Rudy Silva is a nutritionist who writes about natural remedies. You can get more tips and information on osteoporosis at his new site that is in progress? http://www.betternaturalremedies.com and you can signup for his newsletter at: http://www.natural-remedies-thatwork.com
Archive for Drugs
Dec
21
Stop Osteoporosis Now Without Drugs
Posted by: | CommentsIf your doctor says your bone density is degenerating or that you have osteoporosis, what can you do? Most likely your doctor will want to put you on a drug. Since most drugs have real nasty side effects, after long term use, you may want to look for a natural alternative.
First of all, you need to make sure that you are getting a
good supplement of calcium and magnesium for reducing osteoporosis. For women up to 1200 mg to 1600 mg of calcium per day and about 600 mg to 800 mg of magnesium is recommended. And for real good calcium absorption take 500 mg of vitamin D. For men, use around 200 mg less than women, except for the vitamin D quantity.
Realize that calcium is a difficult mineral to absorb in your intestinal tract. Taking magnesium and vitamin D improves your absorption of calcium. Using an ionic form of calcium also improves your changes of absorbing more of this mineral.
Vitamin B12 reduces osteoporosis
There is one other nutrient that you should also take to increase your absorption of calcium. In a clinical study made at the University of California, they found that women who had the highest levels of vitamin B12 compared to the ones that had the lowest levels had a significant decrease in bone loss and bone fractures – reduced osteoporosis.
In another study done by Tufts University, they again found that in 2,500 men and women that high levels of vitamin B12 reduced their chances of getting osteoporosis.
Homocysteine
In previous articles, I had written of the other serious benefits of Vitamin B12 and the other B Vitamins, B6 and folic acid. These B vitamins are essential for reducing your homocysteine levels. Remember that high homocysteine levels and unchecked homocysteine levels in your blood lead to plaque buildup in blood vessels. Plaque build up in your blood vessels is probably the most serious condition that you will have to face as you age. Plaque buildup in the blood vessels is the major cause of cardiovascular disease or arthrosclerosis.
Celiac Disease encourages osteoporosis
In another article, I have also written about celiac disease. This is a disease where more than 1.5 million people have it and many don’t know it. It is a disease where grains (gluten) have destroyed the small intestines ability to absorb nutrients.
In studies, it has been shown that those with severe celiac disease
also have severe osteoporosis.
To make things worse, your ability to absorb Vitamin B12 decreases as you age, since you produce less intrinsic factor. Intrinsic factor is created in the stomach where it helps you adsorb more Vitamin B12.
Pharmaceuticals block calcium and encourage osteoporosis
Pharmaceuticals of various kinds, especially acid blockers, can also prevent you from properly absorbing Vitamin B12.
So now you can see that it’s necessary to supplement with calcium, magnesium, B12, B6, and folic acid to prevent or even reduce osteoporosis. Not only do these supplements help you with osteoporosis, but they also will reduce the plaque buildup in your artery walls.
Dec
15
Terra med Alliance News: The drug Sprycel, approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia, significantly inhibited the growth and invasiveness of ovarian cancer cells and also promoted their death, a study by researchers with UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center found.
Terra med Alliance News: The drug, when paired with a chemotherapy regimen, was even more effective in fighting ovarian cancer in cell lines in which signaling of the Src family kinases, associated with the deadly disease, is activated.
The study appears in the Nov. 10, 2009 edition of the British Medical Journal.
Ovarian cancer, which will strike 21,600 women this year and kill 15,500, causes more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system. Few effective therapies for ovarian cancer exist, so it would be advantageous for patients if a new drug could be found that fights the cancer, said Gottfried Konecny, an assistant professor of hematology/oncology, a Jonsson Cancer Center researcher and first author of the study.
“I think Sprycel could be a potential additional drug for treating patients with Src dependent ovarian cancer,” Konecny said. “It is important to remember that this work is only on cancer cell lines, but it is significant enough that it should be used to justify clinical trials to confirm that women with this type of ovarian cancer could benefit.”
Recent gene expression studies have shown that about one-third of women have ovarian cancers with activated Src pathways, so the drug could potentially help 7,000 ovarian cancer patients every year.
In this study, the UCLA team tested the drug against 34 ovarian cancer cell lines and they conducted genetic analysis on all cell lines. Through these analyses, the researchers were able to identify genes that predict response to Sprycel. If the work is confirmed in human studies, it may be possible to test patients for Src activation and select those who would respond prior to treatment, personalizing their care.
“We were able to identify markers in the pre-clinical setting that would allow us to predict response to Sprycel,” Konecny said. “These may help us in future clinical trials in selecting patients for studies of the drug.”
Sprycel is what is known as a “dirty” kinase inhibitor, meaning it inhibits more than one pathway. Konecny said it also inhibits the focal adhesion kinase and ephrin receptor, also associated with ovarian cancer.
The next step, Konecny said, would be to test the drug on women with ovarian cancer in a clinical trial. The tissue of responders would then be analyzed to determine if the Src and other pathways were activated. If that is confirmed, it would further prove that Sprycel could be used to fight ovarian cancer. In studies, women would be screened before entering a trial and only those with Src dependent cancers could be enrolled to provide further evidence, Konecny said, much like the studies of the molecularly targeted breast cancer drug Herceptin enrolled only women who had HER-2 positive disease.
“Herceptin is different because we knew in advance that the only worked in women with HER-2 amplification,” he said. “In this case, we don’t clearly know that yet. The data reassure us that the drug works where the targets are over-expressed but we need more testing to confirm this.”
The tests combining the drug with chemotherapy are significant because chemotherapy currently is the first line treatment for ovarian cancer patients following surgery. Because Sprycel proved to have a synergistic effect when combined with chemotherapy — both made the other work better — it may be possible to add the targeted therapy as a first line treatment if its efficacy is confirmed in future studies, adding a new tool to an oncologist’s arsenal. Adapted from materials provided by University of California – Los Angeles, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Terra med Alliance is a non-profit organization in the battle against leukemia helps children living with cancer and their families. Our goal is to make sure children battling cancer know they are not alone. For more information please visit www.terramedalliance.org. Email at contact@terramedalliance.org
Terra med Alliance is a non-profit organization in the battle against leukemia helps children living with cancer and their families. Our goal is to make sure children battling cancer know they are not alone. For more information please visit www.terramedalliance.org. Email at contact@terramedalliance.org
Dec
11
The Most Popular Bipolar Drugs
Posted by: | CommentsLithium, Valproate, and Carbamazepine are three of the most common drugs prescribed for those with bipolar disease. What are the differences between them and which is best for you?
Lithium
Lithium is commonly known as the first mood stabilizer. Although it was discovered in 1817, it was not until much later in the century that it was found to have mood stabilizing properties, specifically anti-manic capabilities. By 1969 it was the preferred method of treating manic depression.
It is not known exactly how lithium works with the brain to stabilize moods. It’s theorized that those afflicted with bipolar disease have a chemical imbalance in the part of the brain that controls emotions and that lithium helps to restore the correct balance.
Today, lithium is usually the first drug treatment attempted when treating bipolar disorder. It is especially effective if there is a family history of bipolar disorder. If a family history does not exist, Lithium tends to be less effective and other treatments may be attempted instead.
Recently, because of its toxicity and other negative effects, some medical professionals have begun to shy away from prescribing lithium.
Valproate
In the United States, valproate is the second most popular drug used to fight bipolar disorder. This seems to be mainly a direct result of the many lithium side effects and concerns. Even among doctors that prefer lithium as a first choice, valproate is usually a strong second choice. Also, as mentioned above, lithium is not always effective for treating bipolar disorder. In these cases, valproate is often considered a good alternative treatment.
Although lithium and valproate appear to have similar efficacy in treating bipolar disorder, there have been no head to head clinical trials between the two so a definitive conclusion cannot be reached. However, because valproate is less stressful to the human body, this may be a natural drug preference for some.
A second concern with using valproate is that while it has been proven to be effective against bipolar mania, it has been less effective against bipolar depression.
Carbamazepine
In Europe, carbamazepine, introduced in the early 1960s, is the second most popular drug used for treating bipolar disorder. Although, studies have proven it to be effective for bipolar disorder, it has not been approved worldwide.
And as with the drug valproate, carbamazepine while effective for treating bipolar mania, has also been less effective at treating bipolar depression.
Conclusion
Of the top three drugs used to fight bipolar disease, they all seem to be relatively equal in treating bipolar mania. However, when it comes to treating bipolar depression and in reducing feelings of suicide, lithium appears to have the clear edge.
Unfortunately, many of the studies that current bipolar treatment is based on are 15 or more years old and are very much out of date.
Fortunately, the scientific community, recognizing this, is becoming more interested in studying new treatments for bipolar mania. There are many medical trials underway that will test the potential for a new class of bipolar drugs and hopefully lead to much needed help for families dealing with this emotional wrenching disease.
Julie Frey is webmaster of www.bipolarsickiness.com who writes articles relating to bipolar issues including what to look for in a bipolar paralegal .
Dec
08
New Depression Drugs – Why Natural Treatments For Depression Are Safer
Posted by: | CommentsThe figures are startling, to say the least. In a recent survey in Europe, about 17% of the group questioned said that they had suffered from a bout of depression in the last six months. The figure jumps to 70% over the lifetime of the average American citizen as he or she copes with illness, grief and work problems at some point in their life. So, are there new depression drugs on the market?
The new depression treatments seem to be concentrating on the noreadrenaline transmitters in the brain rather than the serotonin which have been the target of the conventional SSRIs such as Paxil, Lexpro and Celexa. The reason for this is simple in that by adjusting serotonin levels, there were some unknown and uncertain side effects, not least that concerning appetite as serotonin plays a vital role in food intake. We also know now that other neurotransmitters in the brain will determine our motivation, drive, energy, mood swings and so on, so it was a little simplistic to think that a serotonin booster would be the answer to depression. The side effects of the SSRIs are well documented such as the loss of libido, numbness and general zombie feeling. The aim of the new depression drugs is to reduce these side effects.
The new depression drugs on the market are what is known as selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors and they have a direct effect on sleep patterns,food intake, drive and motivation so are considered superior to the older SSRIs which were just mood enhancers really. However these new depression drugs are still at a very early stage as regards clinical trials so they should be viewed with some caution.
The old problem still remains and that is that side effects are often so troublesome that patients just give up. The other fact is that the long term effects are unknown and indeed the exact mechanism by which these drugs work, is still somewhat mysterious. The drug companies know that the symptoms can be alleviated and they seem to be content with that but any intelligent person will look for alternative new depression treatments because each patient is unique.
There are no powerful wealthy lobbies to support naturopathy for the treatment of depression so do not expect to come by this information so easily. The fact of the matter is that in Europe, there seems to be a much more enlightened view in that natural herbal treatments for depression are favored over the conventional and new depression treatments. Why not find out about how these herbal treatments for depression are in many ways superior to the new depression drugs?
Want to learn more about alternative depression treatment rather than the new
depression drugs ? Robert Locke has written extensively on Mental Health for many years.
Dec
04
Custom Synthesis : Is this the future for development of new drugs?
Posted by: | CommentsHistorically pharmaceutical companies did all their own research and development in house. Over the last few years however, while the cost of discovering and developing a new drug has rocketed to almost $1 billion the number of new drugs approved has dropped considerably, to almost half of the level in the nineties. Many blockbuster pharmaceuticals are coming off patent in the near future. In addition, newer technologies are resulting in the growth of the number of candidate drugs that need to be tested.
These pressures are combining to change the historical models operated by pharmaceutical companies.
One of the changes is that pharmaceutical companies are increasingly turning to specialist outsourcing providers to cover both peaks in demand and to concentrate on core capabilities, which are usually research and marketing.
Chemistry services loom large in those services outsourced including custom synthesis, process development, scale-up, GMP synthesis from lead optimisation to clinical phase III.
Specialist chemistry providers carve out niches for themselves and generally offer one or two specific services, typically custom synthesis and lead optimisation or process development and GMP synthesis. A number operate as ‘one-stop shops’ and provide the whole range of chemistry services that the chemistry department of a traditional pharmaceutical company might have once provided. These cover the diverse range from drug discovery to manufacture of commercial drug substances.
The outsourcing companies can ensure that prices are kept competitive. A pharmaceutical company does not now have to maintain a large R&D workforce. Specialist outsource providers become expert in their particular areas and the pharmaceutical companies benefit from this expertise. This is particularly relevant in the custom synthesis and lead optimisation areas where suppliers can develop special expertise. Timely process development is essential as it is often on the critical path to new drug development. So is GMP synthesis when clinical trials have been committed to. Time lines are minimised using this model. This ensures the maximum period of patent protection is achieved before generic suppliers enter the market and depress prices and profit margins.
A diverse supplier database has developed in recent years and ensures that new drugs will continue to be developed and benefit mankind in the future.
Onyx scientific is one of the best resources for custom synthesis .
Dec
02
Evaluation of the use of chi-squared test in the drug trial data analysis below?
Posted by: | CommentsDrug trial data -
Recently a clinical drug trial was carried out on a new anti-HIV treatment which increases the rate of healing of ’seeping wounds’ of AIDS sufferers. The medical biologists carrying out the trial implemented a ‘double-blind’ test. A total of 400 people were subjected to the trial, with two groups of equal-size for each medicine. 200 of group A were given the new drug, X, while 200 of group B were given an existing drug, Y.
At the end of 7 days everyone was assessed.
It was found that 24 of those in group A had their wounds healed.
It was found that 14 of those in group B had their wounds healed.
My calculated chi-squared value was 2.34 and my null hypothesis was rejected at p0.05 and p0.01.
Evaluate the use of chi-squared test in the drug trial data analysis above. Is it an appropriate statistical analysis of data in making probability judgements on future use of such drugs and why?
Nov
26
The 505(b)(2) NDA Survival Strategy For VC, Start-Up Biotech, And Small Specialty Pharma
Posted by: | Comments
In today’s difficult financial climate many small, start-up biotech and small specialty pharma companies are finding their traditional drug development programs unsustainable. Traditional programs often include the development of innovative drugs through the FDA’s 505(b)(1) NDA process targeting chronic diseases with a large, under -served population. Financial backing for such capital intensive programs, the 505(b)(1) requiring on average $1.4 billion, includes sources from venture capital, institutional funding, and larger pharmaceutical companies. Because the costs of drug development have risen dramatically in recent years, and because the sources of funding drug development have greatly diminished, small, start-up biotech and specialty pharma companies are realizing a challenge in obtaining the capital required to fund their innovative drug development programs.
While many small biotech and specialty pharma companies may have enough capital to support their program for the next 12-18 months, the prospects of acquiring additional capital to support the program beyond the next 12-18 months is small to non-existent. The sad fact is, while the company may see progress in the development of their drug in the next 18 months, when the 18 months are completed there will be no more capital and the doors of the company will be shut and their assets sold for pennies on the dollar.
One solution to the problem is to implement a drug development program with a diminished burn-rate and faster time to market. Such a program can be the 505(b)(2) NDA process. The 505(b)(2) is a type of abbreviated NDA that develops a new drug by somehow modifying an existing, approved drug. Unlike a generic drug (using the ANDA process where an NCE is exactly copied), the 505(b)(2) NDA is a modification of the 505(b)(1) NDA. The development program is abbreviated because existing information on safety and efficacy in the public domain is used for the 505(b)(2) NDA approval. Thus the 505(b)(2) usually involves neither non-clinical studies, nor the normal massive clinical studies associated with an NDA, but instead usually relies on relatively short and inexpensive bridging studies (bio and/or clinical endpoint studies) to relate the safety and efficacy of the new 505(b)(2) product to the related NDA product to which the bridge is made. Given the relatively low cost to bring a 505(b)(2) to market, and the two to three years of market protection that this strategy provides, low cost, fast to market drug development programs can now be targeted at something other than the traditional chronic, large indications. For example, more niche indications can now be targeted where a 505(b)(1) program would have made no business sense. Thus, the 505(b)(2) NDA can provide a shorter and less costly drug development program and therefore reduce the company’s burn rate and bring a profitable drug to market more rapidly. Such a program will enable the biotech/specialty pharma to survive during times of financial crisis. Further, there are many small to medium size distributors ready to market the 505(b)(2) drugs, and in some cases, ready to share in the development costs.
As profits are made through the 505(b)(2) programs, and as the financial crisis eases, the capital required to fund the original 505(b)(1) programs may return, enabling the biotech to then pursue its original innovative 505(b)(1) drug program. Viewed in this way, the 505(b)(2) NDA program for biotech/specialty pharma can be regarded not only as a possible long-term strategy, but more importantly as an interim survival strategy for our current financial crisis.
Dr. Maguire has spent over 20 years in research and development as a professor of neuroscience and ophthalmology at the UCSD School of Medicine where he was awarded an NIH Fogarty Fellowship and ran an NIH- and NSF-grant supported research laboratory. Dr. Maguire holds numerous patents for drugs and devices, has over 100 publications in the areas of neuroscience, ophthalmology, cancer, and pharmaceuticals, is a founder and director of two biotechnology companies and two non-profit life science organizations, and has led the implementation of several large BD contracts between biotech and big pharma companies. He serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of several health care companies and routinely lectures around the world on health care and pharmaceutical related issues.
Nov
26
Drug Research – How It’s Manipulated
Posted by: | Comments
We would like to think that the research done by the pharmaceutical companies is honest, but more than one news story has shown otherwise. If we had the political will, or if the FDA was less political, drug trials could be made more honest almost immediately with one simple procedure. Unfortunately, that change has been fought by the drug companies. Let’s see why.
The English newspaper, The Guardian, recently reported on several systematic reviews of drug research. They clearly showed that pharmaceutical industry studies and clinical trials report positive results far more often than those funded independently (funded by those not selling the drugs tested). Is it just a coincidence that drug companies get more of the results that they’re looking for? No.
The drug companies probably almost never directly tamper with clinical drug trials, nor are they likely to change the reported results afterwards. Dishonesty or criminal behavior like that is probably very rare in drug research, because it isn’t needed. More subtle ways are available.
How To Manipulate Drug Research Results
The most common way to manipulate the results of drug research, is the simplest of all. If you want to show that a new pharmaceutical works, just get rid of the trials that show it doesn’t, and keep the ones that show some effect. Investigations have demonstrated that this is common, that negative data is often hidden or discarded.
Suppose a new drug is given to twelve groups of people who share a given disease. It appears to help the people in four of the groups, but the subjects in the other eight groups have no improvement or perhaps even get sicker or have serious side effects. Differing results from one trial to the next is common, since people get better or worse for many reasons. This is why many trials are necessary to be statistically significant.
What if in this case, the company decided that only the four trials with positive results are important, and they quietly get rid of the data from the other eight. Suddenly a drug with no real benefit appears to have helped in every clinical trial – at least every one we’ll know about. It is very bad science, of course, but one of the most common ways pharmaceutical companies manipulate drug research results.
How do we stop this? Researchers have been recommending an inexpensive solution to this problem for decades: make the companies register all trials, so none can be “lost.” To use the results of any drug research to get a new pharmaceutical approved, a company would have to register the trial before it begins, in a compulsory international trials registry. It would add very little to their costs.
Naturally the drug companies are against this simple idea, and certainly have their arguments to present. The most likely real reason they are fighting it is that it doesn’t allow them as much control over the “truth” or the results of drug research. And with our own FDA staffed by their friends and former coworkers, we can expect this dishonesty to go on.
Copyright Steve Gillman. For more Secrets You Aren’t Supposed To Know, go get your free “secrets” course at: http://www.TheSecretInformationSite.com
Nov
26
Drug Research – How It’s Manipulated
Posted by: | Comments
We would like to think that the research done by the pharmaceutical companies is honest, but more than one news story has shown otherwise. If we had the political will, or if the FDA was less political, drug trials could be made more honest almost immediately with one simple procedure. Unfortunately, that change has been fought by the drug companies. Let’s see why.
The English newspaper, The Guardian, recently reported on several systematic reviews of drug research. They clearly showed that pharmaceutical industry studies and clinical trials report positive results far more often than those funded independently (funded by those not selling the drugs tested). Is it just a coincidence that drug companies get more of the results that they’re looking for? No.
The drug companies probably almost never directly tamper with clinical drug trials, nor are they likely to change the reported results afterwards. Dishonesty or criminal behavior like that is probably very rare in drug research, because it isn’t needed. More subtle ways are available.
How To Manipulate Drug Research Results
The most common way to manipulate the results of drug research, is the simplest of all. If you want to show that a new pharmaceutical works, just get rid of the trials that show it doesn’t, and keep the ones that show some effect. Investigations have demonstrated that this is common, that negative data is often hidden or discarded.
Suppose a new drug is given to twelve groups of people who share a given disease. It appears to help the people in four of the groups, but the subjects in the other eight groups have no improvement or perhaps even get sicker or have serious side effects. Differing results from one trial to the next is common, since people get better or worse for many reasons. This is why many trials are necessary to be statistically significant.
What if in this case, the company decided that only the four trials with positive results are important, and they quietly get rid of the data from the other eight. Suddenly a drug with no real benefit appears to have helped in every clinical trial – at least every one we’ll know about. It is very bad science, of course, but one of the most common ways pharmaceutical companies manipulate drug research results.
How do we stop this? Researchers have been recommending an inexpensive solution to this problem for decades: make the companies register all trials, so none can be “lost.” To use the results of any drug research to get a new pharmaceutical approved, a company would have to register the trial before it begins, in a compulsory international trials registry. It would add very little to their costs.
Naturally the drug companies are against this simple idea, and certainly have their arguments to present. The most likely real reason they are fighting it is that it doesn’t allow them as much control over the “truth” or the results of drug research. And with our own FDA staffed by their friends and former coworkers, we can expect this dishonesty to go on.
Copyright Steve Gillman. For more Secrets You Aren’t Supposed To Know, go get your free “secrets” course at: http://www.TheSecretInformationSite.com