GMO Foods: Friend or Foe?  I Don't Know.  But I Still Avoid Them

Ever since my first learning of them, genetically engineered foods have frightened me, mainly because I thought that cross-breeding of highly specific agents, like bacteria, into a vegetable would somehow once consumed interrupt subtle hormonal processes of the human glands and would affect neurotransmitters and other subtle  endocrine  functions of human biology.  But outside my own fears, where was the evidence for this?  I didn't have any.  So I went looking.  

Some people point to the obesity epidemic in the U.S. as cause for concern of GMO products.  But is obesity a GMO issue or is it that the sugar monopolies in Cuba and other countries ensure that cheaper versions of their products are reserved for regular users of sugar like Ben and Jerry's, Coca-Cola, General Mills, and others?  Are GMOs responsible for obesity?  

Are GMOs responsible for thyroid problems?  Natural Endocrine Solutions asserts that plenty of health problems arise with GMOs:

But how can GMOs affect thyroid health?  Well, there does seem to be some evidence that eating genetically modified foods can potentially trigger an autoimmune response, thus leading to conditions such as Graves’ Disease and Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis.  But GMOs can lead to other autoimmune conditions as well, and other health issues such as autism, diabetes, Parkinson’s Disease, and many other conditions.  Plus, getting back to thyroid health, in past articles I’ve spoken about the risks of unfermented soy on thyroid health, as this can potentially inhibit thyroid gland activity.  And of course having the soy genetically modified will only make things worse.  

Sounds pretty extreme.  Problem with those statements is that none of them are corroborated by any lab or scientist or nutritionist or medical researcher or expert, nor any personal experience.  So far, all that the Natural Endocrine Solutions' author offers is an opinion.  But the author does give examples:

For example, Bacillus thuringiensis is a toxin which kills insects by breaking open their stomachs.  A wonderful idea was proposed (note the sarcasm) to alter the crop’s DNA to produce the Bt-toxin, thus breaking open the stomach of insects, thereby killing them.  It sounded like a splendid idea, especially since this toxin wasn’t supposed to cause any harm to humans.  But even though we were told that only insects would be affected by the bt-toxin, apparently it can harm some of the cells of the human digestive system, perhaps contributing to a leaky gut and other digestive issues.  ". . . some of the cells of the human digestive system"?  

Which ones?  And ". . . perhaps contributing to a leaky gut and other digestive issues."  Hmm.  Are you convinced by "perhaps" and "some"? I'm not.  Nor am I convinced of the innocuous effects of GMOs either.  In other words, so far I have read nothing that sways me from my position of caution . . . and fear stirred up perhaps by the hype from the organic industry.  I like organic, I do.  But again I think that we need to test the virtues of organic as well as examine the detriments of GMOs, for the more I read on GMOs, I am finding that engineered foods are already well into the food supply.  And if they've been in the food supply for over 30 years and we're not seeing a definitive correlation and causation of GMOs to cancer, diabetes, and other diseases, I think we need to re-examine our fears and their source. 

Brad Plumer of Vox.com explains that:      

Humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for tens of thousands of years to get certain desired traits. Over time, for example, farmers (and scientists) have bred corn to become larger, to hold more kernels on an ear, and to flourish in different climates. That process has certainly altered corn's genes. But it's not usually considered "genetic engineering."

Genetic engineering, by contrast, involves the direct manipulation of DNA, and only really became possible in the 1970s. It often takes two different forms:

There's "cisgenesis," which involves directly swapping genes between two organisms that could otherwise breed — say, from wheat to wheat. Or there's"transgenesis," which involves taking well-characterized genes from a different species (say, bacteria) and transplanting them into a crop (such as corn) to produce certain desired traits.

Ultimately, genetic engineering tries to accomplish the same goals as traditional breeding — create plants and animals with desired characteristics. But genetic engineering allows even more fine-tuning. It can be faster than traditional breeding, and it allows engineers to transfer specific genes from one species to another. In theory, that allows for a much greater array of traits.

Hypothyroidism Misdiagnosed as Depression

So we have an interesting medical conundrum, do we not? On one hand, doctors are more than eager to prescribe antidepressants at the drop of a hat, based entirely on the patients reported symptoms. No need for any blood tests, and no evidence that they work for the vast majority of people.  --Dr. Malcom Kendrick

"Treating Thyroid patients like children" by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick

269 Replies

Here is an imagined, but not far off the truth, conversation between a doctor and a patient.

‘Why can’t I have T3 doctor? I feel so much better when I do?’

‘Because I say so, now go away.’

Nowadays doctors, at least when they are in training, are repeatedly told that they must NEVER be paternalistic. To do so will result in immediate censure. In the UK it is also a very rapid way of failing the GP entrance exams. We are told that we must explore the patients’ expectations, listen to their worries and fears, and work with them in partnership to lead to a therapeutic partnership…. or some such left wing bollocks. [Joke]

How exactly that fits within the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines is up for grabs. For those who don’t know, NICE decide on which drugs and interventions can be prescribed, or paid for, within the NHS. So you can explore expectations with your patient till the cows come home, only to find that you cannot prescribe what the patient wants, even requires. Even if it makes them feel much better and costs very little. Would you call this paternalism? Oxford entrance exam, discuss.

Don’t get me wrong, I think rationing is increasingly vital for healthcare provision, and at one point I supported NICE. I now realise how naïve and misguided I was…but that is a discussion for another day.

Where was I? Oh yes, T3. Most people have never heard of it. But I am willing to bet that if youhave heard of it, and you are a patient, you will certainly know all about this particular hormone. You will definitely know about a thousand times as much as your GP, who may nod sagely when you mention T3. But frankly they are unlikely to have any idea what it is, or does.

To be honest, until about a year ago I had no real idea what T3 was either, but I have learned quite a lot since. Wikipedia states that: ‘The thyroid hormones, triiodothyronine (T3) and its prohormone, thyroxine (T4), are tyrosine-based hormones produced by the thyroid gland that are primarily responsible for regulation of metabolism.’ I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, in Wikipedia, at least, T3 is mentioned before T4 – which makes it more important?

In reality, in a physiological sense at least, T4 comes before T3, in that T4 is produced almost exclusively by the thyroid gland in a ratio of about 17:1 T4 to T3. Once inside various tissues and organs T4 is then converted to T3, where it becomes the biologically active hormone.

Whichever does come first, it can be argued that T3 that is the key thyroid hormone, because T4 is basically a ‘prohormone.’ From Wikipedia again: ‘A prohormone refers to a committed precursor of a hormone, usually having minimal hormonal effect by itself. The term has been used in medical science since the middle of the 20th century. Though not hormones themselves, prohormones amplify the effects of existing hormones.’ Although the figures are not absolutely clear cut, it is usually stated that T3 is five times more biologically active than T4.

Therefore, if someone is hypothyroid, which is normally taken to mean that the thyroid gland is not producing a sufficient quantity of thyroid hormone, you would want to prescribe the active hormone T3, would you not?

This is a rather rhetorical question because what doctors do, at least since the 1960s, is to prescribe synthetic T4 (levothyroxine). Once T4 is in the body it is converted to T3 (through the kidneys, liver, spleen and brain – and numerous other thyroid hormone receptors throughout the body) and does its thing. In most cases this is a perfectly good treatment. However, there is a kicker, which I will get to.

At this point I feel I need to add that hypothyroidism is a very, very common condition. By the age of 60, 10% of people have ‘lab’ test abnormalities that would define them as having subclinical hypothyroidism. At least 2% of the population has overt, clinical, symptoms. Which means that we are talking about millions of people in the UK, possibly tens of millions in the EU and US.[It affects women ten times as much as men].

TSH

I now need to bring in another player called Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH). As with all systems in the human body, a negative feedback loop controls the function of the thyroid gland, and it works something like this:

If you have a high T4 level, this is detected by the pituitary gland, which sits deep within your brain. At which point the pituitary gland reduces the production of Thyroid Stimulating Hormone. As TSH is the hormone that instructs the thyroid gland to produce T4/T3, production of T4/T3 falls. [There are actually a couple of other steps, but this is essentially what happens].

If T4 falls too far, the pituitary gland swings into action to produce more TSH. In turn stimulating the thyroid gland to manufacture more T4…and so it goes. Up and down, up and down, up and down. Endlessly until, of course, you get too old and drop dead. And there ain’t no feedback loop for that.

TSH is also important in that it is usually the substance you measure to decide whether or not someone is hypothyroid. If TSH is very high this means it is trying to ‘drive’ the thyroid gland into action – and failing. You also use the TSH level to determine the dose of T4 that is required as replacement therapy. If the level of TSH is low, this suggests you may be giving too much T4. If the level of TSH is high, this suggests you may be giving too little.

As you may have noticed, at this point I have slipped into talking about TSH and T4, with T3 getting very little mention. That is because this is where the medical profession now stands. Hypothyroidism means high TSH and low T4. You are getting adequate thyroid replacement hormone if TSH in the ‘normal’ range. End of.

Here is what the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and the British Thyroid Association (BTA) have to say on the matter. Key points only

• The only validated method of testing thyroid function is on blood, which must include serum TSH and a measure of free thyroxine (T4).

• Overwhelming evidence supports the use of Thyroxine (T4) alone in the treatment of hypothyroidism. Thyroxine is usually prescribed as levothyroxine. We do not recommend the prescribing of additional Tri-iodothyronine (T3) in any presently available formulation, including Armour thyroid, as it is inconsistent with normal physiology, has not been scientifically proven to be of any benefit to patients, and may be harmful. [Then again, it may not be – harmful, that is]

An aside – (Additional information, as provided to me)

I should mention here that I have been told that the RCP has been asked on numerous occasions to cite references to research/studies showing “overwhelming evidence supports the use of thyroxine (T4 alone)”, but to date, they have provided none. A Freedom of Information (FOI) request that the RCP provide such evidence – again met with no response. A request was made via the ‘Ask for Evidence’ website, run in association with ‘Sense About Science’ asking for evidence on the safety and efficacy of L-T4 as a treatment for hypothyroidism. This request was directed to the RCP who eventually responded stating “The RCP’s guidance is based on the opinion of an expert panel which was temporarily formed for this purpose. The evidence they used to form their individual opinions has not been collated and therefore the RCP cannot provide any evidence list”1 (Jolly, as they say, good)

Restricting the diagnosis and treatment of hypothyroidism to measuring T4 and TSH, and nothing else, is the approach that seems to be used by conventional medicine in the rest of the World. I recently received an e-mail from someone in Singapore telling me that their doctor was about to be struck off for prescribing T3 to patients- against Singaporean medical rules. In the UK, T3 testing is virtually banned, and the medical authorities are making it virtually impossible to prescribe T3 in any form.

In the UK, a doctor called Gordon Skinner was repeatedly dragged in front of the General Medical Council (GMC) for prescribing thyroxine to patients whose T4 and TSH levels were in the ‘normal range’. He was also attacked for prescribing natural thyroid extract (NDT) (a combination of T4 and T3) to his patients – who he felt would benefit. He is now dead. It has been suggested that constant and repeated efforts to strike him off the medical register may have had an impact on his health. I couldn’t possibly say.

Now, there is no doubt that this area is highly complex and for those who know this area, you will be aware that I am keeping things as simple as possible. But I think it is important to make a few points:

The lab tests, especially for TSH, are far from 100% reliable, to say the very least. In fact the man who developed the test in the UK, at Amersham International in Wales, has told me that the test is virtually worthless in many cases (especially continuous testing when patients are taking thyroid hormone replacement).

The conversion of T4 into T3 can be significantly reduced in some people. So these individuals can have normal T4 and TSH, but they are still effectively hypothyroid. For those who are interested in a bit more detail, there is a population with a defective DIO2 gene. This blocks T4 to T3 conversion, and results (amongst other things) in reduced T3 levels in the brain, which can lead to mood disorders2. I mention this single example to make it clear that there is solid scientific evidence to back up the conjecture that it is possible to be functionally ‘hypothyroid’ with normal blood tests.

A lot of people have reported significant improvements in their health through taking thyroxine, with normal blood tests, and also natural thyroid extract when their laboratory tests were ‘normal’. Please look at this article in the Daily Telegraph3…then look at the comments section – which is very, very telling. A cry of despair!

I am not going into further detail of how T4 binding and conversion in various organs can be affected by stress hormones, inflammation, trauma, adrenal insufficiency, lack of converting enzymes in tissues, and infection of various sorts. I shall just keep this simple by stating that it is possible to have enough T4, even T3 in your bloodstream, but these hormones have reduced ‘bioavailability’. This is not crank ‘woowoo’ stuff. This is real and measurable and you can find studies on this in peer-reviewed medical journals.

Far more telling, from my point of view, is the fact that hundreds, indeed thousands of patients report that, although their blood tests were normal, they felt terrible, and that they have felt so much better when they have been given ‘excess’ T4 and/T3, or NDT (natural desiccated thyroid). Whilst there is no doubt that some of them are, to quote a medical colleague, ‘not tightly wrapped.’ I have spoken to many, many, people who are calm, rational and reasonable, and their stories are compelling. A hellish existence that was ‘cured’ by Dr Skinner and his like. I refuse to believe that all of these patients are ‘somatising’ fruitcakes.

Comparing the use of SSRIs and ‘Unconventional’ Treatments for Hypothyroidism

At this point I will change tack slightly. For I think it is fascinating to compare and contrast the treatment of depression using SSRIs, with hypothyroid patients who complain that they are unwell, despite ‘normal’ T4 and TSH tests.

Today, almost all doctors you speak to believe that depression is due to a low level of serotonin in the brain. This is why they prescribe SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) by the lorry-load. Drugs such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil etc.To quote from a recent article in the BMJ ‘Serotonin and depression, the marketing of a myth’4.

‘…the number of antidepressant prescriptions a year is slightly more than the number of people in the Western World.’

This all happens despite the fact that:

‘There was no correlation between serotonin reuptake inhibiting potency and antidepressant efficacy. No one knew if SSRIs raised or lowered; they still don’t know. There was no evidence that treatment corrected anything.’

In short, with depression, there is no lab test, no way of measuring the impact of anti-depressants. They are prescribed purely and simply on the basis of the patient history. Equally, there is no doubt at all that SSRIs have significant side-effects, some of which are very, very serious e.g. increased suicidal tendency. They are also addictive and patients can end up stuck on them for years. So, they do cause harm.

Equally, as you may be aware, clinical trial data in this area have been horribly distorted….

“…That said, the fact that the class of antidepressants known as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are basically useless in treating depression in children and adults is not news to the FDA. Back on September 23, 2004, during testimony at a hearing before the House Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce, Dr Robert Temple, the FDA’s Director of the Office of Medical Policy, discussed the agency’s review on the efficacy of SSRIs with the children.”

He noted that it was important in a risk-benefit equation to understand the benefit side. “Of the seven products studied in pediatric MDD (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Effexor, Serzone and Remeron),” he testified, “FDA’s reviews of the effectiveness data resulted in only one approval (Prozac) for pediatric MDD.”

“Overall,” Dr Temple said, “the efficacy results from 15 studies in pediatric MDD do not support the effectiveness of these drugs in pediatric populations.”

Also in 2004, a study of previously hidden unpublished data as well as published studies on five SSRIs, was conducted by Tim Kendall, deputy director of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Research Unit in London, to help analyze research to draw up the clinical guidelines for British regulators, and published in the Lancet.

Following his evaluation, Mr Kendall stated: “This data confirms what we found in adults with mild to moderate depression: SSRIs are no better than placebo, and there is no point in using something that increases the risk of suicide.”

In 2005, the British Medical Journal published another study that concluded that SSRIs are no more effective than a placebo and do not reduce depression.

In December 2006, at the most recent FDA advisory committee meeting held to review studies on SSRI use with adults, SSRI expert, Dr David Healy, author of, “The Antidepressant Era,” told the panel that the efficacy of SSRIs has been greatly exaggerated, while the actual studies reveal that only one in ten patients responds specifically to an SSRI rather than a nonspecific factor or placebo.

In February 2008, Irving Kirsch’s study at the Department of Psychology at the University of Hull is the first to examine both published and unpublished evidence of the effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which account for 16 million NHS prescriptions a year. The largest study of its kind concluded that antidepressant drugs do not work. More than £291 million was spent on antidepressants in 2006, including nearly £120 million on SSRIs. 4

Critics complain that industry funded studies are presented in ways to exaggerate benefits and obscure side effects. “These include failure to publish negative results, the use of multiple outcome measures, and selective presentation of ones that are positive, multiple publication of positive study results, and the exclusion of subjects from the analysis,” according to the paper, “Is Psychiatry For Sale,” by Joanna Moncrieff, in People’s Voice.”5

So we have an interesting medical conundrum, do we not? On one hand, doctors are more than eager to prescribe antidepressants at the drop of a hat, based entirely on the patients reported symptoms. No need for any blood tests, and no evidence that they work for the vast majority of people.

On the other hand, if a patient dares to say that they feel better taking T4 when their blood tests are normal, or if they say they feel better taking a combination of T3 and T4/NDT, they are dismissed as ‘somatising.’ Which is a posh medical way of saying, you are making your symptoms up and we don’t believe you. Equally, if a patient complains of continuing symptoms and that they don’t feel better when they are taking T4 (or T3 and T4) and their blood test results show ‘normal’ they are again accused of ‘somatising’6

The world, my friends, has gone nuts and, in a bitter irony, the medical profession – at least in this area – has become institutionally paternalistic. ‘You cannot be feeling better, because your blood tests say you were never unwell. So you cannot have treatment. And you, Dr Skinner and your like. If you dare treat patient’ symptoms you will be attacked and struck off from medical practice.’ Now I have looked long and hard, and I have found no evidence, from anywhere, that giving T3, in the dose that’s needed, causes any significant medical problems, and I have listened to repeated testimony from people who feel they have greatly improved.

As for antidepressants, these mostly useless addictive drugs that can increase suicide risk. ‘Have as many as you like for as long as you like. Because we fully believe everything you say about your symptoms….’ No need for any silly tests, or anything like that.

Compare and contrast, then try to make some sense of the medical world that we now live in.

Sigh.

P.S. Because I am considered to have alternative views about medical matters, many people contact me to help promote their ‘alternative’ ideas. Some I believe to be completely whacko, I smile sweetly and move on. Some I cannot decide. Other issues, once I start looking into the evidence, I find the evidence compelling.

I certainly find the evidence that a large number of people are effectively hypothyroid, with ‘normal’ thyroid blood tests, to be virtually overwhelming. Both from a scientific/physiology basis, and also from a patient testimonial basis.

I now firmly believe that the medical profession is currently doing these people a great disservice, and that the guidelines on the treatment of ‘hypothyroidism’ are rigid, autocratic, and just plain wrong (for a significant minority).

As with all medical matters that I write about, I have no axe to grind, no horse in the race, no financial links to anyone or anything with regard to treating thyroid patients. I simply hope this article can have some positive impact. For it seems very clear to me that many thousands, hundreds of thousands, of people are suffering unnecessarily. And I would like it to stop.

References:

1.   http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_PublicPetitionsCommittee/General%20Documents/PE1463_AAA_Petitioner_19.11.14.pdf

2.   “Common Variation in the DIO2 Gene Predicts Baseline Psychological Well-Being and Response to Combination Thyroxine Plus Triiodothyronine Therapy in Hypothyroid Patients”http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/jc.2008-1301

3.   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/alternative-medicine/10985192/Could-a-renegade-doctor-save-your-life.html

4.   Serotonin and Depression, the marketing of a myth.’ BMJ2015;350:h1771

5.   Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, Scoboria A, Moore TJ, et al. “Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration.” 2008, PLoS Med 5(2): e45 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045: Access full article at http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045

6.   http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/ssri_birth_defects/ssri-secret-00642.html#.VT-ycCG6eUk

7.   Professor A Weetman – http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/524955

Further postscript

Malcolm – we need to clear up the fact regarding the definition of ‘hypothyroidism’ which is “underactivity of the thyroid gland” according to the RCP Policy Statement on the diagnosis and management of hypothyroidism. Hypothyroidism is easily diagnosed and more often than not, easily treated with L-thyroxine only. However, what is being missed by everybody is that over 300,000 UK citizens (15% of the thyroid community – millions worldwide) have a normally functioning thyroid GLAND, but the hormone it is secreting is not getting into the cells where it does its work. These are the folk who need T3, in combo. with T4, T3 alone or in NDT. The RCP teaching curriculum makes no mention of the possibility of a non-thyroidal condition where patients suffer the same symptoms and signs of hypothyroidism that may need to be treated with a different medication or hormone. When these patients complain of continuing symptoms when treated with L-T4 monotherapy, many are given an incorrect diagnosis of ME, CFS, FM, depression, functional somatoform disorder – or even old age blah, blah, blah – and sent on their way without further investigation or treatment. This is a serious business, which the RCP and BTA choose to ignore.

This entry was posted in Dr Malcolm Kendrick on May 1, 2015.

Wound Healing with Food Remedies and Beyond

When it comes to surface or external wound healing, Vitamin E may be your best bet.  As a topical I myself have witnessed surprising and remarkable acceleration of healing a skin wound with Vitamin E.  So for surface stuff or cosmetic wounds, absolutely, grab a Vitamin E capsule, pierce it with a lance, and ooze out the oil onto the wound and watch the magic happen over the next few days.  I've also seen remarkable recovery of a viral skin wound on an 89 year old woman who used a Barry Sears' Zone Diet product called cellular serum.  The key ingredient in that is Hydrophobic GLA.  So in my immediate experience I have seen both of these products accomplish impressive results. 

But what about internal injuries, the kind we hear about from sports or accidents?  Well, we either rely on doctor prescribed medicine or food remedies.  And perhaps the most important consideration when it comes to repairing internal tissue is time, er, ah, timing.  You cannot wait.  But nor should you or do you rush into things.  Remember, this is a primarily a blog on food remedies.  So the non-professional recommendation here is to begin internal wound healing with the right foods.  If you wait and hem and haw, what you're doing is transferring the healing of your body over completely to your body to heal itself.  And certainly it will. Your body is remarkable in that it thrives on healing.  But will the body's own healing mechanism restore full function to a specific muscle, joint, or organ?  Ah, there in lies the rub.  So when treating an internal wound, you need to get on it as soon possible.  By which I mean you start on the nutritional regimen immediately.

Abbey Housefield asks:

   . . . is there anything you can do nutritionally during this “waiting period” to help decrease healing time and get back on the run?

 YES! Your body is built to heal from the inside out and nutrition plays a dynamic role in the healing of injuries. If you provide the right foods and nutrients to your body during the time of healing the duration of an injury can be shortened.  

 Okay, so we know that the "right foods" play a role in accelerating wound healing.  But what are those right foods?

George Mateljan writes:

Virtually all vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, and macronutrients like protein, fiber, and essential fatty acids are going to help with the healing process.

That statement is general enough that I cannot disagree with it.

A low quality diet that has few whole, natural foods is going to work against healing, and a nutrient-dense diet filled with whole, natural foods is going to be supportive.  

Okay, this I can get on board with as well.  Food provides comprehensive options for getting all of the nutrients you need for wound healing.

Some nutrients have taken center stage in the animal research on healing, and these nutrients include vitamin C, flavonoids, vitamin A, protein, and zinc. Rich sources of vitamin C and flavonoids include fruits and vegetables such as broccoli, bell peppers, cauliflower, and berries. 

So far so good.

When it comes to vitamin A, some of these same foods will also be very helpful since they will provide you with rich amounts of beta-carotene, a "pro-vitamin A" nutrient that can be partially converted into fully active vitamin A. Other foods that can provide you with preformed, fully active vitamin A include dairy products and eggs, and calf's liver, which will also provide you with the protein important for healing. Zinc is especially concentrated in red meats as well as nuts and seeds. 

Did you read that?  ". . . dairy products and eggs, and calf's liver . . ." are those "right foods."  Those along with grassfed butter, chicken liver, cod liver oil, cold water fish.  These are the right foods.  Animal sources are the healing foods.  I would not rely exclusively on a vegetarian diet to heal internal wounds.  You need animal fats.  Mateljan's  subordinating position of the meat source of Vitamin A, Retinol A, to the vegetable source, beta carotene, was disheartening.  Yes, you can get water soluble Vitamin A, or beta carotene, from the reliable vegetables sources like carrots, bell peppers, and others.  But Retinol A from cheese, eggs, chicken liver and, yes, calf liver, is by far more readily absorbed than foods containing beta carotene which your body has to convert to Retinol A.

And then the author adds the silly recommendation to be sure and get the very leanest cuts of meat.  This is just not helpful.  It's proven that that beef stock and tallow are great sources to build collagen.

(If you're increasing red meat to support the healing process, however, make sure that you stick with the very leanest cuts of red meat such as top round, bottom round, eye of round, or ground beef made from them as high intake of total fat and saturated fat are not going to help your healing process, and you'll be at risk in these areas unless you stick with very lean meats.)  

His recommendation for fiber is excellent:

While less directly connected to the specifics of healing, fiber is one additional nutrient that deserves special attention in healing. When healing from a surgery or wound, it's especially important to have food flow healthily through the digestive tract, allowing for optimal digestion and absorption of nutrients. A healthy digestive tract can be one of the secrets for optimal healing. Dietary fiber plays a key role here, and should not be overlooked. In addition to the fruits and vegetables already discussed, legumes and beans and whole grains will often be essential in getting your fiber intake up to a level that can promote optimal healing.  

 Okay, so we know what we need to heal wounds:  Retinol A from eggs, chicken and beef liver and fish.  Not convinced?  Check out the Weston A. Price Foundation's recommendations on the importance of fat in the diet. Remember, fats are stored energy.  So when you begin consuming fish oils, cod liver oil, eggs, grass-fed spring butter, olive oil, beef, and fish, you will be getting adequate fat into your diet.

I do like Mateljan's emphasis on zinc:

Some nutrients have taken center stage in the animal research on healing, and these nutrients include vitamin C, flavonoids, vitamin A, protein, and zinc. Rich sources of vitamin C and flavonoids include fruits and vegetables such as broccoli, bell peppers, cauliflower, and berries. When it comes to vitamin A, some of these same foods will also be very helpful since they will provide you with rich amounts of beta-carotene, a "pro-vitamin A" nutrient that can be partially converted into fully active vitamin A. Other foods that can provide you with preformed, fully active vitamin A include dairy products and eggs, and calf's liver, which will also provide you with the protein important for healing. Zinc is especially concentrated in red meats as well as nuts and seeds. (If you're increasing red meat to support the healing process, however, make sure that you stick with the very leanest cuts of red meat such as top round, bottom round, eye of round, or ground beef made from them as high intake of total fat and saturated fat are not going to help your healing process, and you'll be at risk in these areas unless you stick with very lean meats.)  

Another source explains the value of zinc:

Zinc helps the body synthesize proteins and develop collagen, so it is an important mineral for wound healing. As long as you are taking in sufficient amounts of protein from meats, you should be getting enough zinc in your diet

Follow the prescriptions laid out by the Weston A. Price Foundation for wound healing here.  

FIX A LEAKY GUT

The gut is the gateway to health. If your gut is healthy, chances are that you’re in good health. However, there’s a condition called leaky gut that can lead to a host of health problems.

WHAT IS A LEAKY GUT?

The gut is naturally permeable to very small molecules in order to absorb these vital nutrients. In fact, regulating intestinal permeability is one of the basic functions of the cells that line the intestinal wall. With sensitive folks, gluten can cause the gut cells to release zonulin, a protein that can break apart tight junctions in the intestinal lining. Other factors — such as infections, toxins, stress, and age — can also cause these tight junctions to break apart. Once these tight junctions get broken apart, you have a leaky gut. When your gut is leaky, things like toxins, microbes, undigested food particles, and more can escape from your intestines and travel throughout your body via your bloodstream. Your immune system marks these “foreign invaders” as pathogens and attacks them. The immune response to these invaders can appear in the form of any of the nine signs you have a leaky gut, which is listed below.

WHAT CAUSES A LEAKY GUT?

The main culprits are foods, infections, and toxins. Gluten is the number one cause of leaky gut. Other inflammatory foods like dairy or toxic foods, such as sugar and excessive alcohol, are suspected as well. The most common infectious causes are candida overgrowth, intestinal parasites, and small intestine bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). Toxins come in the form of medications, including NSAIDS like Motrin and Advil, steroids, antibiotics, and acid-reducing drugs. They can also present in the form of environmental toxins like mercury, pesticides, and BPA from plastics. Stress and age also contribute to a leaky gut. If you suffer from any of the following conditions, it’s likely that you have a leaky gut.

1. Digestive issues such as gas, bloating, diarrhea or irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

2. Seasonal allergies or asthma.

3. Hormonal imbalances such as PMS or PCOS.

4. Diagnosis of an autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, lupus, psoriasis, or celiac disease.

5. Diagnosis of chronic fatigue or fibromyalgia.

6. Mood and mind issues such as depression, anxiety, ADD or ADHD.

7. Skin issues such as acne, rosacea, or eczema.

8. Diagnosis of Candida overgrowth.

9. Food allergies or food intolerances.

She refers to her 4R Program, which stands for Remove, Restores, Reinoculate, and Repair.

First, Remove foods that we’re sensitive to—dairy, caffeine, sugar, alcohol.  Second, Remove infections in the gut—parasites, candida, fungus.

Third, Reinoculate with good bacteria.  Your “army.”  Benefit from a probiotic.  50 billion units a day.

Fourth, Restore—digestive enzymes and stomach acids.

Fifth, Repair—bile salts if you’re missing your gallbladder.  Gut healing herbs and amino acids.  Slippery elm, marshmallow, L-glutamine rejuvenates gut lining.  Multivitamins to help with wound healing.

http://eatlocalgrown.com/article/12052-leaky-gut.html?c=sfm

Accumulated Pesticides Disappear After Eating Organic

from Yahoo/health

This Is How Eating Organic Affects The Pesticide Levels in Our Bodies  

There’s a growing interest in eating organic, especially among parents concerned for the health of their family. But you might be wondering if, compared a diet of conventional foods, choosing organic packs anything more than negligible benefits.

New research from Sweden’s Coop and the Swedish Environmental Research Institute put the effects of eating organic to the test. For the study, the scientists recruited a family that closely resembles those found in many modern households, consisting of two adult parents, and three kids ages 12, 10 and 3.

The family started by eating a conventional diet for one week, followed by a fully organic diet for the next two weeks. During the testing period, each family member provided morning urine samples to be analyzed for 12 known pesticides or metabolites — you can watch the details in the video, above. 

The family’s exposure to pesticides drastically dropped when they switched from conventional to organic eating. “A change in diet from conventional food to organic food made an average decrease in human exposure to the investigated pesticides by a factor of 9.5,” lead researcher Jörgen Magnér tells Yahoo Health. “The largest decrease was observed for the children.”

Even he and his colleagues were surprised “that the pesticides left the body rapidly after the participants change to an organic food diet,” according to Magnér. “If you are the least worried about what these chemicals can do to your health, you can control it through your choices of food.”

The way any given family eats is a personal decision. But according to Lisa Moskovitz, RD, founder of New York Nutrition Group, there are at least some known benefits to eating organic:

Fewer Pesticides

Unlike conventional farmers, organic farmers avoid synthetic pesticides to protect their crops, opting for natural mechanisms to ward off crop-destroying molds, insects and diseases. “These include insect traps, predator insects, natural selection, and beneficial microorganisms,” Moskovitz tells Yahoo Health. “While organic crops can still carry pesticide residue, it is well under government safety thresholds.”

Environmentally-Friendly

Beyond that, organic farming is also part of the “go green” movement. “It helps promote the environment by protecting soil quality, water supply, and reduces pollution,” Moskovitz says.

GMO-Free

If you’ve been following all the GMO buzz lately, and are now a bit worried about genetically-modified ingredients, eating organic can eliminate the fear. “The USDA completely bans the use of genetic engineering or genetically-modified organisms when it comes to organic foods,” says Moskovitz. “This means, from the seeds that are planted to the ingredients listed in an ‘organic’ food product, there can be no trace of GMOs anywhere.”

Restricted Food Additives

Nutritional trends are turning away from anything artificial, and eating organic is the essence of that move. Moskovitz notes “the use of preservatives, artificial sweeteners, colorings, flavoring agents, and MSG are not allowed” to be used in organic food products.

There are some misconceptions about organic eating that everyone seems to get wrong, says Moskovitz. The most common one is that organic foods are more nutritious,” she explains. “Very little, if any, evidence supports this theory. For example, an organic carrot is very similar in nutritional value to a conventionally grown carrot.”

Moskovitz also says that people commonly believe consuming trace chemicals or GMOs can lead to a real health decline – but that’s not a proven fact. “Pesticides and GMOs are not nearly as harmful or dangerous as many people like to believe,” says Moskovitz.

Ultimately, if you want to reduce pesticide exposure and eliminate GMOs from your diet, eating organic is a plenty a good idea; as this Swedish research shows, it can rapidly reduce chemicals in the body. Magnér also says organic foods may help those exposed to pesticides in large quantities, like farmers, cut back on unneeded after-hours intake.

But do we overvalue eating organic? Not necessarily, says Moskovitz. “This statement is true when referring to nutritional value, but it is still better for the environment – which is important.”

All in all, this new research is simply more to consider.