Q: My father gets terrible cluster headaches, and he says the pain is absolutely searing. Is there anything that can get rid of these?

Dr. Wright: Cluster headaches are another one of those inexplicable conditions that my patients tell me always seem to come on at exactly the wrong time. Unfortunately, no one knows what causes these types of headaches. They tend to attack relentlessly for weeks to months and then often go into remission for months or even years. While there’s no surefire cure, lithium (in relatively high doses) can significantly reduce both the severity and frequency.

One study examined lithium’s effects on 19 men with cluster headaches. Eight had rapid improvement — an average 85 percent reduction — in their “headache index” in just two weeks. Four individuals had both cluster headaches and psychiatric symptoms; these four had almost complete elimination of their headaches. The remaining seven had only a slight benefit.

Another research group tried lithium therapy (again, relatively high quantities) for 14 individuals with cluster headaches. Five of the participants had complete disappearance of their headaches, four had significant improvement, and four had no change.

There’s no guarantee that lithium will cure your cluster headaches, but there is a good chance that it might help. With so few other options available, it’s at least worth a try. Since the quantities needed are relatively high, you should work with a physician skilled in natural medicine who can monitor your progress and safety. For a list of such physicians in your area, contact the American College for Advancement in Medicine at (800)532-3688 or visit their website, www.acam.org.

I hate sounding like a broken record.

But I just can’t sit back and watch as the mainstream tries to apply statins to every medical condition under the sun.

Weakness, liver damage, peripheral neuropathy, even diabetes — the list of risks associated with statin use just keeps growing and growing. But it doesn’t matter.

They won’t rest until they find a reason for EVERYONE to be on statins. In the past few months, I’ve seen desperate research applying them to everything from Alzheimer’s to cataracts.

Most recently, I’ve seen statins hailed as a possible answer for prostate cancer. The mainstream is claiming that statins can lower tumor inflammation — and are even going so far to say that widespread statin use over the past 15 years has contributed to a decline in prostate cancer mortality. (Or maybe that’s because more men are choosing to proceed with caution, going for a wait-and-see approach rather than subjecting themselves to life-threatening extreme treatments…)

They’re (thankfully) saying more research must be done before they can recommend that statins be taken for prostate cancer treatment — though you know Big Pharma must be chomping at the bit to cook up some studies to throw in front of the FDA. But they say that men taking statins for heart health may already be “enjoying [this] beneficial side effect.”

Yeah, along with all the other not-so-beneficial side effects. Somehow, I’m not impressed.

Especially since this isn’t the first time we’ve been down the statins-for-prostate-care road. Nearly two years ago, e-Tips readers learned that the mainstream was hailing statins for lowering PSA (“For all intents and purposes,” 7/21/2008).

Some experts urged caution, though, and for good reason. They pointed out that, while the drugs might lower the blood test reading for PSA, that doesn’t necessarily mean the risk for prostate cancer has been reduced. And with all the other ill effects associated with statins, it’s just not worth it.

Hopefully, we’ll reach the same conclusion here. After all, for many men, prostate cancer doesn’t warrant extreme treatment (and I count these dangerous drugs as “extreme”). Learn more about why a cautious approach is often the best one — and about natural prostate-health boosters by searching the archives at www.wrightnewsletter.com.

Source:
“Statins may benefit prostate cancer patients,” MedlinePlus (www.nlm.nih.gov)

Dr. Wright: Skin cancer is actually relatively common, but it’s not the killer the media makes it out to be. In fact, it’s usually found and treated early and is rarely fatal — or even serious. The problem is that, for many people, skin cancer keeps coming back even after they’ve been treated for one case. But recurrent skin cancer doesn’t have to be a fact of life. The answer is often as simple as using retinoic acid, which can significantly decrease skin cancer recurrences or stop them altogether.

Retinoic acid is a form of vitamin A that is naturally present in the skin in very small quantities. It works by delivering a message to the DNA in the nucleus of skin cells, telling them to divide normally and not to “go cancerous.” Sun exposure makes this “message delivery” much less effective, which can allow skin cancer to occur. But, as you read previously, we all need sun exposure in order to get enough vitamin D, which is a critical aspect of a huge list of body functions.

This is where supplemental retinoic acid steps in: It aids in delivering messages to the DNA that tell it to divide normally.

Retinoic acid obviously isn’t the only factor in skin cancer prevention, but it’s an important one that those people who have had recurring cases of skin cancer can use to reduce your risk or prevent it altogether.

Retinoic acid is sold as Retin-A (yes, that’s the same Retin-A that teenagers use against acne) and is available by prescription only.

Want to prevent — and possibly even beat — breast cancer without resorting to one of the mainstream’s dangerous drugs?

Exciting new research published in the journal Cancer Research has shown we could have a breakthrough in natural breast cancer prevention and treatment.

Just how powerful is this breakthrough? The lead researcher puts it pretty simply: “This extract can be utilized as a dietary supplement for the prevention of breast cancer.”

Momordica charantia — also known as bitter melon — has been used as a folk remedy for diabetes for generations in India, China, and Central America. Recently, though, it’s been getting attention in the U.S. for its very promising action against cancer.

Using human breast cancer cells in vitro, researchers found that bitter melon extract significantly decreased growth and induced death of breast cancer cells.

Of course, despite the results, the mainstream isn’t jumping to recommend people start supplementing with bitter melon extract (what would that do to Big Pharma sales!?). They’re taking the “wait and see” approach.

They want additional studies and are urging caution. To me, it’s just the usual double standard — rush drugs through the approval process, but question everything when it comes to natural medicine.

And of course, by the time the mainstream is done with it, who knows what kind of synthetic mess they’ll have turned this into.

The good news is this: Bitter melon is readily available. Already popular for its vitamin C and flavanoid content, you can find it in your favorite natural food store or online supplement source.

Source:
“Bitter Melon Extract Decreased Breast Cancer Cell Growth,” Science Daily (www.sciencedaily.com)

Q: I’m just wondering why I see so many politically-based articles in Nutrition & Healing. Where’s the connection between natural medicine and politics?

Dr. Wright: Diet, exercise, vitamins, minerals, botanicals, and other natural substances are all necessary for optimizing your health and treating illness, and those things are all the primary focus of Nutrition & Healing. But close attention to politics is just as important, which is why we also regularly feature articles relating to political issues that relate to health care. Over several generations, attention to health care politics has fallen by the wayside for many people. As a result, various layers of government (especially los Federales) now dictate to us what health care we may and may not have.

It’ll likely take quite a few years to restore the degree of health care freedom citizens had during the first 100 years the United States existed. But right now, we need to focus all of our efforts on keeping the small amount of health care freedom we still have. This includes being aware of what legislation is coming before Congress and the House of Representatives. Remember — these elected officials are in place to represent your opinions and beliefs. But they can’t do that accurately unless you and I are aware of what’s going on and make our positions known to them. Our government is, after all, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

How badly do you want to control your blood sugar?

Badly enough that you’d be willing to face a raised risk of cancer?

“Of course not,” you’re probably thinking. “What a ridiculous question.”

But it’s a question that’s not too ridiculous for…you guessed it — the FDA.

It’s called Victoza, and it’s a once-daily injection used along with diet and exercise to control blood sugar.

But it doesn’t just control blood sugar. Oh no — in animal trials, Victoza was shown to have the nasty side effect of raising the risk of a rare type of thyroid cancer.

For some reason, the feds don’t seem terribly worried about these results. But for claiming it’s not that big of a deal, they sure are going out of their way to defend the decision to approve the drug.

An FDA spokesperson explained in an online article for the New England Journal of Medicine that some rats in the trial developed cancerous thyroid tumors. But, she says, this is a kind of cancer that is very rare — one that “one cannot expect to be detected in a clinical trial.”

No people in the clinical trial that led to the drug’s approval developed this kind of tumor, she adds.

Wait a second…what’s that again?

Let me get this straight. The FDA approved a drug that seemed to cause tumors in laboratory rats — rare tumors that wouldn’t be detected in a clinical trial — and then their proof that everything is okay is that…these tumors weren’t detected during the trial.

Why don’t I find that at all comforting (or logical)?

And why does the FDA continue to approve risk-laden drugs when, time and again, natural medicine is proving it has what it takes to control — and even eliminate — our most feared diseases. Safely. Without having to make a choice of one deadly disease over another.

Just search “diabetes” in the archive at www.wrightnewsletter.com, and prepare to be absolutely amazed at what you find.

Source:
“FDA Approved Diabetes Drug Despite Hints at Cancer Risk,” Yahoo News (news.yahoo.com)

Could one of Big Pharma’s biggest-selling drugs actually be a thing of the past? Could the FDA actually be taking steps to protect the public?

Shockingly enough, it looks like it.

Two drug-safety reviewers have recommended that GlaxoSmithKline blockbuster Avandia be removed from the market. They say the drug is more dangerous to the heart than a rival medicine. Sound familiar? Just last fall I wrote an e-Tip about the numerous dangers associated with Avandia.

Avandia has come under the scrutiny of FDA reviewers before — back in 2007, studies started linking Avandia to heart attacks. But this time is different — this time, they’re saying “get rid of it.”

And the situation is particularly disturbing. Because it’s not just about Avandia’s link to heart failure and heart attacks. Two senators recently released a report based on 250,000 documents, including hundreds provided by anonymous whistle blowers. The gist? It suggests that Glaxo KNEW about these problems for years before the 2007 study.

So, is the second time the charm?

We’ll see. After all, we’re talking about Glaxo’s second-biggest-selling drug here. You can bet they’re not going to just step aside and let the FDA pull Avandia that easily.

And even if they did, change isn’t going to come quickly. This whole story has already been moving at a turtle’s pace. The same FDA reviewers said Avandia should come off the market in 2007 because of serious heart dangers. But an advisory panel, perhaps bowing to business pressure, voted 22-to-1 to keep it on the market.

Good going, guys. It’s not like the heart risks were going to go away if you simply pretended they weren’t there. And now we’ve had three more years of unnecessary risk, only to arrive back where we started.

Hopefully, this time it will take. I have to say, I’m not incredibly optimistic about this one, considering Glaxo is pressing for the advisory committee to review a study that shows no link between Avandia and heart risks. A study Glaxo sponsored. One that has absolutely no place in this discussion.

In the meantime, everyone with diabetes should know about this development. If you know someone who might be taking Avandia, I urge you to forward this letter to him or her.

Sources:
“Reviewers urge Glaxo’s Avandia come off market,” Reuters (www.reuters.com)
“Remove Diabetes Drug Avandia From Market: FDA Documents,” Yahoo! News (news.yahoo.com)

Q: I’d really love to find a doctor who practices natural medicine, but I just can’t afford high bills. Why don’t they accept insurance?

Dr. Wright: I know that can be a real pain when you’re already paying a significant amount of money for health insurance, and then you’re expected to pay more out of your own pocket if natural medicine is your choice for non- emergency health care. But there is a good reason that so many physicians skilled and knowledgeable in nutritional and natural medicine won’t process insurance claims: It’s because the doctor doesn’t want to risk going to jail. Unfortunately, I’m not kidding.

In 1996, Congress passed Public Law 104-191, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which you might recognize by its acronym, HIPAA. This law is best known for its so-called “privacy” provisions, which make it incredibly difficult for almost anyone — including your doctor in many circumstances — to obtain the least bit of information about your medical records. (Unless, of course, the information is requested by one of the approximately 600,000 individuals or organizations “authorized” by los Federales to obtain your complete medical records without your knowledge or consent. See the April 2001 issue of Nutrition & Healing for details.)

But a little-known part of this law declares it fraud to give “medically unnecessary” testing or treatment. It also makes it a federal crime, overriding State authority. And guess who gets to define what’s medically necessary or unnecessary? Your insurance company!

Over the years, I’ve seen nearly every medical testing procedure done in natural medicine labeled “medically unnecessary,” including, for example, tests for gastric acidity, food allergies, lead, arsenic, mercury and other heavy metals, and gluten-gliadin sensitivity.

The list of treatments I’ve seen labeled medically unnecessary is even longer. It includes saw palmetto for prostate enlargement, vitamin B6 and magnesium for prevention of calcium oxalate kidney stones, vitamin B12 injections for bursitis and fatigue, high-dose intravenous vitamin C injections to speed recovery from viral illness, magnesium injections for relief of spasm — you get the idea.

It doesn’t matter if there’s ample evidence supporting the test or treatment, or even if the individual improves with natural medicine testing and treatment after years of ineffective conventional testing and treatment. If the private insurance company calls it “medically unnecessary,” it doesn’t pay.

But since HIPAA passed in 1996, private insurance companies can do more than dodge the payments — they can give the information to los Federales as the basis for criminal prosecution.

While that doesn’t occur very often, it has happened, and with the ever-increasing persecution natural medicine faces from the mainstream, most physicians who offer it to their patients would rather be safe — and able to continue providing their patients with natural alternatives — than sorry.

Strokes. Tumor progression. Heart failure.

Death.

Surely, that HAS to be enough to get the FDA to ban a drug. Right?

Of course not. Not when it’s a heavily promoted Big Pharma moneymaker.

Drug maker Amgen’s anemia drug Procrit (and others like it) is often used to lower the need for blood transfusions and improve quality of life in cancer patients.

Recently, research has shown that use of Procrit is tied to the four dangers I listed above. How the FDA squares a goal like improving quality of life with stroke and tumor progression is a head-scratcher, to say the very least.

And this isn’t the first time there have been problems with these drugs. In 2007, the FDA added a black box warning that’s since been updated several times as more and more horrifying findings have been added to the research.

So, when is enough enough?

Not yet, apparently, because the FDA’s answer to the most recent findings is a plan “requiring the drug manufacturer to implement a program to ensure that health-care professionals understand the appropriate use of these drugs and adequately inform patients” of the risks. This new rule only applies to situations in which the drug is being prescribed to cancer patients.

Amgen has to make up a little medication guide and ask doctors to get signatures from patients before they’re prescribed the drugs.

Yep. That’s it.

Oh, and they’ve got plenty of time to implement the plan. It goes into effect in March, but health-care providers will have a year to come up to speed. A whole year—what’s that mean for the cancer patients seeking care from March 2010-February 2011?

The FDA’s suggesting the drug be prescribed at the lowest dose possible. Do you think zero milligrams is low enough?

Source:
“FDA Tightens Controls on Anemia Drugs,” MedlinePlus (www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus)

Q: After having some recent pain in my breasts, I went to my doctor to have it checked out. She told me it’s fibrocystic breast disease, and really isn’t anything to worry about. Still, I’m in pain and want to get rid of it. What can I do?

Dr. Wright: The first step for any woman battling fibrocystic breast disease is to eliminate any and all sources of caffeine from your diet. Some women can drink all the coffee they want and not have fibrocystic breast problems, but unfortunately, women with fibrocystic breast problems are always caffeine-sensitive.

Women with fibrocystic breast disease also need a lot more iodine than others do. In 1976, I learned from Dr. John Myers that fibrocystic breast disease can always be eliminated — yes, I did say always — by applications of iodine. If you have a bad, painful case, you will probably want to consider the original Myers treatment, described in the January 2005 issue of Nutrition & Healing (subscribers can download this issue for free by visiting www.wrightnewsletter.com and logging on to the archives with the username and password listed on page 8 of your most recent newsletter).

For cases that aren’t extremely painful, I typically recommend taking two drops of Lugol’s iodine per day, two daily drops of Tri-odide by Scientific Botanicals, or one Iodoral tablet daily. The last two are available at natural food stores and compounding pharmacies, but Lugol’s iodine is only available by prescription. Whatever formula you choose, make sure to work closely with a physician who can monitor your thyroid function while you’re undergoing treatment. (Fortunately, I’ve rarely seen a problem with these quantities, but it’s always better to be safe than sorry.)

Most of the women I’ve worked with over the years notice a difference within a month of starting iodine treatment, but you should continue whichever iodine preparation you’re using until the fibrocystic breast disease is gone completely. But remember, the worse the fibrocystic problem, the more likely you need Dr. Myers’ original method. Oh, and if you continue the iodine, you’ll likely lower your breast cancer risk too. You might want to read the May 2005 issue of Nutrition & Healing for details about that.