Month: June 2012

Vaccine Protocol

Young Xandro was still recovering from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a condition that causes respiratory tract infections, when a doctor at K&G advised Xandro's parents to have him vaccinated with MMR. Concerned about his son's health, Xandro's father Cedric explained to the doctor that Xandro was still gravely ill but recovering from the RSV infection, and requested that he first be thoroughly examined before the MMR vaccine even be considered.

The doctor reportedly complied with Cedric's request, but insisted upon examination that because Xandro's chest appeared to be clear, it was safe to administer the MMR vaccine. Not long after receiving the vaccine, however, young Xandro reportedly suffered cardiac arrest, which resulted in his rapid death. And based on the timing of events, Xandro's parents say the cause of death was most definitely the MMR vaccine.

Officials from K&G quickly denied that the MMR vaccine was responsible, but said they would conduct a thorough investigation. In the meantime, the group is callously urging parents not to "worry unnecessarily about vaccinations," according to reports. And Belgian authorities are also now reiterating their denial of a link between MMR and Xandro's death, insisting that the child died of "natural causes."

Naturally, Xandro's parents are not buying any of these politically correct excuses. They knew Xandro better than anyone else, and it was quite obvious to them that the MMR vaccine tipped the boy over the edge. The vaccine basically kicked little Xandro while he was down, so to speak, which makes any attempt to write off his death as unrelated to MMR just another blatant example of the incredible arrogance and irrationality that are hallmarks of mainstream medicine.

Vaccines killed another Belgian child late last year
A similar incident occurred late last year when Stacy Sirjacobs, a nine-week-old Belgian baby, died just one week after receiving a barrage of nine different vaccines on the same day. According to reports, young Stacy had a slight cold on the day she was vaccinated, but doctors insisted that she was well enough to receive the vaccines.

A week later, Stacy developed a staggering fever of nearly 104 degrees Fahrenheit, upon which her parents gave her Perdolan, a mild analgesic drug. Stacy's parents then called the hospital, and upon being admitted, Stacy was diagnosed with having an infection in her chest and blood that doctors insisted was "not serious," and not related to the vaccines. Stacy was then put on a drip feed and was given other medications.

Even though she had been vaccinated against gastroenteritis, young Stacy soon developed this illness as well as an irregular heartbeat, which doctors still insisted was not a big deal. Stacy continued to suffered terrible diarrhea throughout the night, and developed red spots on her body and extreme breathing difficulties. The hospital did nothing about any of this, and by 3:00 am, Stacy was pronounced dead (http://vactruth.com/2012/01/19/baby-dies-after-first-shots/).

Both of these cases illustrate plainly and obviously that vaccines are not nearly as safe as we are all being told. Parents must thus take extreme caution when allowing their children to be vaccinated, and do plenty of their own independent research before agreeing to go through with them.

Vitamin D3-5

Vitamin D is rapidly emerging as one of the most researched natural compounds demonstrated to promote human health. More evidence in support of the prohormone is provided by researchers in Spain publishing the result of their work in the Journal of Leukocyte Biology. Scientists have found that insufficient levels of vitamin D are related to a deficiency in our innate immune defenses that protect us from infections, neoplasias, or autoimmune diseases, and can effectively shield us from the common cold and influenza during winter months.

Vitamin D levels diminish with age, increasing risk for colds and influenza
To perform the analysis and gather data for this study, researchers compared the changes in the blood levels of vitamin D among three groups of healthy subjects: youth (aged 20 to 30), middle-aged (aged 31 to 59), and elderly (aged 60 to 86). The scientists found decreased levels of vitamin D with aging, likely due to decreased exposure to the sun and a decline in the native ability of skin receptors to produce precursor levels of vitamin D, commonly found among individuals above the age of 40.

The research team found that the level of circulating vitamin D in the blood affected the toll-like receptor (TLR) expression measured on white blood cell lymphocytes and monocytes. Specifically, they found that the TRL most affected by a vitamin D insufficiency is TLR7, which regulates the immune response against viruses. In many geographic regions, limited sun exposure during darker winter months is closely associated with vitamin D deficiency and increased risk for colds and influenza outbreaks.

The lead study author, Dr. John Wherry concluded "This study shows that sunlight, or more precisely the lack of vitamin D could have a role in the seasonally higher rates of infection… since vitamin D supplements are inexpensive and generally safe, this is a really exciting discovery." It is best not to rely on sun exposure or dietary sources to obtain vitamin D. Most health-minded adults will want to supplement with an oil-based form of Vitamin D3 (experts recommend starting with 5000 IU per day), and test twice a year using the 25(OH)D blood test to confirm optimal levels above 50 ng/mL to achieve optimal protection against colds, flu, and many viral infection strains.

Researchers from Europe and China have published the result of a study in the journal Clinical Nutrition that demonstrates how B vitamin supplementation provides a significant protective effect on stroke by independently lowering levels of homocysteine. B vitamins are obtained naturally by consuming a wide variety of vegetarian sources including leafy greens, broccoli, kale, cauliflower and almonds. To obtain optimal levels of the full range of B vitamins (including vitamin B12), a broad spectrum form of the nutrient may be necessary.

Independent studies confirm B vitamins lower stroke risk by nearly one-quarter
Researchers reviewed a meta-analysis of nineteen separate studies with follow-up periods ranging between 6 and 85 months, including dosages of folic acid with or without vitamin B6 and B12. The study authors found that supplementation with B vitamins produced significant reductions in dangerous homocysteine levels as compared to a placebo group. They calculated a 12 percent lowered risk of suffering the effects of a stroke. Interestingly, they found no associated reduction in cardiovascular risk, as stroke and heart disease typically share the same factors for progression.

The result of a separate body of research presented at the International Stroke Conference provides findings from the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation 2 trial of more than 5,500 men and women with heart disease. Participants were assigned to a daily regimen of either B vitamins or placebo pills for five years. The results showed that people who took the vitamins were 25% less likely to suffer a stroke over the study period, compared to those who took a placebo.

Another important outcome reported in this study was the lowering of stroke risk for those individuals that have already suffered a first stroke. Participants took high or low-dose B vitamins, specifically folate, vitamin B12, and vitamin B6 for a period of two years. Those taking high doses of the B vitamins lowered the occurrence of a second stroke by twenty percent. It's important to note that the results from both studies required optimal doses of B vitamins from a broad range supplement to dramatically lower stroke risk.

IntraMax

Perhaps nutrition is taken for granted, beyond eating a well-balanced diet, or maybe they forgot to invite a nutritionist. Frankly, it was no small omission, since nutrition is at the very foundation of resilience. It starts at the molecular level, where cells are protected from trauma by a host of antioxidants, fats, proteins and fibers that come from wholesome food and dietary supplementation.

All living cells are buffered from stress by the glutathione antioxidant system, which detoxifies heavy metals and neutralizes free radicals. When this system becomes exhausted – from infection, radiation, emotional /physical stress, toxins, drugs, vaccines, pesticides or plastics – cells become vulnerable to mutation or destruction. Overwhelming the defenses leads to many disease states, including autism, diabetes, heart disease, fatigue, cognitive/neurological disorders, kidney failure and cancer. Resistance to oxidative stress relies largely on our antioxidant defenses, to stay strong in the face of disaster.

Nutrients for Resilience
A wealth of nutrients helps build a strong molecular defense system. Glutathione is composed of amino acids cysteine, glutamic acid and glycine. Besides adequate protein, glutathione production requires selenium, magnesium and vitamin D, which many people are lacking. These should be the first line of treatment for trauma.

For example, when mercury is ingested, the body's first defense is a centipede-like protein called metallothionein, which dangles zinc atoms from its many legs. Mercury displaces zinc and is excreted before doing harm. The freed zinc activates proteins for immunity and tissue repair. Most Americans, especially vegetarians, are zinc deficient, and cannot make adequate metallothionein.

The antioxidant vitamins C and E work with glutathione to protect various tissues. Alpha-lipoic acid and CoQ10 are specialized antioxidants that protect tissues and enhance energy production. The carotenoid antioxidants help protect fats from going rancid. Lutein and zeaxanthin carotenoids protect omega-3 fatty acids, to promote clear vision and healthy cognition. Carotenoids and other antioxidants help the skin resist aging and the arteries resist stiffening. Carotenoids confer a variety of positive health outcomes, yet over 95 percent Americans fall short on the carotenoid health index. The resilience of the arteries, brain, skin and eyes depend on them.

Trillions of bacteria lining our intestines contribute significantly to human resilience. They help detoxify food and its metabolites, prevent infection, provide nutrients, and prime the immune system. They make the gut resilient. An argosy of fermented foods and prebiotics/probiotics can help improve health and wellness, and research in this area is booming.

Resistance to depression, heart disease and dementia depends in part on methylation reactions carried out by the B complex vitamins. Taming inflammation starts with antioxidants, vitamin D3 and omega-3 intake. Strong bones depend on calcium, magnesium, vitamin D3, vitamin K2, and other dietary factors. Resiliency relies on strong, healthy minds and bodies.

Though not all nutrients have been discussed, hopefully the picture is clear. Resilience is a state of mind more readily manifested in healthy, alert and energetic beings. Procuring the right nutrients and avoiding a toxic lifestyle are the best means to strengthen resilience to withstand the inevitable difficulties of life.

There are several problems with their review and recommendation. First, they accepted the most critical interpretations of the two RCTs, which essentially stated there was no benefit. The first study [2] claimed that since cancer was not the primary focus of the study, incidence may not have been correctly analyzed. However, a careful comparison of the incidence rate for women in the control group with incidence rates for women living in or near Nebraska at that time and with that age distribution finds excellent agreement with the expected rate. There is no indication that those who took supplements were treated for medical conditions differently from those who didn't take supplements.

In the second study [3], no statistically significant correlation was found between vitamin D plus calcium supplementation and cancer incidence rates for the entire group. However, a reanalysis of the results of that study found [4]:

In 15,646 women (43%) who were not taking personal calcium or vitamin D supplements at randomization, CaD significantly decreased the risk of total, breast, and invasive breast cancers by 14-20% and nonsignificantly reduced the risk of colorectal cancer by 17%. In women taking personal calcium or vitamin D supplements, CaD did not alter cancer risk (HR: 1.06-1.26).

This implies that those who were taking supplements at the start of the study already had received the benefit, so that additional calcium and vitamin D had less of an effect. In addition, the USPSTF overlooked a recent paper in which men with low-grade biopsy-verified prostate cancer were given 4000 IU/d vitamin D3 for a year and had a 55% rate of tumor regression compared to 20% in historical controls [5]. Apparently, an adequate dose of vitamin D can greatly lower risk. For those who don't receive an adequate dose of summer mid-day sun, supplements can make a big difference.

This brings us to the second major point. The USPSTF treats vitamin D like a drug. Pharmaceutical drugs must be tested in medical trials since they are, by definition, artificial, and must be evaluated for efficacy and harm. Solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) is the primary source of vitamin D for most people, and has been an important contributor to optimal health since before man walked on earth. It is not a drug, but is synthesized in the skin from sunlight! Skin pigmentation has adapted to where people live, dark enough to reduce risk of skin cancer, yet light enough to permit adequate vitamin D production [6]. Thus, evidence from geographical and observational studies should also be used to evaluate the role of vitamin D in reducing risk of cancer.

The evidence from geographical studies clearly shows that those living where solar UVB doses are higher have lower cancer incidence and/or mortality rates. A recent review concluded [7]:

This review consistently found strong inverse correlations with solar UVB for 15 types of cancer: bladder, breast, cervical, colon, endometrial, esophageal, gastric, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, rectal, renal, and vulvar cancer; and Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Weaker evidence exists for nine other types of cancer: brain, gallbladder, laryngeal, oral/pharyngeal, prostate, and thyroid cancer; leukemia; melanoma; and multiple myeloma.

Observational studies based on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] at or before the time of cancer diagnosis are also useful. Case-control studies, in which serum 25(OH)D concentrations are determined at time of diagnosis have found the strongest inverse correlations between serum 25(OH)D concentration and cancer incidence rates. Based on five such studies for breast cancer including the most recent one from Mexico [6], those with 155 nmol/l (62 ng/ml) had a 70% lower incidence of breast cancer than women with 25 nmol/l (10 ng/ml) [Grant, submitted].

Nested case-control studies from cohort studies are also useful but are more difficult to interpret since they generally report a single serum 25(OH)D concentration at the time of enrollment, then follow people for up to 28 years. During the follow-up time, serum 25(OH)D concentrations typically vary, thereby reducing the observed effect [8].

As to the oft-repeated refrain that findings from geographical and observational studies need to be verified through RCTs, good luck. It is very difficult to conduct RCTs for vitamin D properly for a number of reasons. For one, there are several sources of vitamin D, so it is difficult to isolate the effects of the supplement [4]. For another, there are large individual variations in serum 25(OH)D concentration for a given oral intake [9]. Also, it is important to use available information to estimate the serum 25(OH)D-health outcome relation. And it's important to enroll people with serum 25(OH)D concentrations in a range where additional vitamin D from supplements will have a measureable effect on health outcome. Further, it's important to measure serum 25(OH)D concentrations at least every year or two during the study [10]. The Women's Health Initiative RCT study [3] didn't follow these guidelines and, as a result, hardly found any positive results.

Based on the best information available to date from geographical and observational studies and RCTs, serum 25(OH)D concentrations should be above 100 nmol/l (40 ng/ml) for optimum health. To achieve this concentration could take 1000-5000 IU/d. It is also recommended that serum 25(OH)D concentrations be measured before starting a vitamin D supplementation program, then again after supplementing for a few months.

Disclosure:

The author receives funding from the UV Foundation (McLean, VA), Bio-Tech Pharmacal (Fayetteville, AR), the Vitamin D Council (San Luis Obispo, CA), the Vitamin D Society (Canada), and the Sunlight Research Forum (Veldhoven).

References:

1. Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementation to Prevent Cancer and Osteoporotic Fractures in Adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. June 12, 2012. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/draftrec3.htm

2.Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:1586-91.

3. Wactawski-Wende J, Kotchen JM, Anderson GL, Assaf AR, Brunner RL, O'Sullivan MJ, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and the risk of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2006;354:684-96.

4. Bolland MJ, Grey A, Gamble GD, Reid IR. Calcium and vitamin D supplements and health outcomes: a reanalysis of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) limited-access data set. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94:1144-9.

5. Marshall DE, Savage SJ, Garrett-Mayer E, Keane TE, Hollis BW, Host RL, et al. Vitamin D3 supplementation at 4000 international units per day for one year results in a decrease of positive cores at repeat biopsy in subjects with low-risk prostate cancer under active surveillance. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. April 16, 2012 jc.2012-1451 epub.

6. Grant WB. Ecological studies of the UVB-vitamin D-cancer hypothesis; review. Anticancer Res. 2012;32:223-36.

7. Fedirko V, Torres-Mej¡a G, Ortega-Olvera C, Biessy C, Angeles-Llerenas A, Lazcano-Ponce E, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of breast cancer: results of a large population-based case-control study in Mexican women. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23:1149-62.

8. Grant WB. Effect of interval between serum draw and follow-up period on relative risk of cancer incidence with respect to 25-hydroxyvitamin D level; implications for meta-analyses and setting vitamin D guidelines, Dermatoendocrinol. 2011;3:3:199-204.

9. Garland CF, French CB, Baggerly LL, Heaney RP. Vitamin D supplement doses and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the range associated with cancer prevention. Anticancer Res 2011;31:617-22.

10. Lappe JM, Heaney RP. Why randomized controlled trials of calcium and vitamin D sometimes fail. Dermatoendocrin. 2012;4(2) epub

The media uncritically accept claims by the Cochrane Collaboration because it is a "gold-standard." However, Cochrane supports bad science because it accepts the methods and bias of corporate medicine. In this case, a review combined the results of 78 randomized trials, but in the selection of these trials ignored a larger set of data to give a required but biased answer. [1] One of the first lessons for a science student is not to select your data. When information is selected it is prone to bias because it doesn't represent the full data set. In this case, thousands of studies have provided a prior probability that vitamin supplements are safe and can prevent chronic disease. Further, the claim that large randomized interventional trials give the "strongest form" of medical data is simply wrong. There is little if any scientific support for this oft-repeated myth.

A "cargo cult" (i.e. obtaining value through magical rituals) has taken hold of medical science. [3] So-called evidence-based medicine looks like science, but fails to deliver rational results. Hutchinson reports that the size of the vitamin review included 297,000 people, which is supposed to give a sense of solidity and reliability from the law of large numbers. However, what we are not told is that large numbers are not appropriate, as these studies emphasize weaknesses (background noise) in the data. If you need a quarter of a million people to show an effect, that's a mighty small effect.

Emphasis is been placed on "placebo controlled" trials. However, it is not explained that such trials are generally unethical. The Helsinki Declaration states that treatments should be tested directly against the best available current methods to help prevent abuse of medical research and crimes against humanity. This requirement for ethical research is disputed by the drug companies and the US Food and Drug Administration. An important consideration is that placebo controlled trials can help to develop and test new but ineffective drugs. A new drug only needs to be slightly better than nothing (the placebo). But this paradigm emphasizes the marginal utility of a drug over nothing at all, when safer and more effective treatments are available. Importantly, vitamin supplements can provide an alternative, but they are less expensive and less profitable than drugs.

The clear irrationality of the claims of so-called evidence-based medicine is ignored. In this case, Hutchinson suggests that the utility of vitamin C is limited to preventing an acute form of scurvy in tiny doses. If you don't get at least a little of the vitamin, you will get sick and may die a rather nasty death, as so many British sailors (limeys) did in the past. But they ignore data suggesting that heart disease, the current major killer, is a form of chronic scurvy. [3] Millions of people may be dying because they do not get enough vitamin C in their diet and do not supplement with adequate vitamin C and other essential nutrients. Despite this potential saving of life, corporate medicine would rather have you take statin drugs and remain conveniently and profitably sick.

Cochrane supports this ignorance. They know that politically-required answers involve selecting their data and ignoring reality. It is time the media did its job properly and became more critical of medical mumbo-jumbo.
Please Explain the "Proof"

The recent Martinez et al report illustrates a similar type of ignorance. [2] First, one wants to know the where the authors derived the term "proven harms". In science, there is no such thing as proof. Science is induction. Thus we consider the increasing use of the term proof to be either ignorance or an attempt at authoritarian suppression of ideas. It seems beyond comprehension that the Journal of the National Cancer Institute can publish such nonsense as a paper claiming proof in the title. Then there is the odd use of the term "harms". Recently the use of "harms" has crept into the medical literature because of the misuse of statistics. Apparently, in this case we are supposed to believe that dietary supplements of essential nutrients are "proven" to be so bad that they are dangerous and cause multiple harms.

Consider the statements in the paper's abstract:

"Nutritional supplementation is now a multibillion-dollar industry, and about half of all US adults take supplements."

Yes, but they are lower in cost than drugs sold by corporate medicine. In many cases people in the US are taking this preventative approach to avoid being bankrupted by mainstream medicine.

"Supplement use is fueled in part by the belief that nutritional supplements can ward off chronic disease, including cancer, although several expert committees and organizations have concluded that there is little to no scientific evidence that supplements reduce cancer risk."

No scientific evidence – really? We can find lots – perhaps they should read the literature. Oh, yes: they mean that no studies based on so-called "evidence-based" medicine have shown benefits of vitamin supplements. The problem with this is that their source of data selectively excludes many positive studies of primary importance. Since when have expert committees and organizations been arbiters of scientific truth? The idea is so silly it hardly allows comment.

The Martínez report continues:

"To the contrary, there is now evidence that high doses of some supplements increase cancer risk. Despite this evidence, marketing claims by the supplement industry continue to imply anticancer benefits."

As far as we are aware, there is no credible data that would convince a rational individual to avoid supplements because they would somehow be at higher risk of cancer. We have seen some absurd "evidence-based" claims but they do not provide the data required for an individual to make a rational decision.

The Martínez abstract then says:

"Insufficient government regulation of the marketing of dietary supplement products may continue to result in unsound advice to consumers."

Apparently, corporate medicine will attempt to give unsound advice on the "proven harms" of supplements until they are unnecessarily banned.

"Both the scientific community and government regulators need to provide clear guidance to the public about the use of dietary supplements to lower cancer risk."

This one we agree with. The public deserves to know that supplements of antioxidants and other essential nutrients may prevent cancer and many other types of chronic disease.

References:

1. Apr. 29, 2012. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/fitness/exercise/fitness-research/3-reasons-to-reconsider-vitamin-pills/article2416236

2. Martínez ME, Jacobs ET, Baron JA, Marshall JR, Byers T. (2012) Dietary supplements and cancer prevention: balancing potential benefits against proven harms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 104(10):732-9. Epub 2012 Apr 25.

3. Hickey DS Hickey A Noriega LA (2012) The failure of evidence-based medicine? International Journal of Person Centered Medicine, 2(1), in press.

The latest power-mad grab can be attributed to the not-so-illustrious Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is using (misusing, actually) the Clean Water Act (CWA) to control all ditches, gullies and other ephemeral areas by trying to say they are navigable waterways. Sure – like the ditch in front of your home can support barge traffic or a U.S. Navy warship.

Lawmakers who oppose the grab said the ridiculous "waterways" claim made by the EPA are temporary sites at best, created by rain or melting snow, but if controlled would prohibit private property owners from utilizing their own land for raising crops, grazing livestock or any number of other uses.

"Never in the history of the CWA has federal regulation defined ditches and other upland features as 'waters of the United States," Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., the ranking committee member, and Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, said in a recent statement.

EPA, administration 'not above the law'

"This is without a doubt an expansion of federal jurisdiction," they said.

Yes. No doubt. When the federal government can legitimately claim authority over land surrounding temporary puddles of water, liberty is truly dead.

Still, it's good to see that bipartisanship isn't completely dead in Washington. Republicans have been joined by some Democrats in opposing this blatant power grab by supporting legislation to specifically overturn the latest EPA regs.

"The Obama administration is doing everything in its power to increase costs and regulatory burdens for American businesses, farmers and individual property owners," Mica told Human Events magazine. "This federal jurisdiction grab has been opposed by Congress for years, and now the administration and its agencies are ignoring law and rulemaking procedures in order to tighten their regulatory grip over every water body in the country."

He added: "But this administration needs to realize it is not above the law."

The House measure, which faces a less certain future in the Senate and a likely veto by President Obama, has 64 co-sponsors from both sides of the political aisle. It was passed out of committee in early June.

Sen. John Barrasso, a Republican from the heavy cattle state of Wyoming and a sponsor of the Senate's version of the House bill, said in March that "Obama's EPA continues to act as if it is above the law."

Seriously, what exactly is 'protected?'

The agency "is using this overreaching guidance to pre-empt state and local governments, farmers and ranchers, small business owners and homeowners from making local land and water use decisions," Barrasso said. "Our bill will stop this unprecedented Washington power grab and restore Americans' property rights. It's time to get EPA lawyers out of Americans' backyards."

The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers say they wrote the new regulations in response to a pair of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 which removed some waterways from federal protection but created some confusion about what remained protected.

With that said, supporters of the legislation blocking the new regulations say jurisdictional limits set by the high court are being ignored by the federal Leviathan, and probably on purpose.

By the way, speaking of lawmakers, Congress has the power to curb abuses by the EPA and every other federal agency a) by cutting off funding to said agency(s), and b) by passing legislation that reduces the agency's power or eliminates it altogether. Since federal agencies are managed by the Executive Branch, which is headed up by the president, he too has control over their scope and duties.

The problem is, you have to have enough lawmakers who are cognizant of the Leviathan's overreach and a president who agrees.

Under current congressional and presidential conditions, that kind of agreement isn't likely

As of this writing, according to an Associated Press investigation, there have been 154 suicides for active-duty troops in 2012 – nearly one per day of the year so far.

Besides a surging suicide rate, the military is also experiencing higher incidences of sexual assault, domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse and other forms of misbehavior.

Analysts say these figures are reflective of an over-burdened military that is reeling from multiple deployments over the past 10 years, mostly to Iraq and Afghanistan. It should be noted that these wartime deployments come in addition to peacetime obligations such as year-long, recurring commitments to places like Qatar, Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, Kosovo and parts of Africa – assignments that are often handled by National Guard units from around the country because they are in excess of the staffing and manning capabilities of active duty components.

Needless to say, the American military is busy — some say too busy. Still, military suicide rates had been leveling off; they fell in 2010 and 2011. So the increase now was not only unexpected but difficult to explain.

Or is it?

Multiple wars, multiple deployments = higher rates of suicide

Some believe the spike is simply the result of the military's sustained, hectic optempo (operations tempo). At the peak of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, many active duty forces – especially the Army and Marine Corps – were pulling new deployments every year or so. By 2009, some long-term servicemembers on active duty had been deployed as many as four times.

The optempo hasn't been much better for Guard and Reserve units, of which many members have been deployed nearly as often as their active duty counterparts (though that is not the norm; National Guard units typically spend at least 4-5 years back home in their respective states between deployments).

Such a high deployment rate, then, leads to other conclusions: too much combat exposure and an increase in post-traumatic stress, which has then led to "misuse of prescription medications and personal financial problems," the AP reported.

"Army data suggest soldiers with multiple combat tours are at greater risk of committing suicide, although a substantial proportion of Army suicides are committed by soldiers who never deployed," said the report.

Whatever the reason or combination of reasons, clearly Pentagon leaders have a problem on their hands. According to Defense Department's own figures, the 154 suicides this year compare to 130 over the same period last year, an increase of 18 percent. Additionally, that is more than the average of about 136 suicides the Pentagon had earlier projected for the current period based on trends from 2001-2011.

"This year's January-May total is up 25 percent from two years ago, and it is 16 percent ahead of the pace for 2009, which ended with the highest yearly total thus far," AP reported.

Part of the problem is cultural. Military members – especially those in combat arms units – often ignore warning signs and eschew profession help because they believe it's a sign of weakness and an impediment to rank advancement.

And yet, ignoring the signs and turning down help has very real consequences. Few know that better than Kim Ruocco, widow of Marine Maj. John Ruocco, a helicopter pilot who hanged himself in 2005 between Iraq deployments. He said he couldn't bring himself to go for help.

Stigma of weakness is killing our troops

"He was so afraid of how people would view him once he went for help," she told the AP at her home in suburban Boston. "He thought that people would think he was weak, that people would think he was just trying to get out of redeploying or trying to get out of service, or that he just couldn't hack it – when, in reality, he was sick. He had suffered injury in combat and he had also suffered from depression and let it go untreated for years. And because of that, he's dead today."

As a result of her husband's horribly untimely death, Ruocco joined TAPS – Tragedy Assistance Programs – a military support organization. She is currently its director of suicide prevention programs; she organized the group's first program focusing on providing support for families of suicide victims.

The military is aware it has a problem and, for its part, is responding. The Marines have implemented a number of programs and the service has probably been the most successful in lowering suicide rates. But more needs to be done, especially to eliminate the stigma associated with asking for help.

"What is known is that all Army populations … are under increased stress after a decade of war," said an Army report earlier this year, adding that if not for prevention efforts the Army's suicide totals could be perhaps four times higher than they are already.

Too heavy to work, Lambert came up with an ingenious idea: he would charge people a shilling to see him. Lambert made a fortune, and his portrait shows him at the end of his life: affluent and respected – a celebrated son of Leicester.

Two hundred years on, I’m in a bariatric ambulance (an alternative term for obese, favoured by the medical world because it’s less shaming to patients) investigating why the UK is in the midst of an obesity crisis.
The crew pick up a dozen Daniel Lamberts every week.

Fifty-three stone is nothing special, it’s at the lower end of the weight spectrum, with only the 80st patients worthy of mention when a shift finishes. The specially designed ambulance carries an array of bariatric gizmos including a “spatula” to help with people who have fallen out of bed or, on a recent occasion, an obese man jammed between the two walls in his hallway. As well as the ambulance, there’s a convoy of support vehicles including a winch to lift patients onto a reinforced stretcher. In extreme cases, the cost of removing a patient to hospital can be up to £100,000, as seen in the recent case of 63st teenager Georgia Davis.

But these people are not where the heartland of the obesity crisis lies. On average, in the UK, we are all – every man, woman and child – three stone heavier than we were in the mid-60s. We haven’t noticed it happening, but this glacial shift has been mapped by bigger car seats, swimming cubicles, XL trousers dropped to L (L dropped to M). An elasticated nation with an ever-expanding sense of normality.

Why are we so fat? We have not become greedier as a race. We are not, contrary to popular wisdom, less active – a 12-year study, which began in 2000 at Plymouth hospital, measured children’s physical activity and found it the same as 50 years ago. But something has changed: and that something is very simple. It’s the food we eat. More specifically, the sheer amount of sugar in that food, sugar we’re often unaware of.

The story begins in 1971.

Richard Nixon was facing re-election. The Vietnam war was threatening his popularity at home, but just as big an issue with voters was the soaring cost of food. If Nixon was to survive, he needed food prices to go down, and that required getting a very powerful lobby on board – the farmers. Nixon appointed Earl Butz, an academic from the farming heartland of Indiana, to broker a compromise. Butz, an agriculture expert, had a radical plan that would transform the food we eat, and in doing so, the shape of the human race.

Butz pushed farmers into a new, industrial scale of production, and into farming one crop in particular: corn. US cattle were fattened by the immense increases in corn production. Burgers became bigger. Fries, fried in corn oil, became fattier.

Corn became the engine for the massive surge in the quantities of cheaper food being supplied to American supermarkets: everything from cereals, to biscuits and flour found new uses for corn. As a result of Butz’s free-market reforms, American farmers, almost overnight, went from parochial small-holders to multimillionaire businessmen with a global market. One Indiana farmer believes that America could have won the cold war by simply starving the Russians of corn. But instead they chose to make money.

By the mid-70s, there was a surplus of corn. Butz flew to Japan to look into a scientific innovation that would change everything: the mass development of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), or glucose-fructose syrup as it’s often referred to in the UK, a highly sweet, gloppy syrup, produced from surplus corn, that was also incredibly cheap.

HFCS had been discovered in the 50s, but it was only in the 70s that a process had been found to harness it for mass production. HFCS was soon pumped into every conceivable food: pizzas, coleslaw, meat. It provided that “just baked” sheen on bread and cakes, made everything sweeter, and extended shelf life from days to years.

A silent revolution of the amount of sugar that was going into our bodies was taking place. In Britain, the food on our plates became pure science – each processed milligram tweaked and sweetened for maximum palatability. And the general public were clueless that these changes were taking place.

There was one product in particular that it had a dramatic effect on – soft drinks. Hank Cardello, the former head of marketing at Coca-Cola, tells me that in 1984, Coke in the US swapped from sugar to HFCS (In the UK, it continued to use sugar). As a market leader, Coke’s decision sent a message of endorsement to the rest of the industry, which quickly followed suit. There was “no downside” to HFCS, Cardello says. It was two-thirds the price of sugar, and even the risk of messing with the taste was a risk worth taking when you looked at the margin, especially as there were no apparent health risks. At that time, “obesity wasn’t even on the radar” says Cardello.

A powerful way to generate precise images of bones and soft tissue inside the body, CT scans, which involve blasting radiation at a person's body to create multi-dimensional X-ray images, have become popular in clinical use. But the amount of radiation they emit is extremely high, and could have devastating consequences years down the road for many people.

For their study, Dr. Mark S. Pearce, Ph.D., and his colleagues compiled data on individuals without a previous cancer diagnosis that had undergone a CT scan within the U.K.'s National Health Service (NHS) between 1985 and 2002. Each patient was younger than 22 years of age at the time, and was definitively determined not to have had a CT scan for any type of cancer diagnosis.

It was discovered that a cumulative dose of roughly 50 milligray units (mGy) of radiation triples a child's risk of developing leukemia, while a 60 mGy dose triples a child's risk of developing brain cancer. Based on the cumulative absolute risk for these cancers, this translates into one additional case of leukemia and one additional case of brain tumor per 10,000 CT scans to the head.

Depending on where a particular scan is directed on the body, CT scans can deliver anywhere from 8.0 mGy of radiation to upwards of 30 mGy of radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_%28unit%29). This means that just one or two CT scans during childhood is enough to significantly increase a child's risk of developing cancer, a significant finding.

"It's well known that radiation can cause cancer but there is an ongoing scientific debate about whether relatively low doses of radiation, like those received from CT scans, do increase cancer risks, and if so the magnitude of those risks," Amy Berrington de Gonzalez of the U.S. National Institutes of Health's (NIH) National Cancer Institute, who also worked on the study, is quoted as saying by MSNBC.com.

"Ours is the first study to provide direct evidence of a link […] and we were also able to quantify that risk."

You can view the article summary, or full article if you create a personal account, by visiting: http://www.thelancet.com

Sticking to non-radioactive ultrasound may be preferable to CT scans and excessive X-rays
Between CT scans and X-rays, both of which are used for all sorts of medical analyses and diagnoses these days, cumulative radiation exposure for all individuals is extremely high. Because of this, patients who are told they need such scans may wish to request non-radioactive ultrasound instead.

Though it is reportedly a less accurate scanning method, ultrasound, which of course is used during pregnancy to generate images of a developing baby, often works just fine in place of a CT scan. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is another viable alternative for avoiding radiation exposure.

"Alternative diagnostic procedures that do not involve ionizing radiation exposure, such as ultrasound and MRI might be appropriate in some clinical settings," says Dr. Pearce.

Women who are told to get mammograms should also beware, as this screening method delivers powerful and cumulative doses of radiation that can cause cancer. A viable, non-radioactive alternative to mammograms is thermography