Broken Heart Syndrome

“What is broken heart syndrome?”

Broken heart syndrome is a term used to describe a cardiac event that immediately follows (and is probably caused by) extreme stress or emotional upset.

Its medical term, Takotsubo cardiomyopahty, is a nod to its Japanese origins. The phenomenon had been observed for centuries but it wasn’t “officially” named until a group of Japanese researchers formally defined it in the early 1990s.

The good news about this phenomenon is that while it looks and feels very much like a heart attack, it’s actually not. It’s actually a reversible weakness of the heart muscle due to a sudden and dramatic surge in stress hormones, including adrenalin.

References:

Virani, S. (2007). Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, or broken-heart syndrome. Texas Heart Institute Journal.

Gonzalez Therapy

“What is Gonzalez Therapy and could it really help someone with cancer?”

“Gonzalez therapy” or the “Gonzalez regimen” refers to a controversial cancer therapy developed by physician Nicholas Gonzalez. Gonzalez is a former journalist who became interested in cancer research and ultimately left the profession to study medicine formally at Cornell University.

What makes his work controversial is that it’s based on the idea that cancer is the result of eating food that is inappropriate for one’s individual metabolic type. And the regimen itself is perhaps even more controversial. The therapy involves massive number of pills and supplements as well as twice-daily enemas of coffee.

Over the years, a number of medical associations and public watchdog groups have taken aim at Gonzalez and his anti-cancer therapy. Critics say that his therapy has never been proven effective and that some aspects of the regimen are potentially dangerous.

Despite all the controversy, the National Institutes of Health agreed to fund a study of the Gonzalez regimen. The move was widely criticized by mainstream medical groups but a 2004 study of pancreatic cancer in mice did produce some positive results.

So, is the Gonzalez regimen something you should consider? In spite of all the controversy surrounding Gonzalez and his therapy, the National Cancer Institute actually encourages pancreatic cancer patients to consider the Gonzalez regimen. They cite the dismal survival rate associated with pancreatic cancer and the hope (slim though it may be) that is offered by this controversial therapy.

References:

Saruc, M., et al. (2004). Pancreatic enzyme extract improves survival in murine pancreatic cancer. Pancreas.

Acupuncture vs. Acupressure

“What’s the difference between acupuncture and acupressure? Is it just that one uses needles?”

Yes, that’s exactly the difference. Both are based on the ancient Chinese belief that the body is made up of energy pathways and that the constant flow of the body’s energy—or “Qi”—along these pathways is the key to good health. In traditional Chinese medicine, these pathways are called “meridians”. The points at which these meridians intersect are called the “points”.

Practitioners of acupuncture and acupressure believe that the movement of energy is absolutely vital to the health. If the energy slows down or becomes blocked by some unseen force, the energy becomes stagnant and disease develops.

The most common places for the body’s energy—or “Qi”—to become blocked is at an intersection. Acupuncturists believe that by inserting very fine needles into these intersection points and twirling the needles in a specific way, they can release the blockage and restore the flow of energy.

Acupuressurists, on the other hand, don’t actually insert needles into the points, they simply use pressure created by pressing down with a thumb or some kind of tool. By massaging the area in a specific way, acupuressurists believe they can also restore the flow of energy.

So to answer your question, yes, the only real difference between acupuncture and acupressure is that one uses fine steel needles and the other uses only massage and firm pressure.

Negative & Positive Ions

“What is an ion and why should we care if it’s positive or not?”

An ion is just an atom or a molecule that has lost or gained an electron. If the molecule has lost one of its electrons, it is said to be “positive”. If the molecule has somehow gained an extra electron, it is known as a “negative” ion.

Why should you care about negative or positive ions? Well, in health, negative ions are considered the “good” ions. Because of their negative charge, negative ions can attach themselves to bits of pollution and cause the pollution molecule to become so heavy it falls from the air. In effect, negative ions “clean” the air.

Ever notice how clean the air smells at the beach or near a raging water? That’s because of the negative ions that are constantly being produced. Manufacturers of ionic air cleaners claim the same effect is possible if you run an ionic air cleaner in your home.

At least that’s the theory. Of course, as critics point out, the pollution isn’t really destroyed—it’s just lying around waiting to be kicked back up into the air the first time the air is disturbed. Tests of various ionic generators have failed to show that these types of air cleaners really make a noticeable difference in the quality of indoor air. And some negative ion generators—like the new “Himalayan salt lamps”—probably can’t even release enough ions to make any difference at all.

Fever "Therapy" for Autism

“What do people mean when they talk about ‘fever therapy’ for autism? Does it really work?”

“Fever therapy” is a term used to describe a phenomenon some parents of autistic children have noticed for decades—during a fever, the autistic children seem to improve. Unfortunately, as the fever goes back down, the child’s autistic behavior returns.

Doctors really aren’t sure exactly what’s going on here but one explanation may be that the fever is somehow stimulating a specific group of neurons in the brain stem. Perhaps the best news to come out of this is that if this phenomenon turns out to be real—and repeatable in a safe way—if means that autism is a reversible condition.

Obviously, no one is advocating giving your child a fever but the “fever effect” and a better understanding of “fever therapy” may someday help researchers develop other methods to stimulate that part of the brain in a safer and more lasting way.

References:

Mehler, M., et al. (2009). Autism, fever, epigenetics and the locus coeruleus. Brain Research Reviews.

E-Cigarettes

“OK, what in the world is an e-cigarette? Tell me it’s not a cigarette you ‘smoke’ over the internet.”

It does sound like a pretty silly idea, doesn’t it? The truth is that despite its name, an e-cigarette isn’t an imaginary cigarette you imagine smoking while looking at some weird web site. The “e” stands for “electronic” and the manufacturers claim it’s a safer cigarette intended to help people “step down” from smoking, or at least reduce some of the pollution traditional cigarettes produce.

They’re produced by a company called Smoking Everywhere and are battery-powered. And they’ve actually been on the market in other countries for several years. While these e-cigarettes deliver a nicotine “fix” to users, they produce no smoke so they eliminate the risk of cancer. (Nicotine may be addictive but it’s never been proven to cause cancer.)

They’re not actually legal here in the U.S. just yet. The FDA regards them as an “unapproved” medical device and won’t let manufacturers import them. However, they’re not actively seizing products that are already on the market here.

As you can imagine, these things are controversial. Some claim that any nicotine is dangerous and smokers would do well to break their addiction once and for all. Others say that e-cigarettes allow smokers to engage in a perfectly legal (and enjoyable) activity without inconveniencing those who might be bothered by cigarette smoke.

But you tell us. Would YOU use an e-cigarette? Do you think it could replace traditional cigarettes? Would you consider them as a way to “step-down” from smoking?

References:

SmokingEverywhere, LLC. (2009). Retrieved from smokingeverywhere.com on March 12, 2009.

FDA. (2009). Refusal Actions by FDA as Recorded in OASIS.

Double-Blind Study

“You use the words ‘double-blind’ alot. Could you explain what a double-blind study really is and why it’s better?”

When sites like ours use the term “double-blind” we’re talking about a type of scientific study that is specifically intended to remove bias. Why is that important? Well, every researcher, writer, scientist … you name it … has a certain way of approaching his or her work. In science, that concept is known as “bias”. In real life, “bias” is usually a bad thing but in science it simply means that every person has a unique way of looking at the world. That’s what we mean when we say that everyone brings a certain bias to a project.

“Bias” also means that scientists have to fight the natural tendency to see what they want to see. Let’s say you’ve developed a cure for a horrible, awful disease. When it comes times to test that cure, you will want it to succeed. Whether you mean for it to or not, that desire to see your remedy succeed will make it easier for you to see positive results.

And the same thing is true for patients. Have you ever been sick, gone to the doctor and felt better even though you hadn’t actually taken any medication yet? Medications work the same way. Some people feel better after taking medication even though the “medicine” is nothing but a vitamin pill. (Remember all those news stories in 2008 about doctors prescribing placebos?)

To help eliminate “bias” on the part of the doctor and the patient, scientists will often use what’s known as the “double-blind” testing method. In a double-blind test, patients are divided into groups. Some are given real medications and some are given inactive “blanks”. Neither the patients nor the doctors know which patients are getting the placebos and which are getting the real drugs.

The data gained through this kind of study is almost always considered better than data collected through an unblinded or single-blind study because there’s just so little opportunity for bias to enter in. It’s not a perfect method, of course, but it’s the most credible system we have right now.

And that’s really all there is to a double-blind study.

Iridology

“What is iridology? My daughter-in-law is studying this.”

Iridology, or “iris diagnosis”, is an alternative medical practice that believers claim allows them to diagnose weakness in the body by examining the irises of the eye.

Iridology isn’t a new idea—legend tells us that the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates practiced one form of it himself. It got a push in the mid-19th century when the first major text on iridology was published by an Hungarian physician who tracked changes in an owl’s eye while he was nursing the bird back to health.

In this country, iridology became popular in the 1950s when a naturopath named Bernard Jensen began publishing his various texts on body detoxification. Jensen wrote a number of iridology texts in his career and many of them are still required reading in many of the “natural” health colleges in the U.S.

What Critics Say About Iridology

Critics of iridology point out that except for rare cases involving glaucoma, the iris of the eye changes little throughout a person’s lifetime. And Dr. Stephen Barrett, founder of the web site QuackWatch.com, reminds his readers that in 1979 Jensen himself failed a scientific test in which Jensen and two other iridologists were asked to examine the irises of 143 patients for evidence of kidney disease.

In fact, no major scientific study has ever proven iris diagnosis any better than guesswork. Natural guru Andrew Weil sees, in his words, “no scientific basis” for it and herbalist Michael Tierra actually abandoned his practice after coming to realize it was “based upon certain deficiencies”.

References:

Jensen, B. (1952). Science and Practice of Iridology.

Barrett, S. (2008). Iridology is Nonsense. Retrieved from www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/iridology.html February 2, 2009.

Weil, A. (2002). Had It With Hives? Retrieved from www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA114846 February 2, 2009.

Tierra, M. (No Date Given). A Comparative Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems used in Herbal Medicine

Reflexology

“What is reflexology?”

Reflexology, or “zone therapy”, is a massage technique used on the soles of the feet and, to a lesser extent, the palms of the hands.

Reflexology is almost certainly based on the ancient Chinese practice of acupressure. But unlike acupressure, which is performed on various parts of the body—and always along “energy” lines—reflexology is limited to the palms and feet.

Modern reflexology was invented around 1910 by physicians named William Fitzgerald and Edwin Bowers. They used it mainly to help control pain.

In the 1930s, a nurse named Eunice Ingham “mapped” the entire body on the soles of the feet and claimed that by pressing specific points on the feet, a practitioner could spur healing in the corresponding part of the body. As you might expect, Ingham assigned the “head” to the big toe, the major digestive orders to the arches of the feet and so forth.

Believers claim that reflexology opens up the “meridians” for Qi—the Chinese term for the body’s life force. This, according to them, removes the “roadblocks” to healing.

Critics, as you can imagine, call the entire practice hogwash. They point out that there is no scientific evidence for Qi and no evidence that it could be manipulated this way, even if it existed.

Urine Therapy

“What is urine therapy? I’ve heard of people using urine to cure athlete’s foot but there’s more to it, isn’t there?”

Yes, there is. Urine “therapy” is a term used to describe the practice of drinking one’s own urine to treat any number of diseases. To some people, it’s simply a way to reclaim lost nutrients; to others, it’s a near-religious experience. To anyone with a bit of common sense, though, drinking urine is an unproven therapy based more on shock value than any real scientific evidence.

How common is the drinking of urine? We don’t really know. While there is a Chinese association dedicated to the practice, we could find no U.S. equivalent from which to pull good numbers.

Don’t Fall For Claims Made More For Shock Value Than Science

One of the most famous pro-urine advocates is a woman named Martha Christy who claims to have cured her own lifelong illnesses with urine. She offers no real proof other than her own testimony but she does makes some very un-scientific statements. She claims, for example, that the amniotic fluid that surrounds an unborn infant is “primarly urine” and that unborn babies need to breathe this urine-rich fluid for their lungs to develop. In fact, amniotic fluid is mostly water—it doesn’t even come close to being “mostly urine”.

Despite claims made at Shirleys-Wellness-Cafe.com and other “natural” healing web sites, urine is NOT “a powerful infection fighter” or “your body’s best medicine”. It’s not even “100% safe”. Urine is simply a waste product produced by your body. There’s nothing magical about it and—assuming you’re reasonably healthy—nothing “disgusting” or “dirty” about it, either.

References:

“Shirley”. (2008). Urine Therapy (Uropathy) - Your Body’s Own Best Medicine, A Powerul Infection Fighter. Accessed January 19, 2009.

Christy, M. (1998). Your Own Perfect Medicine.