin, Ativan, Xanax, Dalmane, and Restoril. Ambien, Lunesta, and Sonata are technically not benzodiazepines, but they might as well be. They are called non-benzodiazepine benzodiazepine receptor agonists. Loosely translated, this means that they affect the same nerve cells in exactly the same way as benzodiazepine benzodiazepine receptor agonists.

They offer no advantage in terms of addictive potential, side effects, or efficacy. In fact, they offer some real disadvantages. They are far more likely than the old benzo’s to cause people to do things in their sleep that they do not remember the next day, including cooking large meals and even driving significant distances! Also, if you take Ambien and force yourself to stay awake, you get really high.

As an aside, most of the public, and many physicians who should know better, believe that some benzodiazepines are tranquilizers, while others are sleeping pills. An old joke asks, “What is the difference between a tranquilizer and a sleeping pill?” The answer: marketing.

Most outrageously, the drug companies successfully lobbied the government to have benzodiazepines excluded from the Medicare drug benefit program – the only major class of drug so excluded – while not excluding the new, more expensive brand named sleepers! This law has finally been changed to allow for the old drugs, but that change will not take place for some time.

Pharma shills have fanned out to convince everyone that the new drugs are both safer and more effective than the old ones. With success. I frequently see physicians who seem to think that benzodiazepines are the scourge of the earth due to their addictive potential prescribing the new drugs with abandon (not to mention prescribing much more serious drugs of abuse such as stimulants).

Now, that the new drugs are better and safer is one of the widely-disseminated “established facts” that are not really facts at all. Again, I am going to pick on an article in the psychiatrist newspaper, the Psychiatric Times. I do so reluctantly because this publication often prints more balanced articles, but lately it has been just feeding me blatant examples of points I’m trying to make in this blog.

The article in question appeared in the January 2012 edition of the paper and was entitled, “Treatment of Insomnia in Anxiety Disorders.” It was written by Gregory Asnis, Elishka Caneva, and Margaret Henderson.

In discussing pharmacological treatment of insomnia, they say, and I quote, “Not only are the non-benzodiazepines effective [that part is true], but there is a notion that they are safer than benzodiazepines.” They give two reference here I will discuss shortly.

A notion? Notice they are not actually saying here that the drugs are safer. As I mentioned above, they do try to leave themselves an out. However, the authors go on to make a stronger statement: “Although head to head studies comparing these classes of hypnotics have been minimal [If that’s true, than how can they draw conclusions], a recent metanalysis supports the findings of reduced adverse effects for the non-benzodiazepines.” They give a third reference.

They explain that the new drugs have a shorter half-life, and therefore cause less residual daytime sedation, and “other [unnamed] adverse effects."

Without even looking at the reference, they are already spouting complete bullsh*t here that strongly suggests that the new drugs are better. So what about half-lives of the drug? Half life is the number of hours it takes for the body to excrete 50% of an ingested drug from the body. In truth, the different old benzodiazepines on the market have a wide variety of different half lives.

Some of them such as Xanax have a very short or even shorter half life than the new drugs. Some have a mid-range half life such as Tranxene. Some have a very long half life like Klonopin and Valium. If daytime sedation is a problem, the doctor can either reduce the dose, or prescribe a shorter acting drug! There is no need for the more expensive alternative. If you take a delayed release preparation so you sleep through the night, then you would face just as much daytime sedation as if you took a benzo with a longer half life!

Not only that, but the shorter the half life of a sedative, the more addictive it is. Furthermore, the shorter the half-life, the more the drugs are likely to cause “rebound” insomnia if suddenly discontinued. So, if the authors of this article are touting the importance of short half lives, perhaps they should also mention these facts, which are well known among addictionologists. Funny that they did not, isn’t it?

So what about the meta-analysis? I’m glad you asked, since I found it and read it. It says quite clearly that, in the studies they are pooling, the drugs were analyzed irrespective of their differences in half life, potency (how the drugs compare in strength milligram to milligram) or dosages.

There were no indications in direct comparisons indicating that the new drugs were safer. There were some “indirect comparisons” (whatever those are) that were made that seemed to indicate that the new drugs were slightly safer, but again, since half life, potency and dosage were not considered, what the hell does that even mean?

Also noteworthy is that the studies meta-analyzed were in people who did not also have an anxiety disorder.

As for the other two “references,” one of them clearly attributes the results of studies that showed fewer side effects in the new drugs to their shorter half-lives. The other never really clearly states that the new drugs are preferable to the old benzodiazepines at all, although it also discussed issues concerning drug half lives.

Let the buyer beware, baby.

More about → Assuming Facts Not in Evidence II - Sleeping Medications